Post-Publication Discussions and Corrections

1. Introduction

Magistra Andalusia: Jurnal Ilmu Sastra (MAJIS) is committed to maintaining the accuracy, transparency, reliability, and integrity of the scholarly record after publication.

Publication of an article does not mark the end of scholarly evaluation. Published research may subsequently be discussed, challenged, clarified, corrected, supplemented, or, in serious circumstances, retracted when credible evidence demonstrates that the published record is materially unreliable or ethically compromised.

MAJIS therefore provides mechanisms for post-publication scholarly discussion and establishes procedures for addressing errors, omissions, ethical concerns, research misconduct, and other issues that may affect the reliability or interpretation of published articles.

The journal recognises several forms of post-publication action, including:

  • scholarly correspondence and commentary;

  • corrections;

  • corrigenda;

  • errata;

  • addenda, where appropriate;

  • Expressions of Concern;

  • retractions; and

  • exceptional article removal or replacement where legally or ethically necessary.

MAJIS follows the principles and guidance of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) when determining appropriate post-publication actions. COPE emphasises that the primary purpose of retraction is to correct the scholarly literature and protect the integrity of the academic record rather than to punish authors.

This policy is intended to ensure that post-publication matters are handled fairly, consistently, transparently, promptly, and independently of the status, affiliation, seniority, or reputation of the authors.

This policy does not constitute or imply COPE approval, certification, or endorsement of MAJIS.

2. Description

2.1 Post-Publication Discussion

Post-publication discussion refers to scholarly communication concerning an article after it has been formally published.

Such discussion may involve:

  • clarification of an argument;

  • methodological discussion;

  • alternative interpretations;

  • scholarly criticism;

  • replication or extension of published findings;

  • identification of possible errors;

  • discussion of newly available evidence; or

  • other substantive academic engagement with a published article.

MAJIS considers constructive post-publication discussion an important part of scholarly communication.

2.2 Corrections

A correction is an official amendment to the published scholarly record intended to rectify an error that does not justify retraction.

Corrections may concern:

  • factual errors;

  • author information;

  • affiliations;

  • references;

  • figures or tables;

  • textual statements;

  • methodological descriptions;

  • metadata;

  • acknowledgements;

  • funding information; or

  • other information where an amendment is necessary to maintain an accurate record.

Corrections should be issued promptly once the journal has established that an amendment is warranted.

2.3 Corrigendum

A corrigendum is a correction of an error originating from the author or authors.

Examples may include:

  • an incorrect factual statement;

  • an omitted acknowledgement;

  • an incorrect author affiliation;

  • an inaccurate reference;

  • an error in a table or figure; or

  • another author-originated error that does not invalidate the article's principal findings.

2.4 Erratum

An erratum is a correction of an error introduced by the journal during editorial, copyediting, typesetting, or production.

Examples may include:

  • typographical errors introduced during production;

  • incorrect pagination;

  • production-related formatting errors;

  • incorrect metadata introduced by the journal; or

  • other publication-production errors.

2.5 Addendum

An addendum is additional information that is essential for understanding or interpreting a published article but does not constitute a correction of an error in the original article.

An addendum may be considered where:

  • important information became available after publication;

  • additional clarification is necessary;

  • an important methodological explanation was omitted; or

  • additional information materially improves readers' understanding without invalidating the original article.

2.6 Expression of Concern

An Expression of Concern (EoC) is a formal editorial notice alerting readers to substantial concerns regarding the reliability, integrity, or ethical status of a published article when the available evidence is insufficient for immediate correction or retraction.

An EoC may be appropriate when:

  • an investigation is ongoing;

  • an institutional investigation is expected to take considerable time;

  • evidence is inconclusive;

  • serious concerns have been raised but cannot yet be conclusively resolved; or

  • the journal believes readers should be alerted while an investigation continues.

An EoC is an interim editorial action and should be reviewed when further evidence becomes available.

2.7 Retraction

Retraction is an editorial mechanism used to correct the scholarly record when a published article is subsequently determined to be unreliable or seriously compromised.

