Retraction and Expression of Concern

1. Introduction

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

The publication of an article does not terminate the journal's responsibility for the integrity of the published record. Errors, new evidence, ethical concerns, research misconduct, or publication-related problems may become apparent after an article has been published. In such circumstances, MAJIS will take appropriate and proportionate action to ensure that readers are not misled and that the scholarly record remains trustworthy.

This policy establishes the procedures and criteria governing the use of:

• Retraction; and

• Expression of Concern (EoC).

A retraction is used when there is clear and sufficient evidence that a published article is materially unreliable or seriously compromised. An Expression of Concern is used as an interim editorial mechanism when substantial concerns exist but an investigation is ongoing, inconclusive, or otherwise insufficient to support an immediate final determination.

MAJIS follows the principles and relevant guidance of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) when assessing and implementing retractions and Expressions of Concern. JOSI likewise identifies COPE's Retraction Guidelines, Expressions of Concern, Authoring Retraction Notices, and related resources as the principal references for these procedures.

The purpose of retraction is to correct the scholarly record and alert readers to the unreliability of the published work. Retraction is not intended primarily as a punitive measure against authors.

This policy applies to all formally published MAJIS content for which a post-publication integrity concern arises.

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

---

2. Description

2.1 Retraction

Retraction is a formal post-publication action through which MAJIS identifies a published article as unreliable or seriously compromised and formally withdraws its validity from the scholarly record.

Retraction does not ordinarily mean that the article is physically removed from the journal's archive. Instead, the article remains part of the public scholarly record but is clearly marked as RETRACTED, with a permanent link to the corresponding Retraction Notice.

Retraction may be initiated by:

• the Editor-in-Chief;

• another authorised editor;

• the author or authors;

• a reader;

• a reviewer;

• an institution;

• an ethics committee; or

• another credible source providing relevant evidence.

The decision to retract rests with the journal and must be based on an assessment of the available evidence.

2.2 Expression of Concern

An Expression of Concern (EoC) is a formal editorial notice issued to alert readers that substantial concerns exist regarding the reliability, integrity, or ethical status of a published article.

An EoC may be appropriate when:

• an investigation into alleged misconduct is ongoing;

• an investigation is expected to be prolonged;

• available evidence is inconclusive;

• the journal cannot yet establish whether the article should be corrected or retracted; or

• there are well-founded concerns that readers should be informed about before the matter is resolved.

An EoC is an interim measure. It does not, by itself, establish that research or publication misconduct has occurred.

2.3 Relationship Between Retraction and Expression of Concern

Retraction and EoC serve different purposes.

Retraction	Expression of Concern
Final editorial action concerning an unreliable or seriously compromised article	Interim warning concerning a published article
Requires sufficient evidence for retraction	May be issued while evidence is incomplete
Clearly identifies the article as retracted	Alerts readers to unresolved concerns
Normally remains permanently linked to the article	Should be updated or superseded when the matter is resolved
May follow an investigation	May be issued while an investigation is ongoing

An EoC may subsequently result in:

• no further action;

• a correction;

• an addendum;

• confirmation of the article's validity; or

• retraction.

2.4 Relationship to Corrections

Retraction should not be used for minor errors that do not materially affect the article's findings or conclusions.

Where an article remains fundamentally reliable but contains a significant correctable error, MAJIS will normally consider a Correction, Corrigendum, or Erratum instead.

This distinction is consistent with the JOSI framework, which reserves retraction for circumstances involving unreliable findings, serious misconduct, redundant publication, or unethical research, while using corrections for significant errors that do not invalidate the article's core findings.

2.5 Relationship to Allegations of Misconduct

Where a potential retraction arises from suspected:

• fabrication;

• falsification;

• plagiarism;

• duplicate publication;

• authorship manipulation;

• peer-review manipulation;

• unethical research; or

• other serious publication misconduct,

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

A retraction decision may therefore depend on the outcome of an investigation by MAJIS, the authors' institution, another competent body, or a combination of these processes.

---

3. Policy

3.1 Commitment to the Integrity of the Scholarly Record

MAJIS has a continuing responsibility to ensure that its published literature remains as accurate and reliable as reasonably possible.

