Policy on Handling Post-Publication Issues

Frontiers in Preventive Medicine is committed to upholding the integrity of the scholarly record. We recognize a responsibility to correct the record when necessary and to be transparent about any serious concerns. This policy outlines our procedures for handling post-publication issues, in accordance with the best practices and flowcharts provided by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

Purpose: An Erratum is published to correct a significant error(s) in a published article that affects the scientific integrity, the publication record, or the reputation of the authors or the journal, but where the scholarly findings as a whole remain valid and reliable.

Grounds for Issuance:

• An error in data or calculations that does not alter the main conclusions.

• Errors in authorship (e.g., an missing or misspelled author name).

• Errors in the acknowledgment or funding statement.

• Other factual errors that require clarification.

Process:

1. Identification: Errors can be identified by the authors, readers, reviewers, or editors.

2. Assessment: The editorial office, in consultation with the corresponding author and if necessary, subject experts, assesses the impact of the error.

3. Decision: If the error is deemed significant, a decision to publish a Correction is made.

4. Publication: The Correction is published as a separate, citable article with its own DOI, clearly linked bidirectionally to the original article. A prominent notice is also added to the original article's HTML and PDF versions, alerting readers to the existence of the Correction.

Purpose: A Retraction is issued to remove a published article from the scholarly record when the findings are deemed unreliable due to major error or misconduct, or in cases of redundant publication, plagiarism, or unethical research.

Grounds for Issuance:

• Clear evidence of unreliable data or findings, whether as a result of misconduct (e.g., data fabrication) or honest error (e.g., miscalculation).

• Plagiarism or redundant publication.

• Unethical research conduct.

• Legal/defamatory content or privacy violations.

Process:

1. Investigation: Upon receiving an allegation, the Editor-in-Chief initiates an investigation. This may involve contacting the authors' institution(s).

2. Notification: The corresponding author is informed of the allegation and given an opportunity to respond.

3. Decision: The final decision to retract is made by the Editor-in-Chief, based on conclusive evidence and potentially in consultation with the editorial board. The authors may be asked to agree to the retraction, but their agreement is not mandatory.

4. Publication of Retraction Notice:

   • The Retraction Notice is published as a separate, citable article, clearly stating the reason for retraction and who is retracting the article.

   • The title of the original article is prefixed with "RETRACTED:" in all its forms (HTML and PDF).

   • The Retraction Notice is bidirectionally linked to the original article. A prominent watermark may be added to the PDF.

   • The original article remains accessible online to maintain the scholarly record, but is unequivocally marked as retracted.

Purpose: An Editorial Expression of Concern is issued to alert the readership to serious, but as yet unresolved, concerns about the integrity of a published article. It is used when an investigation is ongoing and a final conclusion has not been reached.

Grounds for Issuance:

• Inconclusive evidence of authorship or research misconduct.

• Belief that an institutional investigation into alleged misconduct related to the publication is underway but has not been, or will not be, concluded for a considerable time.

• The editors believe the findings are unreliable, but the authors' institution will not investigate the case.

Process:

1. Assessment: The Editor-in-Chief assesses whether the concerns are serious enough that the academic community should be alerted while awaiting a final resolution.

2. Publication: An Editorial Expression of Concern is published as a citable notice, linked to the original article. It explains the nature of the concerns clearly and objectively.

3. Resolution: Once a final determination is made, the Expression of Concern is replaced by either a formal Retraction Notice, a Correction, or a notification that the concerns have been resolved.

• Transparency: All notices will be freely accessible and explicitly state the reason for the action.

• Timeliness: Actions will be taken as promptly as possible to minimize the impact of unreliable information.

• Fairness: Authors will be given the opportunity to respond to any allegations at all stages of the process.

• Consistency: Decisions will be guided by the COPE guidelines and flowcharts.

To report a potential error or concern regarding a published article, please contact the editorial office at editorial@fpmjournal.org.