If you serve as a journal editor long enough, you’re likely to encounter at least one situation where an article your team publishes may require a correction or even a retraction.
Stigmas around reporting mistakes in authorship and peer review can make article updates an uncomfortable topic for editors and researchers. However, as discussed by Editor-in-Chief of Science Dr. Holden Thorp, the truth is “correction is courageous” and critical to fostering trust in science both within academia and among the general public. So, it’s up to journal editors to help normalize the process and promote ethical behavior.
Establishing policies and procedures for handling potential article update needs is critical to preparing your editorial team for such situations and exhibiting your journal’s commitment to upholding the integrity of the scholarly record. This brief guide covers the latest workflow and technical industry recommendations you need to know. Use the quick links below to jump to specific sections.
Table of Contents
- Establish journal update policies and procedures in line with industry guidelines
- Publish a publicly available journal update policy page
- Consider joining Crossmark so readers can check the status of articles
- Regularly review appropriate use cases for article update types
- Above all, ensure objectivity and transparency
1. Establish journal update policies and procedures in line with industry guidelines
First, all journals should have editorial policies for reviewing concerns about article errors or misconduct when raised and technical processes in place for issuing corrections, retractions, or expressions of concern as needed per current industry standards.
While there are no universally agreed upon journal update regulations (which may come as a surprise!), there are prevailing recommendations from the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).
At the highest level, the COPE recommended process for handling article concerns, whether raised by an author or an outside party, is to promptly contact the authors of the paper in an objective and neutral manner to gather information about the alleged issue. Then determine the appropriate course of action if you decide an article update or further review of the research is necessary based on those findings (more on the different types of possible article updates and their use cases below). If the authors are unresponsive or uncooperative, COPE advises editors to contact the authors’ institutions to seek support in reviewing the claims.
Editors can find detailed case studies and workflow recommendations for handling different types of post-publication review scenarios on the COPE website.
Per COPE policy, if an article requires a substantive update — whether that be a clarification addendum, correction, retraction, or expression of concern — the best practice is to add a readily visible indication of that (e.g., alert banner) to the Version of Record (VoR) specifying that an update occurred (e.g., this article has an errata) that permanently cross-links to a post-publication notice explaining the details. Following this process preserves the scholarly record by keeping the original article in place while providing readers with clear context about what changed and why.
According to COPE’s guidelines, article update notices should:
- Include bidirectional links between the notice and the updated publication
- Clearly state the type of update being reported (e.g., erratum or retraction)
- State who is reporting the update
- State the reason for the update
- Identify the affected article (i.e., the title and author names)
- Be published promptly to minimize harmful effects
- Be openly accessible (free to read with no access barriers such as a subscriber login)
- Contain objective and factual language
To ensure article update notice links persist, it’s crucial for journals to assign Digital Object Identifiers (DOIs) to them in addition to assigning DOIs to all of their publications. The Crossref DOI registration service supports 12 standard types of updates in its schema defined below:
- Addendum: An additional piece of information or supplementary material published after the original article to complement its content, such as new data related to an article on vaccine efficacy collected during a follow-up study.
- Clarification: A clarification resolves potential ambiguities or confusion in the original article without indicating an error, such as clarifying whether the use of the term “carbon emissions” refers to “CO2 emissions” or “total greenhouse gas emissions.”
- Correction: Corrections address discovered article errors or omissions that do not affect the scientific validity of the article.
- Corrigendum: A corrigendum is issued to correct errors made by the authors in the original article, where the authors discover the mistake and notify the editors.
- Erratum: An erratum is published to correct mistakes introduced during the publishing process (e.g., by editors or typesetters).
- Expression of Concern: An expression of concern is issued to alert readers about potential issues with an article’s integrity or reliability that are pending investigation.
- New Edition: A new edition is published when significant changes are made to a document, often for a reference work or textbook (so this generally won’t apply to journal articles).
- New Version: A new version applies to articles that undergo substantial revisions but remain connected to the same research (e.g., a registered preprint is later peer-reviewed and published as a revised, final version in a journal).
