Corrections and Retractions Policy

The Journal of Circular Economy Innovations is committed to maintaining the accuracy, integrity, transparency, and reliability of the scholarly record. Although manuscripts undergo editorial assessment and peer review before publication, errors, omissions, ethical concerns, or questions regarding the reliability of published work may occasionally be identified after publication.

The journal therefore maintains procedures for correcting, clarifying, or retracting published material when appropriate. Post-publication actions are determined according to the nature and seriousness of the issue, the strength of the available evidence, and the extent to which the matter affects the interpretation or reliability of the published work.

The purpose of this policy is not to remove legitimate scholarly disagreement or penalize authors for honest mistakes. Its purpose is to ensure that readers receive accurate information about the status of published articles and that material errors or integrity concerns are addressed transparently.

1. Scope of the Policy

This policy applies to articles, reviews, editorials, research notes, supplementary materials, data-related statements, and other scholarly content formally published by the Journal of Circular Economy Innovations.

Post-publication action may be considered where concerns involve:

  • factual errors;

  • methodological errors;

  • statistical or computational errors;

  • incorrect tables or figures;

  • inaccurate author information;

  • incomplete or incorrect funding disclosures;

  • incorrect conflict-of-interest statements;

  • errors in data availability information;

  • authorship concerns;

  • plagiarism;

  • fabrication or falsification;

  • duplicate or redundant publication;

  • unethical research;

  • peer-review manipulation;

  • citation manipulation;

  • undisclosed competing interests;

  • inappropriate use or reporting of artificial intelligence;

  • substantial errors affecting conclusions; or

  • other matters that may affect the reliability or integrity of the scholarly record.

The appropriate action depends on the effect of the problem rather than solely on the type of error identified.

2. General Principles

The journal seeks to handle post-publication concerns fairly, consistently, and proportionately.

When considering corrective action, the editorial team will ordinarily assess:

  • the nature of the problem;

  • whether the matter represents an honest error, scholarly disagreement, or possible misconduct;

  • the extent of the affected content;

  • whether the principal findings remain reliable;

  • whether correction can adequately resolve the issue;

  • whether readers may otherwise be materially misled;

  • the quality and reliability of the available evidence;

  • whether an institutional investigation is required; and

  • whether immediate action is necessary to protect the scholarly record.

Authors will normally be given a reasonable opportunity to respond to substantive concerns before a final editorial decision is made, except where immediate action is necessary or circumstances make prior consultation impracticable.

3. Minor Errors

Minor typographical, grammatical, formatting, or production errors that do not alter the meaning, interpretation, scientific content, attribution, or conclusions of an article may not require a formal correction notice.

Examples may include:

  • minor spelling errors;

  • insignificant punctuation errors;

  • formatting inconsistencies;

  • typographical mistakes that do not change meaning; or

  • minor layout problems.

Where such errors can be corrected without changing the scholarly record, the journal may make a limited technical correction.

Material changes must not be introduced silently under the category of minor correction.

4. Formal Corrections

A formal correction may be issued where an identifiable error affects part of a published article but does not invalidate the work as a whole.

A correction may be appropriate when:

  • a numerical value is incorrect;

  • a table or graph contains an error;

  • an equation or formula has been incorrectly presented;

  • an author affiliation requires correction;

  • relevant acknowledgment or funding information was omitted or inaccurately stated;

  • an error exists in a methodology description that can be corrected without invalidating the results;

  • a data availability statement requires amendment;

  • a factual statement requires correction;

  • an important reference was incorrectly reported; or

  • another error materially affects part of the publication while the principal findings remain reliable.

The correction should clearly explain what was incorrect and provide the accurate information.

5. Author-Initiated Corrections

Authors have a continuing responsibility to inform the journal when they identify a significant error in their published work.

An author requesting correction should provide:

  • the article title;

  • DOI or other article identifier where applicable;

  • a description of the error;

  • the exact location of the affected material;

  • the corrected information;

  • an explanation of how the error occurred, where relevant; and

  • a statement concerning whether the results or conclusions are affected.

The journal will evaluate the request and determine whether a formal correction is necessary.

