Retraction Policy

The Journal of Circular Economy Innovations is committed to preserving the accuracy, reliability, transparency, and integrity of the scholarly record. Retraction is a formal post-publication action used when substantial evidence demonstrates that a published article contains fundamental problems that materially undermine the reliability, integrity, ethical acceptability, or legitimacy of the publication.

Retraction is not intended to punish authors. Its primary purpose is to inform readers that the findings, content, or circumstances surrounding a publication are sufficiently unreliable or problematic that the article should no longer be treated as part of the dependable scholarly evidence base.

The journal evaluates potential retractions carefully, impartially, and proportionately. Decisions are based on the available evidence, the seriousness of the concern, its effect on the published work, and the need to maintain an accurate scholarly record.

This policy should be read together with the journal's Corrections and Retractions Policy, Research Misconduct Policy, Publication Ethics Policy, Plagiarism Policy, Authorship Criteria, Conflict of Interest Policy, Data Availability Policy, and Complaints and Appeals Policy.

1. Purpose of Retraction

Retraction may be necessary when correcting individual errors is insufficient to restore confidence in a published article.

The purposes of a retraction are to:

• identify publications that should no longer be relied upon as valid scholarly evidence;

• alert readers to serious problems affecting a published article;

• correct the scholarly record transparently;

• prevent continued reliance on fundamentally unreliable findings;

• address serious publication or research-integrity concerns;

• maintain appropriate links between the original article and subsequent editorial action; and

• support accountability in scholarly communication.

Retraction does not necessarily mean that every author of an article engaged in misconduct. An article may require retraction because of honest error, unreliable findings, ethical problems, invalid data, duplicate publication, or other circumstances independent of deliberate misconduct.

2. Circumstances That May Warrant Retraction

The journal may consider retraction where reliable evidence indicates that a published article is fundamentally unreliable or should not remain part of the scholarly literature without a formal warning.

Potential grounds may include:

• fabrication of research data;

• falsification or inappropriate manipulation of data;

• serious errors that invalidate the principal findings;

• substantial plagiarism;

• unauthorized or materially misleading duplication of previously published work;

• unethical research;

• serious breaches of informed consent;

• inappropriate disclosure of confidential or identifiable information;

• fraudulent authorship or authorship manipulation;

• peer-review manipulation;

• materially compromised editorial evaluation;

• publication based on data that cannot legitimately be used;

• copyright or legal violations that materially affect the article;

• serious undisclosed conflicts of interest that undermine confidence in the work;

• unreliable results arising from fundamental methodological or analytical problems;

• manipulation of images, figures, statistics, or computational outputs that materially changes the findings; or

• other circumstances that substantially compromise the reliability or integrity of the publication.

The existence of one of these concerns does not automatically require retraction. The journal evaluates the significance and consequences of the concern before determining the appropriate action.

3. Honest Error

Retraction may be appropriate even where no misconduct occurred.

Authors may discover after publication that a serious calculation error, dataset problem, methodological defect, coding error, experimental problem, or analytical mistake substantially invalidates the principal findings.

Where an honest error affects only a limited part of the article and the overall conclusions remain reliable, a correction may be more appropriate.

Where the error makes the central findings unreliable, retraction may be necessary to protect the scholarly record.

4. Research Misconduct

Where a published article is affected by fabrication, falsification, plagiarism, data manipulation, or another serious form of research misconduct, the journal may initiate a retraction assessment.

The journal does not ordinarily make definitive findings concerning institutional or legal misconduct where such determinations fall within the authority of an employer, university, research institution, ethics committee, funder, or regulatory body.

However, the journal may act independently to protect its publication record when sufficient evidence demonstrates that the published article cannot reasonably be relied upon.

5. Plagiarism

Substantial plagiarism may constitute grounds for retraction where copied material significantly affects the originality, integrity, or scholarly legitimacy of the article.

The journal considers the nature, extent, location, and significance of the duplicated material rather than relying solely on a numerical similarity percentage.

Minor unattributed phrases or limited citation errors may be addressed through correction where appropriate.

Retraction may be considered where plagiarism is extensive, systematic, materially misleading, or affects the central scholarly contribution of the publication.

6. Duplicate and Redundant Publication

Retraction may be appropriate where an article substantially duplicates previously published work without adequate disclosure, citation, permission, or legitimate scholarly justification.