Retraction may be appropriate where there is clear evidence that:

  • the principal findings are unreliable;

  • major errors invalidate the conclusions;

  • data have been fabricated or falsified;

  • substantial plagiarism has occurred;

  • the article constitutes redundant or duplicate publication;

  • serious authorship or publication manipulation has compromised the article;

  • research was conducted unethically;

  • required ethical approval or informed consent was absent where necessary; or

  • other serious circumstances undermine the reliability or integrity of the publication.

COPE's current Retraction Guidelines state that the purpose of retraction is to correct the literature and ensure its integrity.

2.8 Article Removal

Article removal is an exceptional measure.

An article should ordinarily remain part of the public scholarly record even after retraction, with a clear retraction notice.

Complete removal may be considered only in exceptional circumstances, such as:

  • serious legal requirements;

  • infringement of personal privacy;

  • significant legal liability;

  • publication of confidential information;

  • material that creates a serious and immediate risk of harm; or

  • other circumstances in which continued public availability would create consequences that cannot reasonably be addressed through retraction alone.

Any removal should be documented transparently.

3. Policy

3.1 Commitment to the Integrity of the Scholarly Record

MAJIS has a continuing responsibility to maintain the accuracy and integrity of the articles it publishes.

The journal will therefore take reasonable and proportionate action when credible evidence indicates that a published article contains:

  • a substantive error;

  • misleading information;

  • research-integrity concerns;

  • ethical violations;

  • publication misconduct; or

  • other problems that materially affect the scholarly record.

The journal will not ignore credible post-publication concerns merely because an article has already been published.

3.2 Encouraging Scholarly Discussion

MAJIS welcomes constructive scholarly discussion of published articles.

Readers may communicate:

  • comments;

  • scholarly criticisms;

  • methodological observations;

  • alternative interpretations;

  • requests for clarification;

  • corrections of factual information; or

  • other substantive academic observations.

Correspondence should be evidence-based, relevant, respectful, and directly related to the published work.

3.3 Reader Correspondence

MAJIS may consider publishing letters or other scholarly correspondence concerning published articles.

Correspondence may be subject to editorial assessment to determine:

  • relevance;

  • scholarly value;

  • factual accuracy;

  • ethical compliance;

  • appropriate tone;

  • absence of defamatory content; and

  • compliance with journal requirements.

The authors of the original article may be invited to respond.

Where appropriate, the original correspondence and author response may be published together or linked electronically.

3.4 Editorial Moderation

MAJIS reserves the right to decline or edit post-publication correspondence that contains:

  • personal attacks;

  • defamatory statements;

  • discriminatory content;

  • irrelevant material;

  • unsupported allegations;

  • commercial promotion;

  • confidential information;

  • copyright-infringing material; or

  • other content inconsistent with responsible scholarly communication.

Editorial moderation should not suppress legitimate scholarly criticism merely because it challenges the conclusions of a published article.

3.5 Author Right of Response

Where a substantive criticism of a published article is accepted for publication, the original authors should normally be given a reasonable opportunity to respond.

The author's response should be:

  • relevant;

  • evidence-based;

  • professionally written;

  • proportionate to the criticism; and

  • compliant with publication-ethics requirements.

The opportunity to respond does not imply that the journal will publish every response submitted.

3.6 Reporting a Published Error

Authors, readers, reviewers, editors, institutions, or other knowledgeable parties may report a suspected error in a published article.

Reports should provide:

  • article title;

  • DOI or article URL where available;

  • specific location of the suspected error;

  • description of the concern;

  • supporting evidence; and

  • contact information where the reporter wishes to receive a response.

Anonymous reports may be considered where they contain sufficient specific and verifiable information.

3.7 Assessment of Reported Errors

The Editor-in-Chief or designated editor will assess the reported concern.