Authors should not modify deposited or published versions independently in a manner that creates conflicting scholarly records.

6. Editorially Identified Corrections

Editors may initiate correction procedures when an error is identified by:

  • readers;

  • reviewers;

  • editorial-board members;

  • authors;

  • institutions;

  • research-integrity officers;

  • indexing services;

  • data repositories; or

  • other credible sources.

The journal may contact the authors for clarification and supporting documentation before issuing a correction.

Author agreement is desirable but is not necessarily required where the journal has sufficient evidence that a correction is necessary to maintain an accurate publication record.

7. Correction Notices

A formal correction notice should be sufficiently clear to allow readers to understand the nature and effect of the change.

Where technically feasible, the notice should:

  • identify the original article;

  • provide the article title and authors;

  • identify the corrected information;

  • explain the nature of the error;

  • provide the corrected version or statement;

  • indicate who initiated the correction where relevant;

  • remain permanently accessible; and

  • be linked to the original article.

The original article should also indicate that a correction has been published.

8. Corrections to Author Names and Affiliations

Author names and affiliations form part of the scholarly metadata of an article and should be accurate.

Requests to correct misspelled names, inaccurate affiliations, or similar metadata errors may be considered where appropriate evidence is provided.

A correction to author metadata is different from an authorship change.

Requests to add, remove, or rearrange authors after publication are evaluated under the journal's Authorship Criteria and applicable publication-ethics procedures.

9. Authorship Changes After Publication

Requests for changes to authorship after publication require careful assessment because authorship establishes scholarly credit and responsibility.

The journal may request:

  • a written explanation;

  • consent from all affected authors;

  • details concerning individual contributions;

  • institutional confirmation; or

  • other supporting documentation.

Where an authorship correction is approved, an appropriate notice should be published so that the change is transparent.

If the request involves an unresolved authorship dispute, the journal may refer the matter to the relevant institution rather than attempting to determine contribution disputes independently.

10. Corrections to Data Availability Statements

If a published Data Availability Statement is found to be inaccurate or becomes materially outdated, the journal may issue an amendment or correction.

Examples include circumstances where:

  • a repository identifier was incorrect;

  • the stated dataset cannot be located;

  • access conditions were inaccurately described;

  • data previously described as openly available are restricted;

  • an updated repository location is required; or

  • the statement does not accurately describe third-party ownership.

A change in data availability does not necessarily invalidate an article, but material inaccuracies should be corrected transparently.

11. Corrections to Figures, Tables, and Images

A correction may be appropriate where a figure, table, photograph, graph, map, or other visual element contains an error but the overall findings remain reliable.

The replacement material should be evaluated to determine whether it changes:

  • underlying data;

  • reported analyses;

  • interpretation;

  • conclusions; or

  • the evidentiary basis of the article.

Where visual manipulation raises concerns about research integrity rather than an ordinary error, the matter may be investigated under the journal's Research Misconduct Policy.

12. Corrections to Statistical or Computational Analyses

Errors in statistical analysis, software implementation, computational models, code, or analytical procedures require evaluation of their effect on the published findings.

A correction may be sufficient where:

  • the analytical error is limited;

  • corrected results remain materially consistent with the published conclusions; and

  • readers can understand the effect of the correction.

Where corrected analyses substantially alter or invalidate the findings, retraction or another form of post-publication action may be more appropriate.

13. Retraction

Retraction is a mechanism for identifying published work that should no longer be relied upon as part of the valid scholarly literature.

Retraction may be considered where reliable evidence indicates that the findings or conclusions of an article are fundamentally unreliable or where a serious publication-integrity problem materially compromises the work.

Potential grounds may include:

  • fabrication or falsification;

  • serious data manipulation;

  • substantial plagiarism;

  • major methodological or analytical errors that invalidate the principal findings;

  • unethical research;

  • duplicate or redundant publication;

  • fraudulent or manipulated peer review;

  • unauthorized use of data or material;

  • serious authorship misconduct affecting the integrity of the publication;

  • material undisclosed conflicts of interest;

  • fabricated references or research evidence;

  • serious AI-related fabrication or misrepresentation; or

  • other circumstances in which continued presentation of the article as reliable would materially mislead readers.