The journal will investigate credible concerns about published articles and will take appropriate action when evidence demonstrates that the article requires:

• correction;

• an Expression of Concern;

• retraction; or

• another appropriate post-publication action.

3.2 Impartiality and Editorial Independence

Decisions concerning retraction and Expressions of Concern must be made objectively and independently.

The decision must not depend on:

• the academic status of the authors;

• institutional affiliation;

• seniority;

• reputation;

• nationality;

• gender;

• personal relationships;

• citation impact;

• journal metrics;

• commercial interests; or

• external pressure.

JOSI similarly specifies that decisions concerning corrections, retractions, and Expressions of Concern should be made objectively, without regard to the status, affiliation, or seniority of authors.

3.3 Grounds for Retraction

MAJIS may retract a published article where there is clear evidence that the article is unreliable or seriously compromised.

Grounds for retraction include, but are not limited to:

3.3.1 Unreliable Findings Due to Major Error

Retraction may be appropriate where a major error substantially invalidates the findings or conclusions.

Examples may include:

• major calculation errors;

• serious analytical errors;

• substantial methodological errors;

• incorrect interpretation of critical evidence; or

• other errors of sufficient magnitude that the principal conclusions are no longer justified.

3.3.2 Fabrication

Retraction may be warranted where there is evidence that data, findings, sources, research procedures, or other scholarly materials were fabricated.

3.3.3 Falsification

Retraction may be warranted where research materials, data, procedures, results, or other information have been manipulated or selectively altered or omitted in a manner that materially misrepresents the research.

3.3.4 Plagiarism

Substantial plagiarism may constitute grounds for retraction.

This may include substantial unattributed appropriation of:

• text;

• ideas;

• arguments;

• translations;

• data;

• images;

• tables;

• analytical frameworks; or

• other scholarly material.

3.3.5 Redundant or Duplicate Publication

Retraction may be considered where an article has been substantially duplicated or redundantly published and the duplication materially compromises the scholarly record.

3.3.6 Unethical Research

Retraction may be appropriate where the research was conducted in serious violation of applicable ethical requirements.

Examples may include:

• failure to obtain required ethical approval;

• absence of required informed consent;

• serious violation of participant rights;

• serious misuse of confidential information; or

• other ethical violations that materially affect the legitimacy of the research.

JOSI expressly identifies unethical research, including failure to obtain required ethics approval or informed consent, among circumstances that may justify retraction.

3.3.7 Other Serious Publication-Integrity Problems

Retraction may also be considered where serious problems compromise the integrity of the publication process, including:

• systematic peer-review manipulation;

• serious authorship manipulation;

• undisclosed conflicts of interest that materially affect the integrity of the work;

• serious citation manipulation;

• substantial manipulation of editorial processes; or

• other circumstances that make the published article unreliable.

3.4 Minor Errors

Retraction should not normally be used for:

• typographical errors;

• minor formatting errors;

• minor citation errors;

• minor wording problems; or

• other errors that do not materially affect the article's findings, interpretation, or conclusions.

Such matters may be handled through correction or editorial amendment.

3.5 Expression of Concern

MAJIS may issue an Expression of Concern when there are substantial, well-founded concerns regarding a published article but a final determination cannot yet be made.

An EoC may be appropriate where:

1. evidence of misconduct is inconclusive;

2. an investigation is ongoing;

3. an institutional investigation has not yet concluded;

4. an investigation is expected to take a prolonged period;

5. important evidence is unavailable;

6. the journal has serious concerns about the reliability of findings; or

7. readers should be alerted while the matter remains unresolved.

These circumstances closely follow the EoC framework adopted by JOSI.

3.6 EoC Does Not Establish Misconduct

An Expression of Concern must not be presented as proof that misconduct has occurred.

The notice should distinguish clearly between:

• established facts;

• allegations;

• ongoing investigations;

• unresolved concerns; and

• confirmed findings.

MAJIS will use neutral and evidence-based language when publishing an EoC.

3.7 Author Cooperation

Authors of published MAJIS articles are expected to cooperate fully with post-publication investigations.

Where appropriate, authors may be asked to:

• provide clarification;

• provide supporting documentation;

• provide relevant research materials;

• explain methodological decisions;

• provide data or evidence where reasonably available;

• respond to allegations;

• correct errors; or

• cooperate with institutional investigations.