The assessment may consider:

  • the nature of the alleged error;

  • its effect on the article;

  • whether the error affects the interpretation or conclusions;

  • whether the issue originated with the authors or journal;

  • whether additional expert assessment is required;

  • whether research misconduct may be involved; and

  • whether institutional consultation is appropriate.

Where necessary, the journal may consult:

  • the authors;

  • reviewers;

  • Editorial Board members;

  • subject specialists;

  • research institutions;

  • ethics committees; or

  • other relevant bodies.

3.8 Corrections Instead of Retraction

MAJIS will generally issue a correction rather than retract an article when:

  • the error is genuine;

  • the error can be clearly identified and corrected;

  • the article's principal findings remain reliable; and

  • readers can continue to rely on the article after correction.

Minor typographical or formatting errors that do not affect meaning may be corrected directly in accordance with the journal's production practices without issuing a separate formal notice, where appropriate.

Substantive errors should normally be documented through a formal correction notice.

3.9 Criteria for Retraction

MAJIS may retract an article when there is sufficient evidence that the article is materially unreliable or seriously compromised.

Grounds may include:

a. Unreliable Findings

Clear evidence that the findings or conclusions cannot be relied upon because of:

  • major analytical errors;

  • substantial methodological errors;

  • incorrect interpretation of critical evidence;

  • fabricated evidence; or

  • falsified evidence.

b. Fabrication or Falsification

Evidence that data, sources, research procedures, results, or other scholarly materials were fabricated or falsified.

c. Plagiarism

Confirmed substantial plagiarism or appropriation of another person's work without appropriate attribution.

This may include:

  • textual plagiarism;

  • plagiarism of ideas;

  • plagiarism of translations;

  • plagiarism of data;

  • plagiarism of images or figures; or

  • substantial unattributed reuse.

d. Duplicate or Redundant Publication

Publication of substantially overlapping material where the duplication materially compromises the scholarly record.

e. Serious Ethical Violations

Examples may include:

  • absence of required ethical approval;

  • absence of required informed consent;

  • unethical treatment of research participants;

  • serious violation of privacy;

  • serious misuse of confidential information; or

  • other substantial breaches of research ethics.

f. Serious Publication Manipulation

Retraction may be considered where systematic manipulation has materially compromised:

  • peer review;

  • authorship;

  • citations;

  • editorial processes; or

  • other aspects of publication integrity.

3.10 Retraction Does Not Erase the Scholarly Record

A retracted article should ordinarily remain accessible as part of the historical scholarly record.

The article should be clearly marked “Retracted”, and the retraction notice should be prominently linked to the article.

The purpose is to prevent readers from mistakenly relying on the article while preserving transparency concerning what was previously published.

3.11 Retraction and Author Responsibility

A retraction may be issued regardless of whether:

  • all authors agree;

  • some authors disagree;

  • the authors cannot be contacted; or

  • the authors themselves request the retraction.

Authors may voluntarily request correction or retraction where appropriate.

The journal will independently assess the request according to this policy and relevant COPE guidance.

3.12 Retraction Without Author Agreement

MAJIS may retract an article without unanimous author agreement when the available evidence establishes that retraction is necessary to protect the integrity of the scholarly record.

The journal should communicate the decision and its basis to the authors where possible.

3.13 Expressions of Concern

An Expression of Concern may be issued when:

  • credible concerns exist;

  • the article's reliability is potentially affected;

  • the available evidence is insufficient for immediate retraction;

  • an institutional investigation is ongoing;

  • the investigation is likely to take substantial time; or

  • other circumstances make an interim warning appropriate.

An EoC does not itself establish that misconduct has occurred.

3.14 Review of Expressions of Concern

An EoC should be reviewed when:

  • an institutional investigation concludes;

  • additional evidence becomes available;

  • the authors provide satisfactory clarification;

  • a correction becomes appropriate; or

  • evidence establishes that retraction is necessary.

The EoC may subsequently be:

  • removed where concerns are resolved;

  • supplemented by a correction;

  • maintained with an updated notice; or

  • replaced by a retraction notice.