Retraction is not intended as punishment. Its primary function is to correct the scholarly record and alert readers that the affected article should not be relied upon in its original form.

14. Retraction Because of Honest Error

Retraction does not necessarily imply research misconduct.

An article may require retraction where an honest but fundamental error invalidates the principal findings.

Examples may include:

  • a major calculation error;

  • incorrect experimental procedures;

  • invalid underlying data;

  • substantial coding errors;

  • incorrect sample identification;

  • serious model implementation errors; or

  • another unintentional problem that renders the conclusions unreliable.

Where appropriate, the retraction notice should distinguish honest error from established misconduct.

15. Partial Errors and Retraction Decisions

Retraction should not normally be used where a limited correction can adequately preserve the reliability of the article.

Editors should consider whether:

  • the affected part can be clearly identified;

  • the remaining findings remain reliable;

  • a correction can prevent readers from being misled; and

  • the integrity of the article can be restored without withdrawal of the publication as a whole.

Where the unreliable material is extensive, inseparable from the central findings, or affects the main conclusions, retraction may be necessary.

16. Retraction Notices

A retraction notice should provide sufficient information for readers to understand the status of the publication.

Where appropriate and legally permissible, the notice should:

  • clearly state that the article has been retracted;

  • identify the retracted article;

  • identify the article title and authors;

  • explain the reason for the retraction;

  • distinguish error from misconduct where this can be established;

  • identify who initiated the retraction where relevant;

  • remain publicly accessible; and

  • be linked to the original article.

Retraction notices should use factual, neutral, and non-defamatory language.

17. Status of Retracted Articles

Retracted articles should ordinarily remain available as part of the historical scholarly record rather than being silently deleted.

Where technically feasible:

  • the article should be clearly marked as retracted;

  • the retraction status should be visible on the article page;

  • the article PDF should be appropriately identified;

  • the retraction notice should be linked to the article; and

  • bibliographic metadata should reflect the retracted status where supported by the publishing system.

This approach allows readers to understand both the original publication and the subsequent corrective action.

18. Article Removal

Complete removal of an article from the journal website is considered an exceptional measure.

Removal may be necessary where continued publication would create a serious legal, privacy, safety, security, or other compelling risk.

Possible circumstances may include:

  • a court order;

  • serious infringement of legal rights;

  • publication of highly sensitive personal information;

  • substantial security threats;

  • content presenting an immediate and significant risk of harm; or

  • other exceptional circumstances where continued public availability is inappropriate.

Where legally and technically possible, the journal should retain a bibliographic record or explanatory notice indicating that content has been removed and why.

Article removal should not be used merely to conceal research errors, criticism, misconduct, or reputational concerns.

19. Expressions of Concern

An Expression of Concern may be published when serious questions have arisen regarding an article but the available evidence is not yet sufficient for a final correction or retraction decision.

An Expression of Concern may be appropriate where:

  • an investigation is underway;

  • institutional findings are pending;

  • evidence is substantial but inconclusive;

  • the authors or responsible institution are unable to provide timely clarification;

  • conflicting evidence prevents a definitive conclusion; or

  • readers should be alerted to a potentially significant concern while further assessment continues.

An Expression of Concern is not a determination of misconduct.

It may subsequently be followed by a correction, retraction, clarification, or closure of the concern depending on the outcome of the assessment.

20. Expression of Concern Notices

Where an Expression of Concern is published, it should:

  • identify the affected article;

  • explain the general nature of the concern;

  • avoid unsupported allegations;

  • remain linked to the original publication; and

  • be updated where a later editorial decision resolves the matter.

The journal should avoid allowing an Expression of Concern to remain unresolved indefinitely where sufficient information becomes available for a final decision.

21. Retraction Pending Institutional Investigation

Some concerns require investigation by an author's institution, research organization, ethics committee, funding organization, or another competent authority.

The journal may contact the relevant institution where an issue requires access to evidence beyond the journal's authority.