The journal distinguishes between unacceptable duplicate publication and legitimate development of earlier work, such as appropriately disclosed conference papers, preprints, theses, datasets, or preliminary reports.

Where duplication affects only a limited portion of the article, another corrective action may be sufficient.

7. Fabricated or Falsified Data

Articles containing fabricated, falsified, manipulated, or intentionally misrepresented data may be retracted where the affected information materially undermines the validity of the publication.

Examples may include:

• invented observations;

• fabricated survey responses;

• manipulated experimental results;

• altered statistical data;

• fabricated citations or sources;

• inappropriate image manipulation;

• invented datasets;

• false participant information; or

• deliberately altered analytical outputs.

The journal may request original data, analytical files, research records, or supporting documentation before determining the appropriate editorial action.

8. Artificial Intelligence and Synthetic Content

Where artificial intelligence or generative AI has been used to fabricate data, references, results, images, analyses, participant information, or other substantive research content, retraction may be considered if the reliability of the article is fundamentally compromised.

The use of AI-assisted tools does not in itself constitute grounds for retraction.

However, undisclosed or inappropriate AI use may become a serious publication-integrity concern where it results in:

• fabricated evidence;

• nonexistent references;

• manipulated research outputs;

• false representation of empirical research;

• undisclosed synthetic datasets presented as real observations; or

• other materially misleading scholarly content.

Authors remain responsible for all published material irrespective of the tools used in preparing the research or manuscript.

9. Unethical Research

Retraction may be considered where reliable evidence demonstrates that published research was conducted in serious violation of applicable ethical requirements.

Relevant concerns may include:

• absence of required ethics approval;

• serious violations of participant rights;

• research conducted without required informed consent;

• inappropriate disclosure of identifiable information;

• serious harm to participants;

• unethical treatment of vulnerable populations;

• serious animal-welfare violations; or

• environmentally or socially harmful research conducted in violation of applicable ethical or legal requirements.

The journal considers both the seriousness of the ethical concern and its implications for the legitimacy of the published research.

10. Authorship and Contributor Problems

Authorship disputes do not automatically require retraction.

Where an authorship issue can be resolved through a correction, amendment to the contributor statement, or other transparent notice, retraction is generally unnecessary.

Retraction may become appropriate where authorship fraud, impersonation, fabricated author identities, purchased authorship, or other serious manipulation fundamentally compromises the legitimacy or provenance of the article.

11. Peer-Review Manipulation

Retraction may be considered where reliable evidence demonstrates that the peer-review process for an article was materially manipulated.

Examples may include:

• fabricated reviewer identities;

• false reviewer email addresses;

• undisclosed reviewer-author relationships;

• manipulation of reviewer suggestions;

• coordinated fraudulent review activity; or

• other deceptive conduct intended to compromise independent editorial evaluation.

The journal will consider whether a credible independent review can adequately resolve the concern or whether the compromised publication process requires retraction.

12. Conflict of Interest

Failure to disclose a competing interest does not automatically require retraction.

Where a previously undisclosed conflict can be addressed transparently without affecting the reliability of the research, publication of a correction or disclosure statement may be appropriate.

Retraction may be considered where an undisclosed financial, commercial, institutional, professional, or personal interest is sufficiently serious to undermine confidence in the research, interpretation, or editorial process.

13. Legal and Copyright Concerns

In exceptional circumstances, retraction or removal may be necessary because of significant legal issues.

Such circumstances may include:

• copyright infringement;

• unlawful disclosure of confidential information;

• privacy violations;

• defamatory content;

• court orders;

• legal restrictions on publication; or

• material published without necessary authorization.

Where possible, the journal will distinguish between retraction of the scholarly record and removal of content from public access.

Complete removal of an article should be reserved for exceptional circumstances where continued public availability would create a substantial legal, privacy, security, or safety risk.

14. Retraction Assessment Procedure

When a potential ground for retraction is identified, the journal will conduct an appropriate preliminary assessment.

The process may include:

1. documenting the concern;

2. reviewing the published article and available evidence;

3. requesting clarification from the author or authors;

4. reviewing supporting data or documentation;

5. consulting independent experts where necessary;

6. evaluating relevant ethics, authorship, data, or publication records;

7. communicating with institutions or other responsible organizations where appropriate; and

8. determining the most proportionate editorial response.

The precise procedure may vary according to the nature and seriousness of the concern.

15. Author Notification

Authors will normally be informed when the journal is seriously considering retraction and will be given a reasonable opportunity to respond to the concerns raised.