3.15 Corrections, EoCs, and Retractions Are Permanent Scholarly Notices

Post-publication notices should remain part of the journal's permanent scholarly record.

They should not be silently deleted merely because a dispute has arisen.

Where a notice is subsequently superseded, the relationship between the notices should be clearly documented.

3.16 Transparency of Post-Publication Amendments

Every substantive post-publication amendment should:

  • be clearly labelled;

  • include the date of publication;

  • identify the affected article;

  • explain the reason for the action;

  • describe the correction or concern where appropriate;

  • be linked to the original article; and

  • remain discoverable in the journal's online record.

3.17 Bidirectional Linking

Where technically feasible, MAJIS will establish bidirectional electronic links between:

  • the original article and correction;

  • the original article and EoC;

  • the original article and retraction notice; and

  • related post-publication documents.

The purpose is to ensure that readers accessing either the article or the notice can readily identify the current status of the publication.

3.18 Retraction Notice

A retraction notice should:

  • use a clear title such as “Retraction: [Article Title]”;

  • identify the article;

  • identify the authors;

  • identify the original publication;

  • state the reason or reasons for retraction;

  • distinguish between error and misconduct where established;

  • identify who is retracting the article;

  • provide the relevant publication dates; and

  • link clearly to the original article.

The notice should not contain unnecessary defamatory or accusatory language.

3.19 Correction Notice

A correction notice should:

  • clearly identify the affected article;

  • identify the nature of the error;

  • explain the correction;

  • state whether the correction affects the interpretation or conclusions;

  • be dated;

  • be independently citable where technically feasible; and

  • be linked to the original article.

3.20 Addenda

MAJIS may publish an addendum when additional information is important to readers but does not constitute a correction or grounds for retraction.

An addendum should:

  • identify the original article;

  • clearly explain its relationship to the article;

  • identify the additional information;

  • be dated; and

  • be linked to the original publication.

The Editor-in-Chief may require peer review or specialist assessment before approving an addendum.

3.21 Article Versioning

Where the publishing platform supports versioning, MAJIS may use clearly identified article versions for appropriate post-publication updates.

Versioning should never obscure:

  • the original publication date;

  • the existence of an amendment;

  • the reason for the amendment; or

  • the relationship between versions.

3.22 Exceptional Removal

Complete removal of an article is an exceptional action.

Where removal is unavoidable, MAJIS should retain a publicly accessible notice explaining:

  • that an article was previously published;

  • why it was removed;

  • when the action occurred; and

  • where appropriate, the relationship between the removal and any related correction or retraction.

3.23 Replacement of a Retracted Article

In exceptional circumstances, an article that has been retracted because of an honest but fundamental error may be replaced by a substantially corrected version.

Any replacement should:

  • be transparently identified;

  • preserve a record of the original article;

  • link to the original retraction notice;

  • explain the reason for replacement; and

  • avoid creating the impression that the original article was never published.

3.24 Indexing and Discoverability

MAJIS will take reasonable steps to ensure that:

  • correction notices;

  • EoCs;

  • retraction notices; and

  • other significant post-publication updates

are appropriately reflected in journal metadata and communicated to relevant indexing or abstracting services where applicable.

3.25 Relationship to Misconduct Investigations

Post-publication concerns involving possible:

  • fabrication;

  • falsification;

  • plagiarism;

  • authorship manipulation;

  • peer-review manipulation;

  • citation manipulation;

  • undisclosed conflicts of interest; or

  • unethical research

will be handled in conjunction with the Allegations of Misconduct Policy.

The publication-status decision may depend on the outcome of an institutional or other appropriate investigation.

3.26 Institutional Cooperation

Where a serious concern relates to the conduct of research rather than merely to a publishing error, MAJIS may contact the relevant institution or responsible body.

The journal may request that the institution investigate matters within its authority, particularly where:

  • research misconduct is alleged;

  • ethical approval is questioned;

  • research data are disputed;

  • authorship disputes require institutional records; or

  • the journal does not have access to relevant evidence.