- Partial Retraction: A partial retraction is issued when specific parts of an article are invalid but the rest of the content remains valid.
- Removal: A removal occurs when an article is taken down entirely due to severe ethical, legal, or content issues.
- Retraction: A full retraction is issued when an article is deemed invalid due to critical errors or ethical breaches.
- Withdrawal: A withdrawal refers to the removal of a pre-publication version (such as a preprint) at the author’s request or due to policy violations.
NISO recently issued a new Recommended Practice on Communication of Retractions, Removals, and Expressions of Concern (a.k.a. CREC) that outlines recommended metadata to register for both the original publication and the update notice available here.
A quick note for Scholastica OA Publishing Platform users: If you’re a Crossref member, you can learn how to set up automated DOI registration via Scholastica here and you can learn more about the support we offer for issuing article corrections and retractions via the platform here (including the option to integrate with Crossmark, which we cover in more detail below).
2. Publish a publicly available journal update policy page
In addition to establishing internal processes for handling potential article update needs that may arise, it’s critical to publish a publicly available journal update policy page. That page may live on your publisher or individual journal website, depending on how consistent update procedures are across portfolio publications.
Publicly posting your journal update policy will ensure it is transparent. It will also support expeditious reporting and review of potential research integrity concerns. Your authors and readers will most likely be the first to notice potential errors in articles or instances of misconduct. They need to know how to report such situations and what to expect when they do. With that audience in mind, your update policy page should include information on your:
- Editorial policies: Provide a link to or description of your peer review policies explaining how content is reviewed prior to publication.
- Author policies: Link to ethical guidelines and standards your journal requires authors to adhere to, such as providing statements of originality and disclosures, following data sharing and transparency practices to promote reproducibility and replicability, and adhering to plagiarism guidelines.
- Circumstances for updates: Specify situations that warrant a formal article update, such as the availability of new data, data errors, or ethical concerns.
- Types of updates: Define the various types of updates you may implement, including addenda, corrections, retractions, or expressions of concern and their use cases.
- Reader reporting: Explain how readers can report potential issues with published content.
- Notification methods: Explain how you will inform readers about updates, such as via the Crossmark button (more on this below).
- Versioning: Clarify how you will reflect changes made to the registered VoR of an article — again, the recommendation is to permanently cross-link the VoR with a registered update notice.
Examples of thorough journal update policy pages you can reference include those posted by Taylor & Francis and BMJ.
3. Consider joining Crossmark so readers can check the status of articles
One way journals can make article update information easily available to readers is by adding the Crossmark button to their article pages. Crossmark is Crossref’s standard mechanism for reporting updates to published research. When a reader clicks the Crossmark button on an article, they will see an overview of the status of that item of content, including any corrections, retractions, or other updates made to the VoR. A primary benefit of the Crossmark button is that it can be added to HTML and PDF article pages, giving readers a reliable way to check the status of an article even after downloading it.
How does it work? The Crossmark button operates in tandem with Crossref DOIs. In order to implement it, a journal must be a Crossref member and adhere to required criteria, which include publishing a designated article update policy page (per the specifications covered above) and assigning a DOI to it. Crossmark members then commit to including that policy page in the metadata of all the content they register and to registering DOIs for any article update notices they issue to alert Crossmark to the changes.
When should journals submit changes to Crossmark? Crossref specifies that journals should register an update when “a significant change has been made to a piece of content that could affect its interpretation or citation, requiring readers to be notified.”
As noted above, Scholastica OA Publishing Platform users now have the option to integrate with Crossmark from our platform to automate article update registration and reporting. Learn more in this blog post.
4. Regularly review appropriate use cases for article update types
Publishing is an evolving field, so it’s crucial to regularly review accepted use cases for the different article update types and incorporate new industry guidelines or information about emerging issues into your journal update policy as relevant to keep it up to date. For example, if your journal establishes new guidelines for author AI use and necessary disclosures, you’ll want to link to it from your journal update policy page.