The journal may request:

• an explanation;

• supporting documentation;

• original data;

• ethics approval documents;

• authorship records;

• analytical files; or

• other relevant evidence.

Author disagreement does not prevent retraction where the journal has sufficient evidence that retraction is necessary.

Likewise, author agreement is not required for an editor to protect the integrity of the scholarly record.

16. Institutional Investigations

Where allegations involve research misconduct requiring access to evidence beyond the journal's authority, the journal may communicate with the relevant institution, university, research organization, ethics committee, funding organization, or other competent body.

The journal may consider the outcome of an institutional investigation when determining editorial action.

However, editorial action need not always wait indefinitely for an external investigation if sufficient evidence already demonstrates that the published record requires correction.

17. Interim Expression of Concern

Where serious concerns have been raised but available evidence is insufficient to determine whether retraction is required, the journal may issue an Expression of Concern.

An Expression of Concern may be appropriate where:

• an investigation is ongoing;

• evidence remains inconclusive;

• an institutional investigation is substantially delayed;

• authors provide conflicting information;

• serious data concerns cannot yet be resolved; or

• readers should be alerted while additional information is obtained.

An Expression of Concern is not a finding of misconduct and may later be replaced or supplemented by a correction, retraction, clarification, or other editorial notice.

18. Retraction Decision

The final decision to retract an article rests with the journal's authorized editorial leadership.

The decision should be based primarily on the reliability and integrity of the published record rather than on reputational, commercial, institutional, political, or personal considerations.

Relevant factors may include:

• reliability of the evidence;

• severity of the problem;

• extent of the affected content;

• effect on the principal findings;

• ethical implications;

• possibility of correcting the article adequately;

• outcome of any relevant investigation; and

• consequences of leaving unreliable information uncorrected.

19. Retraction Notice

A formal retraction notice will be published when an article is retracted.

The notice should, where reasonably possible:

• clearly identify the retracted article;

• include the article title;

• identify relevant authors;

• provide the DOI or other persistent identifier;

• state that the article has been retracted;

• explain the principal reason for the retraction;

• identify who initiated the retraction where appropriate;

• distinguish error from misconduct where the evidence permits;

• avoid speculative or unnecessarily defamatory language; and

• remain permanently accessible as part of the scholarly record.

The retraction notice should be written clearly enough for readers to understand why the article should no longer be relied upon.

20. Treatment of the Retracted Article

A retracted article should ordinarily remain accessible as part of the historical scholarly record rather than being silently deleted.

The journal will seek to ensure that:

• the article is clearly identified as retracted;

• a prominent retraction notice appears on the article page;

• the article links to the retraction notice;

• the retraction notice links to the original article;

• relevant metadata identify the retraction status; and

• readers are not likely to mistake the article for a valid unretracted publication.

The article may be watermarked or otherwise visibly marked as Retracted where technically feasible.

21. Article Removal

Complete removal of published content is different from retraction and should occur only in exceptional circumstances.

Removal may be considered where continued availability creates a substantial risk involving:

• legal prohibition;

• serious privacy violations;

• confidential information;

• identifiable participant information;

• national or public security concerns;

• serious risk to personal safety; or

• other compelling legal or ethical circumstances.

Where an article is removed, the journal should retain an appropriate bibliographic notice explaining that content has been removed, unless legal restrictions prohibit such disclosure.

22. Partial Retraction

The journal generally seeks to avoid ambiguous partial retractions.

If an identified problem affects only a clearly limited element of an article while the remaining conclusions remain reliable, a formal correction may be more appropriate.

Where the affected material undermines the principal findings or integrity of the article as a whole, full retraction should be considered.

Editorial notices should clearly communicate the status of the article so that readers are not left uncertain about which findings remain dependable.

23. Retraction and Corrections

Retraction and correction serve different purposes.

A correction is generally appropriate where an article contains an identifiable error that can be corrected without invalidating its principal findings.

A retraction is appropriate where the article as a whole, or its major findings, can no longer reasonably be relied upon.

The journal will seek to use the least severe editorial action capable of accurately protecting the scholarly record.

24. Retraction and Author Disagreement

Authors may disagree with a retraction decision.

Where appropriate, the retraction notice may indicate that some or all authors disagree with the decision, provided that doing so does not obscure the reason for the retraction.

Author disagreement does not prevent the journal from retracting an article where the evidence supports that action.