3.27 Author Cooperation

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

Cooperation may include:

  • providing clarification;

  • supplying relevant documentation;

  • explaining methodological decisions;

  • correcting errors;

  • providing supporting data where appropriate;

  • responding to allegations; and

  • communicating with institutional representatives where necessary.

Failure to cooperate may be considered when determining appropriate editorial action, although the absence of author cooperation does not by itself establish misconduct.

4. Technicalities to Achieve and Materialise the Policies

A. Post-Publication Discussions

1. Submission of Letters and Commentaries

MAJIS may accept scholarly letters or commentaries concerning published articles.

A submission should:

  • identify the article being discussed;

  • state the principal point clearly;

  • provide evidence for substantive claims;

  • maintain a professional tone;

  • avoid personal attacks;

  • disclose relevant conflicts of interest; and

  • comply with the journal's formatting requirements.

2. Editorial Assessment

The Editor-in-Chief or designated editor may assess the correspondence for:

  • relevance;

  • scholarly contribution;

  • factual accuracy;

  • ethical acceptability;

  • conflicts of interest; and

  • appropriateness for publication.

3. Author Response

Where a published article is substantively criticised, the original author(s) may be invited to respond.

The journal may publish the response:

  • alongside the correspondence;

  • as a separate article;

  • as a linked response; or

  • through another appropriate scholarly format.

4. Moderation

MAJIS may moderate correspondence to ensure that discussion remains:

  • scholarly;

  • respectful;

  • evidence-based;

  • relevant; and

  • free from defamatory or discriminatory content.

B. Corrections

1. Reporting an Error

Potential errors may be reported by:

  • authors;

  • readers;

  • reviewers;

  • editors;

  • institutions; or

  • other knowledgeable parties.

Reports should contain sufficient information to allow the journal to assess the concern.

2. Initial Assessment

The Editor-in-Chief or designated editor will determine whether:

  • the concern is credible;

  • the issue is factual;

  • the error affects interpretation;

  • the article remains reliable;

  • a correction is appropriate; or

  • a misconduct investigation is required.

3. Author Consultation

The authors should normally be informed of substantive concerns concerning their article and given an opportunity to respond.

Where the concern is straightforward and non-contentious, the journal may proceed with a correction after appropriate verification.

4. Specialist Consultation

The journal may consult:

  • original reviewers;

  • Editorial Board members;

  • subject experts;

  • research-integrity specialists; or

  • relevant institutions.

5. Correction Decision

If a correction is warranted, the journal will determine whether it should be classified as:

  • corrigendum;

  • erratum;

  • correction;

  • addendum; or

  • another appropriate post-publication notice.

6. Publication of Correction

The correction notice should be:

  • clearly labelled;

  • dated;

  • permanently linked to the original article;

  • independently identifiable;

  • sufficiently explanatory; and

  • discoverable through the journal's metadata.

The original article should normally remain accessible, with a clear indication that a correction has been issued.

C. Expressions of Concern

1. Triggering Circumstances

An EoC may be issued when there is a substantial concern but insufficient evidence for immediate retraction.

2. Investigation

The journal may:

  • contact the authors;

  • request evidence;

  • contact institutions;

  • consult experts;

  • consult COPE guidance;

  • assess publication records; and

  • review relevant editorial records.

3. Notice

The EoC should clearly identify:

  • the article;

  • the nature of the concern;

  • the fact that the matter is under investigation or unresolved; and

  • the implications for readers.

The notice should avoid presenting unproven allegations as established facts.

4. Resolution

When the matter is resolved, MAJIS should take the appropriate final action, which may include:

  • no further action;

  • correction;

  • addendum;

  • continuation of the EoC with updated information; or

  • retraction.

D. Retractions

1. Initiation

A retraction process may be initiated by:

  • the Editor-in-Chief;

  • another editor;

  • an author;

  • a reader;

  • a reviewer;

  • an institution; or

  • another credible source.

2. Investigation

Where appropriate, the journal will conduct or coordinate an investigation consistent with the Allegations of Misconduct Policy.