JOSI similarly requires authors to cooperate with the journal in resolving post-publication issues, including providing data or necessary clarifications when requested.

3.8 Institutional Cooperation

MAJIS may contact the relevant institution or responsible organisation where an allegation concerns matters that require institutional investigation.

This may include:

• research misconduct;

• fabrication or falsification;

• ethical approval;

• informed consent;

• authorship disputes;

• data integrity;

• research records; or

• other matters that the journal cannot adequately resolve independently.

3.9 Author Disagreement

An author's disagreement with a proposed retraction does not automatically prevent retraction.

MAJIS will consider the author's response as part of the assessment but will make the final editorial decision based on the available evidence and applicable ethical standards.

3.10 Retraction Requested by Authors

Authors may request retraction where they believe that:

• substantial errors invalidate the article;

• ethical problems have been identified;

• findings are unreliable; or

• another legitimate basis for retraction exists.

The Editor-in-Chief will assess the request independently.

An author request does not automatically result in retraction.

3.11 Retraction Without Author Consent

MAJIS may retract an article when the evidence establishes that retraction is necessary even if:

• one or more authors disagree;

• authors cannot be contacted;

• authors do not respond;

• authors dispute the findings of an investigation; or

• authors do not agree unanimously.

The journal should document the basis for its decision.

3.12 Retraction and Public Record

A retracted article should ordinarily remain part of the public scholarly record.

MAJIS will not normally delete or silently remove a retracted article because doing so may obscure the publication history.

Instead:

• the article will be clearly marked RETRACTED;

• the Retraction Notice will be prominently displayed;

• the notice will be linked to the article; and

• the article's status will be communicated through relevant metadata and indexing channels where feasible.

This approach is consistent with JOSI's policy that a retracted article remains part of the public record while being clearly marked as retracted.

3.13 Retraction Notice

Every formal retraction should be accompanied by a clear and citable Retraction Notice.

The notice should:

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

• identify the original article;

• identify the authors;

• identify the original publication;

• state who is retracting the article;

• provide the reason or reasons for retraction;

• distinguish honest error from misconduct where possible and appropriate;

• provide the date of retraction; and

• link electronically to the original article.

JOSI specifies that the Retraction Notice should be authored by the Editor-in-Chief or by retracting authors when they initiate the retraction, and should clearly identify the reason for retraction.

3.14 Clear Identification of Retracted Articles

The retracted article must be clearly identified in all available versions, including where applicable:

• HTML;

• PDF;

• article landing page;

• metadata;

• bibliographic records; and

• indexing information.

The retraction status should be visible without requiring readers to locate a separate page manually.

3.15 Expression of Concern Notice

An EoC should be published as a separate, citable notice.

The notice should:

• clearly identify the affected article;

• state that an Expression of Concern has been issued;

• describe the nature of the concern;

• distinguish allegations from established facts;

• explain whether an investigation is ongoing;

• provide sufficient information for readers to understand the concern; and

• link to the original article.

3.16 Follow-Up of Expressions of Concern

An EoC must not be treated as a permanent substitute for a final editorial determination when the underlying matter can be resolved.

When sufficient information becomes available, MAJIS should determine whether to:

• close the concern;

• publish a clarification;

• publish a correction;

• publish an addendum;

• maintain or update the EoC; or

• retract the article.

JOSI explicitly provides that an EoC should be updated or replaced when further information becomes available or an investigation concludes.

3.17 Permanent Linking

Retraction Notices and EoCs must be permanently linked to the affected article.

Where technically feasible, links should operate in both directions:

Article → Notice

and

Notice → Article

This ensures that readers encountering either document can identify the current publication status.

3.18 Indexing and Abstracting Services

MAJIS will take reasonable steps to communicate retractions and significant Expressions of Concern to relevant:

• indexing services;

• abstracting databases;

• repository systems; and

• other scholarly information services.

The objective is to ensure that readers are alerted to changes in the status of a publication.

JOSI similarly states that retraction notices should be promptly communicated to indexing and abstracting services.

3.19 Retraction and Citation

A retracted article may remain visible in citation databases because it forms part of the historical scholarly record.