The use cases for issuing a clarification or addenda tend to be relatively uncontroversial since neither constitutes an article error. But what about when to consider the other core types of article updates? Below is a quick breakdown of current recommendations.
When are article retractions necessary?
According to COPE guidelines, grounds for retraction include if an article contains significant errors that compromise the accuracy and reliability of the research findings, such as major calculation inaccuracies, or if the author(s) of the article engaged in severe misconduct. Examples of misconduct include evidence of image or data alteration, unauthorized use of data, manipulation of the peer review process, plagiarism, or fraudulent authorship.
In rare cases where it is not possible to resolve significant issues with an article via a retraction, such as for legal reasons or because it contains content that violates the privacy of study participants, journals may consider article removal. In such instances, COPE advises issuing a removal notice in place of the original article. For example, you can read how Taylor & Francis handles removals on its article update policy page.
While partial retraction is an option, COPE generally discourages the practice because it can make it difficult to assess the status of an article.
When are article corrections necessary?
So, do you have to publish a formal notice for any other type of article update your editorial team makes — even if it’s fixing an inconsequential typographical error, such as a grammatical mistake that does not substantively affect the meaning of the sentence in question or the research? Not necessarily. In such cases, it is generally acceptable to fix the issue and simply add a footnote to the article detailing that a minor grammatical edit was made.
However, if an article contains an error or omission that is not grounds for retraction but that may impact a reader’s interpretation of the content, it is necessary to issue a correction. Examples include fixing mislabeled figures in a paper or adding missing authorship details or acknowledgments. The nature of the error will determine the type of correction you issue, whether a general correction, corrigendum, or erratum, as defined earlier.
The distinction between major and minor errors can be a fine line. As recently reported by Retraction Watch, there has been rising concern among academics in recent years about publishers making “stealth corrections,” or silently updating substantive article details such as “paper titles, authors names, ethical disclosures, images, abstracts, affiliations.” So, editors should be hyper-vigilant in cases where the best course of action for a seemingly minor edit isn’t immediately apparent.
When are expressions of concern appropriate?
Expressions of concern are appropriate in cases where a journal is evaluating a credible claim that raises significant doubts about the accuracy or integrity of an article. In such cases, the expression of concern provides interim notice to readers that the article’s findings may not be reliable. Once a formal investigation is complete, the journal may issue a subsequent article correction or retraction notice if any/all of the issues raised are confirmed. If the investigation is inconclusive, the journal may leave up the expression of concern notice so readers know it is subject to unresolved concerns.
COPE recently released new guidance for when and how to issue expressions of concern available here.
A quick word on authorship disputes: Per the COPE guidelines, authorship disputes are typically not grounds for issuing expressions of concern or retractions unless they affect a reader’s ability to trust the research. You can learn more about best practices for preventing potential authorship disputes and how to handle disputes should one arise in this blog post.
5. Above all, ensure objectivity and transparency
Some cases for article correction may be cut and dried, like if an author emails to notify your journal that they discovered their paper contains a mislabeled figure that does not alter the findings. However, cases where someone raises credible serious concerns about an article tend to be highly delicate matters as the authors may feel their reputations are at stake.
Maintaining objectivity in your editorial team’s journal update policy language and your words and actions when handling any article update concerns raised is absolutely essential. As noted by Thorp, “the conflation of correcting the scientific record and assigning responsibility for misconduct is a barrier to a more responsive ecosystem.” He notes that journals can help alleviate anxieties around potential errors by using explicit language “that error corrections do not necessarily reflect misconduct.”
Speaking to Thorp about handling retractions specifically, Ivan Oransky, founder of Retraction Watch, said, “The data are clear: When retraction notices describe exactly why papers are retracted, researchers whose work is retracted for honest error do not see a reputation hit, as measured by citations to their work.” So, bear in mind that how your team communicates information around journal updates will make a substantial difference in the outcomes of the situation for all parties involved.
We hope you’ve found this quick guide to article updates helpful! If you have any questions, please feel free to add them to the comments section below. You can also find Scholastica on LinkedIn and Bluesky. Happy editing!