The journal should distinguish between:

  • editorial error;

  • honest author error;

  • research misconduct;

  • publication misconduct; and

  • unresolved concerns.

3. Author Notification

Authors should normally be informed of the concern and given an opportunity to respond.

However, the journal may issue a retraction when necessary even if:

  • authors do not respond;

  • authors disagree;

  • authors cannot be contacted; or

  • institutional proceedings are incomplete but sufficient evidence exists for editorial action.

4. Retraction Decision

The Editor-in-Chief, in consultation with appropriate editorial or research-integrity personnel, determines whether retraction is necessary.

Where the EiC has a conflict of interest, an uninvolved senior editor should oversee the decision.

5. Retraction Notice

The notice should:

  • be clearly titled;

  • identify the original article;

  • explain the reason;

  • identify who is retracting the article;

  • distinguish error from misconduct where possible;

  • remain permanently available; and

  • be linked to the original publication.

6. Marking the Article

The original article should remain accessible wherever possible but should be clearly marked:

RETRACTED

The PDF and HTML versions should contain a prominent indication of the article's retracted status.

7. Indexing Services

Where applicable, MAJIS will communicate retractions and significant post-publication changes to relevant indexing and abstracting services.

E. Records and Documentation

MAJIS should maintain an appropriate record of post-publication actions, including:

  • the original complaint or report;

  • supporting evidence;

  • correspondence;

  • author responses;

  • editorial assessments;

  • expert opinions;

  • institutional communications;

  • final decisions;

  • correction notices;

  • EoCs;

  • retraction notices; and

  • relevant metadata updates.

Records should be managed in accordance with the journal's document-retention and confidentiality requirements.

F. Protection Against Retaliation

MAJIS will make reasonable efforts to protect individuals who raise good-faith concerns about published work from inappropriate retaliation within the journal's control.

However, raising a concern does not exempt a complainant from the normal standards of scholarly accountability.

False, malicious, knowingly fabricated, or deliberately defamatory allegations may be treated as a separate ethical matter.

G. Relationship with Copyright and Licensing

A correction, EoC, addendum, or retraction notice does not ordinarily alter the copyright or licensing status of the original article.

Where an article is published under CC BY-SA 4.0, readers may continue to access and reuse the article subject to the applicable licence, but they must not misrepresent a retracted article as valid or ignore an applicable correction.

Where repository copies exist, the journal encourages repository records to be updated to reflect:

  • corrections;

  • EoCs; or

  • retractions.

MAJIS's Repository Policy requires repository records to be updated when an article receives a correction, EoC, or retraction.

H. Review of This Policy

This policy will be reviewed periodically to ensure alignment with:

  • COPE guidance;

  • developments in scholarly publishing;

  • changes in digital publishing technology;

  • indexing requirements;

  • institutional policies;

  • applicable legal requirements; and

  • MAJIS's actual editorial practices.

5. Responsibilities

5.1 Editor-in-Chief

The Editor-in-Chief is responsible for:

  • protecting the integrity of the published scholarly record;

  • assessing significant post-publication concerns;

  • authorising corrections, EoCs, and retractions;

  • ensuring fair and independent decision-making;

  • managing conflicts of interest;

  • consulting institutions where necessary; and

  • ensuring appropriate communication with authors and readers.

5.2 Research Integrity Editor

The Research Integrity Editor supports the EiC in cases involving:

  • suspected research misconduct;

  • plagiarism;

  • fabrication;

  • falsification;

  • authorship disputes;

  • peer-review manipulation;

  • citation manipulation; and

  • other publication-integrity concerns.

5.3 Managing Editor

The Managing Editor is responsible for:

  • coordinating post-publication communications;

  • preparing notices;

  • maintaining records;

  • updating article metadata;

  • coordinating website updates;

  • supporting indexing notifications; and

  • maintaining links between articles and post-publication notices.