However, the article's retracted status must be clearly indicated.

Authors citing a retracted article should clearly identify its retracted status and should not present its findings as established valid evidence.

3.20 Retraction Does Not Automatically Imply Author Misconduct

A retraction does not by itself establish that every author committed misconduct.

The Retraction Notice should distinguish, where possible and appropriate, between:

• honest error;

• methodological or analytical error;

• misconduct;

• institutional findings; and

• unresolved circumstances.

Where misconduct has not been established, MAJIS should avoid language that implies otherwise.

3.21 Confidentiality During Investigation

Investigations preceding an EoC or retraction should be conducted confidentially to the extent reasonably possible.

Information should be disclosed only to individuals who need it for:

• investigation;

• editorial decision-making;

• institutional processes;

• legal compliance; or

• other legitimate purposes.

Once a formal EoC or Retraction Notice is published, the journal may disclose the information necessary to explain the editorial action.

3.22 Conflicts of Interest

Editors involved in a retraction or EoC must disclose relevant conflicts of interest.

Where the Editor-in-Chief has a significant conflict, the matter should be assigned to an appropriately independent senior editor or other qualified decision-maker.

3.23 Appeals

Authors or other relevant parties may appeal a retraction decision in accordance with the MAJIS Complaints and Appeals Policy.

An appeal should identify:

• the specific decision being challenged;

• the procedural or factual basis for the appeal;

• relevant new evidence, where applicable; and

• the requested reconsideration.

An appeal should not ordinarily reopen a matter merely because the party disagrees with the editorial judgment without providing a substantive basis.

---

4. Technicalities to Achieve and Materialise the Policies

A. Initiation of a Retraction or EoC Process

1. Sources of Concerns

Concerns may originate from:

• authors;

• co-authors;

• reviewers;

• editors;

• readers;

• institutions;

• ethics committees;

• funding organisations;

• whistleblowers; or

• other credible sources.

MAJIS will consider credible concerns regardless of their source.

2. Initial Screening

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

• whether the concern is sufficiently specific;

• whether supporting evidence is available;

• whether the matter concerns an article published by MAJIS;

• whether immediate action is necessary; and

• whether the issue falls under another MAJIS policy.

3. Preliminary Assessment

The journal may assess:

• the article and its publication history;

• editorial records;

• peer-review records;

• available supporting documentation;

• relevant correspondence;

• authors' explanations;

• institutional information; and

• other credible evidence.

---

B. Investigation

1. Author Contact

Where appropriate, MAJIS will contact the authors and provide them with an opportunity to respond.

The authors may be asked to provide:

• explanations;

• supporting evidence;

• underlying data;

• research documentation;

• ethics approval documentation;

• clarification of authorship;

• clarification of sources; or

• other relevant information.

2. Reviewer or Editorial Consultation

The journal may consult:

• original reviewers;

• Associate Editors;

• Editorial Board members;

• independent subject experts; or

• research-integrity specialists.

Consulted individuals must disclose relevant conflicts of interest.

3. Institutional Contact

Where the issue concerns possible research misconduct, MAJIS may contact the relevant institution.

Institutional involvement may be particularly appropriate where:

• misconduct is alleged;

• data integrity is disputed;

• ethical approval is questioned;

• authorship cannot be independently resolved;

• research records are required; or

• the institution is responsible for conducting a formal investigation.

4. Evidence Assessment

Evidence should be evaluated according to:

• relevance;

• reliability;

• consistency;

• specificity;

• provenance; and

• relationship to the published article.

The journal should distinguish between credible evidence and unverified allegations.

---

C. Retraction Procedure

1. Determination

Where the evidence demonstrates that the article is materially unreliable or seriously compromised, the Editor-in-Chief may determine that retraction is warranted.

2. Decision Documentation

The journal should document:

• the concern;

• evidence reviewed;

• responses received;

• consultations undertaken;

• decision rationale; and

• final action.

3. Retraction Notice Preparation

The Retraction Notice should be prepared as a separate publication.

