Dealing of Misconduct

Retraction Policy

The Editor-in-Chief may consider retracting a publication under the following circumstances:

  • There is clear evidence that the findings are unreliable due to major errors (e.g., miscalculations or experimental flaws), data fabrication, or falsification (e.g., image manipulation).

  • The content constitutes plagiarism.

  • The findings were previously published elsewhere without proper citation, permission, or disclosure (i.e., redundant or duplicate publication).

  • The article includes material or data used without proper authorization.

  • There is a copyright infringement or other serious legal issue (e.g., defamation or breach of privacy).

  • The research reported was conducted unethically.

  • The peer review process was compromised or manipulated.

  • A significant conflict of interest was not disclosed by the author(s), which the editor believes could have influenced the interpretation or recommendations of the work.

Retraction notices should:

  • Be linked to the retracted article in all versions (e.g., online and digital copies).

  • Clearly identify the retracted article by title and author(s) in the notice.

  • Be clearly labeled as a “Retraction,” and not confused with other types of notices (e.g., corrections or editorial comments).

  • Be issued promptly to limit potential harm or misinformation.

  • Be freely accessible to all readers (i.e., not behind paywalls).

  • State who is issuing the retraction.

  • Provide a clear, factual explanation for the retraction.

  • Avoid emotional, biased, or accusatory language.

Retraction is generally not appropriate in cases where:

  • Authorship disputes arise, but the validity of the findings remains intact.

  • The main findings are still reliable and can be corrected without retracting the entire article.

  • The editor lacks conclusive evidence for retraction or is awaiting the outcome of an institutional investigation.

  • Conflicts of interest were disclosed after publication, but the editor deems them unlikely to have affected the study’s conclusions or the recommendations of editors and reviewers.