While awaiting an investigation, the journal may consider an Expression of Concern where readers require notification of a potentially serious problem.

The journal is not required to delay all editorial action indefinitely if sufficient evidence becomes available to determine that the publication record requires correction.

22. Research Misconduct Investigations

Where a correction or retraction concern involves possible research misconduct, the matter may be managed under the journal's Research Misconduct Policy.

The journal may request:

  • original datasets;

  • research records;

  • analytical files;

  • images;

  • ethics documentation;

  • authorship information;

  • institutional correspondence;

  • funding documentation;

  • source files; or

  • other evidence relevant to the concern.

The editorial team should distinguish its responsibility for the scholarly record from the role of institutions in formally determining research misconduct.

23. Author Response and Due Process

Before issuing a major post-publication action, affected authors will ordinarily be informed of the concern and given a reasonable opportunity to respond.

The journal may provide authors with:

  • a description of the concern;

  • relevant evidence;

  • questions requiring clarification; and

  • an opportunity to submit supporting documentation.

Authors are expected to cooperate with legitimate post-publication inquiries.

However, failure of an author to respond does not prevent corrective action where the available evidence is sufficient to establish that the scholarly record requires intervention.

24. Author Disagreement With Retraction

Retraction does not necessarily require unanimous agreement among the authors.

If the journal determines, after appropriate assessment, that an article is unreliable and requires retraction, the journal may proceed even if one or more authors disagree.

Where relevant, a retraction notice may accurately state which authors agree or disagree with the retraction.

Editorial decisions should be based on the reliability of the publication and available evidence rather than solely on author consent.

25. Retraction Requested by Authors

Authors may request retraction of their own published article where they identify a fundamental problem that materially undermines the validity or integrity of the work.

The journal will independently evaluate the request rather than automatically retracting an article solely because an author asks for removal.

Authors should provide:

  • a clear explanation;

  • supporting evidence;

  • information regarding the effect on the findings; and

  • confirmation from coauthors where available.

Where the evidence supports retraction, the journal will issue an appropriate notice.

26. Retraction of Articles With Multiple Authors

Where misconduct or error is attributable to only one or some authors, the journal should still assess whether the reliability of the article as a whole has been compromised.

Retraction decisions concern the integrity of the publication rather than serving as disciplinary action against individual authors.

Where the article remains reliable despite misconduct involving a limited aspect of authorship or contribution, another corrective mechanism may be more appropriate.

27. Correction Versus Retraction

The journal will generally favor correction when the central findings remain reliable and the identified problem can be transparently repaired.

Retraction is more appropriate when the problem fundamentally undermines the validity or integrity of the work.

The decision should consider:

  • magnitude of the error;

  • effect on principal conclusions;

  • reliability of underlying data;

  • extent of affected content;

  • possibility of transparent correction; and

  • risk that readers would remain materially misled.

28. New Evidence After Publication

The emergence of new research that disagrees with a published article is not, by itself, grounds for correction or retraction.

Scientific conclusions may evolve as new evidence becomes available.

Retraction or correction is appropriate when there is a problem with the published article itself rather than merely because later scholarship reaches a different conclusion.

Academic disagreement should ordinarily be addressed through subsequent research, commentary, or post publication discussion.

29. Changes in Interpretation

Authors cannot normally request correction solely because they later wish to reinterpret their findings.

Formal correction is intended to repair identifiable errors in the published record rather than to rewrite an article in light of subsequent developments.

Where a new interpretation constitutes a substantive scholarly contribution, it may be more appropriate for authors to publish a new article, commentary, or response that cites the original work.

30. Citation and Indexing of Corrected or Retracted Articles

The journal seeks to ensure that correction and retraction information is reflected accurately in article metadata where technically possible.

Correction, retraction, and Expression of Concern notices should be linked to the affected article and made openly accessible. Current COPE guidance emphasizes the visibility of such notices so readers can readily identify changes to the status of published work.

Where external databases or indexing services support status updates, the journal may provide or update relevant metadata according to available technical procedures.

31. DOI and Permanent Identification

Where an article has a persistent identifier such as a DOI, the identifier should continue to resolve to the scholarly record even when the article is corrected or retracted, subject to the journal's technical infrastructure.