Authors may use the journal's Complaints and Appeals Policy where they believe that the retraction procedure was materially flawed.

25. Retraction Initiated by Authors

Authors who discover a fundamental problem in their published work should notify the journal promptly.

Voluntary disclosure of a serious error is consistent with responsible scholarly conduct.

The journal will independently assess whether correction, retraction, or another action is appropriate.

An author request for retraction does not automatically result in retraction where the journal determines that a correction or another action would more accurately address the issue.

26. Retraction of Older Publications

The age of a publication does not, by itself, determine whether retraction is appropriate.

Serious concerns may emerge months or years after publication.

Where reliable evidence demonstrates that an older article is fundamentally unreliable or otherwise meets the journal's retraction criteria, appropriate editorial action may still be taken.

The objective is to maintain an accurate scholarly record regardless of when the underlying issue is discovered.

27. Retraction and Citation

A retracted article remains part of the historical scholarly record but should not ordinarily be cited as reliable evidence without clear acknowledgment of its retracted status.

Authors citing a retracted publication for historical, methodological, research-integrity, or other legitimate reasons should clearly indicate that the article has been retracted.

The journal may update article metadata where technically feasible to support visibility of retraction status.

28. Indexing and Metadata

Where an article is retracted, the journal will seek to ensure that relevant publication metadata accurately communicate the retraction status.

Where technically available, updated information may be communicated through DOI metadata, journal article pages, indexing services, repositories, and other scholarly discovery systems.

The journal cannot guarantee how quickly third-party databases update their records but will maintain accurate information within systems under its control.

29. Confidentiality During Investigation

Retraction investigations should be conducted with appropriate confidentiality.

Information should ordinarily be shared only with persons or organizations whose involvement is reasonably necessary to evaluate the matter.

The journal seeks to avoid premature public allegations or conclusions while an investigation remains unresolved.

Once a retraction decision has been made, the published notice should provide sufficient transparency without unnecessarily disclosing confidential or legally protected information.

30. Protection of Whistleblowers and Complainants

Individuals may raise concerns regarding published work in good faith.

The journal will evaluate concerns based on the available evidence rather than the identity or status of the person raising them.

Where confidentiality is requested, the journal will seek to protect the complainant's identity to the extent reasonably possible.

Anonymous allegations may be considered where they are sufficiently specific and supported by evidence capable of verification.

31. Conflicts of Interest in Retraction Decisions

Editors involved in a retraction assessment must disclose conflicts of interest that could compromise impartial decision-making.

Where an editor has a material relationship with the authors, complainant, institution, or research concerned, the matter should be transferred to another qualified editor where practicable.

A manuscript authored by a journal editor or editorial-board member should not be handled solely by that individual or by persons whose independence is compromised.

32. Appeals Against Retraction

Authors may appeal a retraction decision where they believe that:

• relevant evidence was overlooked;

• material factual information was misunderstood;

• procedural fairness was not maintained; or

• significant new evidence has become available.

An appeal should provide clear reasons and supporting documentation.

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

An appeal does not automatically suspend, reverse, or remove a retraction notice.

33. Relationship With the Corrections and Retractions Policy

The Retraction Policy specifically addresses circumstances in which a published article should be formally retracted and describes the procedures associated with that decision.

The journal's separate Corrections and Retractions Policy provides the broader framework for post-publication amendments, including corrections, expressions of concern, retractions, and maintenance of the publication record.

The two policies are complementary and should be interpreted together.

34. Editorial Responsibility

The Editor-in-Chief or another appropriately authorized editor is responsible for ensuring that potential retractions are evaluated fairly and consistently.

Editorial decisions should seek to protect:

• accuracy of the scholarly literature;

• rights of authors and readers;

• confidentiality;

• procedural fairness;

• research integrity; and

• transparency of the publication record.

Financial, institutional, reputational, or commercial considerations must not prevent appropriate corrective action.

Commitment to the Integrity of the Scholarly Record

The Journal of Circular Economy Innovations considers retraction an important but serious mechanism for maintaining confidence in scholarly communication.

The journal seeks to distinguish clearly between honest error, correctable error, academic disagreement, questionable research practices, and circumstances that fundamentally invalidate a publication. Retraction will therefore be considered only where the evidence and significance of the concern justify such action.

Where retraction is required, the journal will seek to act transparently, preserve the historical record, clearly communicate the status of the affected article, and ensure that readers can identify why the publication should no longer be relied upon.