5.4 Editorial Board

The Editorial Board may provide expert advice on:

  • substantive corrections;

  • complex scholarly disputes;

  • ethical concerns;

  • retractions; and

  • other matters referred by the Editor-in-Chief.

Editorial Board members participating in a case must disclose relevant conflicts of interest.

5.5 Authors

Authors are responsible for:

  • notifying the journal promptly when they discover a material error;

  • cooperating with post-publication investigations;

  • providing accurate explanations;

  • supplying supporting information where appropriate;

  • responding to correction requests; and

  • acknowledging legitimate corrections.

5.6 Readers and Other Stakeholders

Readers, reviewers, institutions, and other stakeholders are encouraged to report credible concerns about published articles.

Reports should be made in good faith and should provide specific evidence wherever possible.

6. Editorial Independence in Post-Publication Decisions

Decisions concerning corrections, EoCs, and retractions must be made independently of:

  • the author's academic status;

  • institutional affiliation;

  • reputation;

  • political or commercial interests;

  • financial relationships;

  • citation impact;

  • journal metrics;

  • personal relationships; or

  • external pressure.

An article should not be protected from correction or retraction because its authors are prominent or because the article has received substantial attention or citations.

Conversely, an article should not be corrected or retracted merely because its conclusions are controversial or unpopular.

Post-publication action must be based on evidence and the integrity of the scholarly record.

This principle is consistent with MAJIS's Journal Management and Editorial Independence Policy.

7. Relationship with Other MAJIS Policies

This policy should be read together with:

  • Allegations of Misconduct;

  • Authorship and Contributorship;

  • Complaints and Appeals;

  • Conflicts of Interest;

  • Data and Reproducibility;

  • Ethical Oversight;

  • Intellectual Property, Copyright, and Licensing;

  • Journal Management and Editorial Independence;

  • Peer Review Process;

  • Plagiarism Policy;

  • Archiving Policy;

  • Repository (Self-Archiving) Policy;

  • Open Access Policy; and

  • AI Usage Policy.

Together, these policies establish MAJIS's framework for maintaining the integrity of the scholarly record before, during, and after publication.

8. COPE Resources

MAJIS follows relevant COPE guidance when managing post-publication concerns.

Important COPE resources include:

  • COPE Retraction Guidelines;

  • Dealing with concerns about the integrity of published research;

  • Expressions of Concern;

  • Responding to concerns raised directly;

  • Responding to anonymous concerns;

  • Plagiarism in a published article;

  • Fabricated data in a published article;

  • Inappropriate image manipulation in a published article;

  • Peer review manipulation suspected after publication;

  • Addressing concerns about systematic manipulation of the publication process; and

  • Authoring retraction notices.

COPE's Retraction Guidelines specifically address when retraction should be considered, what should be included in a retraction notice, who should issue it, how quickly action should be taken, how inconclusive evidence should be handled, and how multiple affected articles may be addressed.

Official COPE resources are available through the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

9. Final Statement

MAJIS recognises that publication is not the final stage of scholarly evaluation. The journal therefore welcomes responsible post-publication discussion and maintains mechanisms for correcting the scholarly record when errors, ethical concerns, or integrity problems are identified.

Readers and authors are encouraged to report credible concerns concerning published articles. The journal will assess such concerns fairly and proportionately and, where appropriate, may publish a correction, corrigendum, erratum, addendum, Expression of Concern, or retraction.

Corrections will be used where an article remains fundamentally reliable but contains a material error requiring formal amendment. Expressions of Concern may be used where substantial concerns exist but the available evidence is not yet sufficient for a final determination. Retraction will be considered where the published article is materially unreliable or seriously compromised by error, misconduct, plagiarism, duplicate publication, unethical research, or other circumstances that undermine the integrity of the scholarly record.

Post-publication notices will be clearly identified, dated, permanently maintained, and electronically linked to the affected article wherever technically feasible. Retracted articles will normally remain part of the public scholarly record but will be prominently marked as retracted.

MAJIS's approach is based on the principle that the primary purpose of correction and retraction is to preserve the accuracy an