Correction and retraction notices should be associated with the original publication as clearly as possible.

The purpose is to preserve continuity of the record and prevent uncertainty regarding which publication has been corrected or retracted.

32. Accessibility of Notices

Formal corrections, Expressions of Concern, and retraction notices should be openly accessible to readers.

They should not be placed behind subscription or payment barriers.

This supports transparency and allows readers to determine the current status of an article without requiring paid access. COPE specifically recommends visibility and unrestricted accessibility for these post-publication notices.

33. No Silent Retractions

The journal does not support silently deleting or substantially changing a published article to conceal an error or integrity concern.

Material post-publication changes should be documented.

Readers should be able to determine:

  • that a change occurred;

  • the reason for the change; and

  • the current status of the article.

Silent alteration of substantive scholarly content can create uncertainty regarding the version of record and should therefore be avoided.

34. Version Control

Where a published article is amended, the journal should preserve a clear relationship between the original publication and subsequent correction or notice.

Where technically supported, publication metadata may include:

  • date of correction;

  • type of notice;

  • updated article status; and

  • links between related records.

Substantive corrections should not result in an unmarked replacement that makes the publication history impossible to reconstruct.

35. Retraction and Copyright

Retraction affects the scholarly status of an article but does not automatically extinguish copyright or other legal rights in the work.

The copyright and licensing status of the publication should be interpreted according to the journal's Copyright and Licensing Policy and applicable law.

A retracted article should not be represented as reliable scholarly evidence merely because it remains legally accessible.

36. Appeals

Authors who believe that a correction or retraction decision was based on a significant factual, procedural, or evidentiary error may submit a reasoned appeal.

The appeal should:

  • identify the contested decision;

  • explain the basis for reconsideration;

  • provide relevant supporting evidence; and

  • avoid merely repeating arguments already considered.

Where practicable, an appeal should be reviewed by an editor or appropriately qualified individual who was not solely responsible for the original decision.

An appeal does not automatically suspend or reverse a correction or retraction.

37. Complaints From Readers

Readers, researchers, institutions, and other stakeholders may report concerns regarding published articles.

A complaint should provide sufficient information to enable meaningful editorial assessment, including where possible:

  • article identification;

  • description of the concern;

  • evidence or documentation;

  • relevant references; and

  • contact information.

Anonymous concerns may be considered where they contain specific and verifiable evidence.

The journal will assess the substance of the concern rather than relying solely on the identity or status of the person raising it.

38. Confidentiality

Post-publication investigations should be handled with appropriate confidentiality.

Information should ordinarily be shared only with individuals whose involvement is necessary for legitimate assessment, investigation, legal compliance, or protection of the scholarly record.

Confidentiality cannot be guaranteed where disclosure is required by law or necessary for communication with institutions or other responsible authorities.

39. Conflicts of Interest

Editors handling correction or retraction matters should disclose relevant conflicts of interest.

Where a conflict could reasonably compromise impartial decision-making, responsibility should be transferred to another qualified editor.

If an article under consideration was written by an editor or member of the editorial board, the matter should be managed independently of the individual concerned.

40. Editorial Independence

Decisions regarding corrections, Expressions of Concern, or retractions are based on scholarly integrity and the reliability of the publication record.

Commercial considerations, citation metrics, institutional reputation, author seniority, funding relationships, or potential embarrassment to the journal or publisher must not prevent appropriate corrective action.

The publisher may provide administrative, technical, or legal support but should not improperly interfere with editorial decisions concerning the scholarly validity of published content.

41. Timeliness

Post-publication concerns should be addressed without unnecessary delay.

However, complex matters may require:

  • communication with multiple authors;

  • independent expert assessment;

  • examination of research data;

  • institutional investigation;

  • ethics review; or

  • legal consultation.

The journal seeks to balance timely action with the need for fair and adequately informed decision-making.

Where a potentially serious concern cannot be resolved promptly, an Expression of Concern may be considered if readers require notification while the matter remains under review. Current COPE guidance recognizes Expressions of Concern as an interim or, in some circumstances, final notice when uncertainty remains.