The title should normally follow the format:

Retraction: [Original Article Title]

4. Contents of the Notice

The notice should contain:

1. article title;

2. author names;

3. bibliographic information;

4. DOI or persistent identifier;

5. original publication date;

6. retraction date;

7. statement identifying the retracting party;

8. reason for retraction;

9. distinction between error and misconduct where possible;

10. relevant institutional findings where appropriate; and

11. link to the original article.

5. Publication

The Retraction Notice should be:

• published promptly once the decision is final;

• independently citable;

• permanently available;

• linked to the article; and

• clearly identified in the journal's website and metadata.

6. Article Marking

The article's:

• HTML page;

• PDF;

• metadata;

• citation information; and

• other accessible versions

should clearly indicate:

RETRACTED

The original article should not be silently replaced with an unmarked version.

---

D. Expression of Concern Procedure

1. Decision to Issue an EoC

The Editor-in-Chief may issue an EoC where:

• concerns are substantial;

• evidence is credible;

• the article's reliability may be affected; and

• a final determination cannot yet be made.

2. Timing

An EoC may be issued:

• during an ongoing investigation;

• while awaiting institutional findings;

• when an investigation is expected to be prolonged; or

• when available evidence remains inconclusive.

3. Preparation of the Notice

The notice should be clearly titled:

Expression of Concern: [Original Article Title]

4. Contents

The EoC should:

• identify the article;

• describe the concern;

• explain why the concern is significant;

• identify whether an investigation is ongoing;

• avoid presenting allegations as established facts; and

• alert readers that the status of the article may change.

5. Linking

The EoC should be linked directly to:

• the article landing page;

• the HTML version where available;

• the PDF where technically feasible; and

• relevant metadata.

6. Follow-Up

When the matter is resolved, the journal should issue an appropriate follow-up action.

Possible outcomes include:

No further action → Correction → Addendum → Retraction

depending on the evidence and circumstances.

---

E. Exceptional Circumstances: Removal or Replacement

1. Article Removal

Article removal should be exceptionally rare.

It may be considered where continued public availability creates serious legal, ethical, privacy, or safety concerns that cannot reasonably be addressed through retraction.

Examples may include:

• serious violation of personal privacy;

• legally protected confidential information;

• copyright infringement that cannot be adequately resolved otherwise;

• defamatory content creating significant legal risk; or

• other exceptional circumstances.

2. Retraction and Replacement

In exceptional circumstances, a retracted article may be replaced by a corrected version where:

• the underlying research remains valuable;

• the problem resulted from an honest error;

• the error fundamentally undermined the original article;

• a corrected version can be independently verified; and

• replacement is preferable to leaving the literature without a corrected account.

The original retraction must remain part of the publication history.

Any replacement must clearly explain the relationship between the original and corrected versions.

---

F. Discoverability and Metadata

MAJIS will take reasonable steps to ensure that:

• retraction notices are indexed;

• EoCs are discoverable;

• article metadata reflect publication status;

• persistent identifiers remain connected;

• repository records are updated where appropriate; and

• relevant indexing services are notified.

The objective is to prevent readers from unknowingly relying on an article whose status has materially changed.

---

G. Record Keeping

MAJIS will maintain appropriate confidential records of:

• allegations;

• evidence;

• author responses;

• institutional communications;

• editorial assessments;

• expert consultations;

• decisions;

• EoCs;

• Retraction Notices; and

• related correspondence.

Records should be maintained according to the journal's applicable document-retention and privacy requirements.

---

5. Responsibilities

5.1 Editor-in-Chief

The Editor-in-Chief is responsible for:

• overseeing retraction and EoC decisions;

• ensuring that investigations are fair and evidence-based;

• maintaining editorial independence;

• consulting appropriate parties;

• approving formal notices;

• ensuring clear communication with authors;

• ensuring appropriate public notification; and

• ensuring that relevant indexing services are informed.

5.2 Research Integrity Editor

The Research Integrity Editor supports the Editor-in-Chief in cases involving:

• suspected misconduct;

• plagiarism;

• fabrication;

• falsification;

• unethical research;

• peer-review manipulation;

• authorship concerns; and

• other serious publication-integrity issues.

5.3 Managing Editor

The Managing Editor is responsible for:

• preparing and publishing notices;

• maintaining publication records;

• updating metadata;

• maintaining article-notice links;

• communicating with indexing services where applicable; and

• maintaining administrative documentation.