42. Retraction of Content Published in Error

An article may occasionally be published because of a serious production or administrative error, such as accidental duplicate publication.

Where the scholarly content is valid but publication occurred incorrectly, the journal will determine whether withdrawal, correction, or another notice is most appropriate.

The decision should preserve transparency regarding what occurred and avoid creating unnecessary duplication in the scholarly record.

43. Relationship With Article Withdrawal

The Article Withdrawal Policy applies primarily to manuscripts or publication records at stages where formal withdrawal is procedurally appropriate.

Once an article forms part of the established scholarly record, substantive concerns are ordinarily addressed through correction, retraction, Expression of Concern, or another transparent post-publication notice rather than silent withdrawal.

This distinction helps preserve a stable and traceable publication history.

44. Relationship With the Retraction Policy

The Corrections and Retractions Policy establishes the journal's overall framework for maintaining the accuracy of published content through corrections, Expressions of Concern, retractions, and exceptional removal.

The journal's separate Retraction Policy provides more detailed procedures specifically concerning the grounds, assessment, documentation, and implementation of retraction decisions.

The policies should be read together where a published article may require retraction.

45. Relationship With Research Misconduct Procedures

A correction or retraction does not automatically establish that research misconduct occurred.

Similarly, misconduct may sometimes require institutional action even where the published article itself remains scientifically reliable.

Where possible misconduct is involved, the journal may apply its:

  • Research Misconduct Policy;

  • Publication Ethics Policy;

  • Plagiarism Policy;

  • Authorship Criteria;

  • Conflict of Interest Policy; and

  • other relevant procedures.

The journal's principal responsibility in applying the present policy is to maintain the accuracy and integrity of its publication record.

46. Responsibilities of Authors

Authors are expected to:

  • notify the journal of material errors;

  • cooperate with legitimate post-publication inquiries;

  • provide supporting data or documentation where reasonably required;

  • avoid concealing errors;

  • respond to editorial correspondence;

  • assist in correcting inaccurate information; and

  • respect transparent correction or retraction procedures.

Authors should not attempt to remove or alter published records solely to avoid criticism, reputational consequences, or legitimate scholarly scrutiny.

47. Responsibilities of Editors

Editors are responsible for:

  • assessing credible concerns impartially;

  • distinguishing correction from retraction;

  • protecting confidentiality;

  • avoiding premature conclusions;

  • providing appropriate opportunity for author response;

  • seeking expert advice where required;

  • managing conflicts of interest;

  • communicating with institutions when appropriate;

  • ensuring that notices clearly identify affected publications; and

  • protecting the reliability of the scholarly record.

Editorial decisions should be supported by documented reasoning and available evidence.

48. Responsibilities of the Publisher

The publisher should support the implementation and visibility of corrections, retractions, and other post-publication notices.

Where technically feasible, the publisher should assist with:

  • linking notices to original articles;

  • updating article status;

  • maintaining access to notices;

  • preserving publication metadata;

  • implementing appropriate website markings; and

  • communicating necessary metadata changes.

Technical or commercial considerations should not be used to obscure a legitimate correction or retraction.

49. Policy Review

The Journal of Circular Economy Innovations may periodically review and update this policy to reflect developments in scholarly-publishing practice, research-integrity standards, technical publishing infrastructure, and applicable ethical or legal requirements.

Material changes should be reflected transparently on the journal website.

Commitment to the Integrity of the Scholarly Record

The Journal of Circular Economy Innovations regards correction of the scholarly record as an essential editorial responsibility.

Errors should be corrected when the published work remains substantially reliable. Articles should be retracted when reliable evidence demonstrates that they can no longer be relied upon in their published form. Expressions of Concern may be used where significant uncertainty remains and readers require notification while an issue is assessed.

All corrective actions should be proportionate, transparent, visible, and linked to the affected publication wherever technically feasible. Through these procedures, the journal seeks to maintain an accurate, trustworthy, and enduring scholarly record while treating authors, readers, reviewers, and other stakeholders fairly.