5.4 Editorial Board

The Editorial Board may provide expert advice on complex cases.

Members involved in a case must disclose relevant conflicts of interest and recuse themselves where appropriate.

5.5 Authors

Authors are expected to:

• notify MAJIS promptly of material errors;

• cooperate with investigations;

• provide relevant evidence;

• respond to requests for clarification;

• cooperate with institutions where appropriate; and

• acknowledge legitimate corrections or retractions.

5.6 Readers and Other Stakeholders

Readers and other stakeholders are encouraged to report credible concerns regarding published articles.

Reports should be made in good faith and should provide sufficient information for the journal to assess the matter.

---

6. Relationship with Other MAJIS Policies

This policy should be read together with:

• Allegations of Misconduct;

• Post-Publication Discussions and Corrections;

• Complaints and Appeals;

• Authorship and Contributorship;

• Conflicts of Interest;

• Ethical Oversight;

• Data and Reproducibility;

• Peer Review Process;

• Journal Management and Editorial Independence;

• Intellectual Property, Copyright, and Licensing;

• Repository Policy; and

• Archiving Policy.

In particular:

• suspected misconduct is handled under the Allegations of Misconduct Policy;

• ordinary publication errors are handled under the Post-Publication Discussions and Corrections Policy;

• challenges to editorial procedures may be handled under the Complaints and Appeals Policy; and

• data-related concerns may require application of the Data and Reproducibility Policy.

---

7. COPE Resources

MAJIS refers to relevant COPE resources when evaluating retractions and Expressions of Concern, including:

• Retraction Guidelines — COPE;

• Expressions of Concern — COPE;

• Authoring Retraction Notices — COPE Position Statement;

• Handling Retractions and Expressions of Concern for Old Articles — COPE;

• Responding to Concerns Raised Directly — COPE Flowchart;

• Responding to Concerns Raised via Social Media — COPE Flowchart;

• Responding to Anonymous Concerns — COPE Discussion Document;

• Dealing with Concerns about the Integrity of Published Research — COPE;

• Fabricated Data in a Published Article — COPE;

• Plagiarism in a Published Article — COPE;

• Inappropriate Image Manipulation in a Published Article — COPE;

• Peer Review Manipulation Suspected After Publication — COPE; and

• Addressing Concerns about Systematic Manipulation of the Publication Process — COPE.

These resources are also explicitly identified in JOSI's post-publication and misconduct policies as relevant resources for handling retractions, Expressions of Concern, and integrity concerns.

Official COPE guidance should be consulted when a case presents circumstances not specifically addressed by this policy.

---

8. Final Statement

MAJIS considers the integrity of the published scholarly record to be a continuing editorial responsibility.

A Retraction will be considered when there is clear evidence that a published article is materially unreliable or seriously compromised as a result of major error, fabrication, falsification, substantial plagiarism, redundant publication, unethical research, or other serious publication-integrity problems.

An Expression of Concern may be issued when substantial and well-founded concerns exist but the available evidence is not yet sufficient for a final determination, particularly where an investigation is ongoing, prolonged, or inconclusive.

An Expression of Concern is an interim measure and does not by itself establish misconduct. Once additional evidence becomes available or an investigation is concluded, MAJIS will determine whether the article should remain unchanged, be corrected, receive an addendum, remain subject to an updated concern, or be retracted.

Where retraction is necessary, MAJIS will publish a clear, citable, and permanently linked Retraction Notice. The retracted article will ordinarily remain accessible as part of the scholarly record but will be prominently marked as RETRACTED. Relevant indexing and abstracting services will be notified where appropriate.

All decisions will be made objectively and independently, based on the available evidence and relevant publication-ethics standards rather than the status, affiliation, seniority, reputation, or influence of the authors.

Through this policy, MAJIS seeks to ensure that retractions and Expressions of Concern function as mechanisms for protecting and correcting the scholarly record, while providing authors and other stakeholders with a fair, transparent, and properly documented process.

This policy has been developed with reference to the relevant COPE Core Practices, Retraction Guidelines, Expressions of Concern guidance, and guidance on authoring retraction notices. It does not constitute or imply COPE approval, certification, or endorsement.