Post-Publication Discussion and Corrections

1. Introduction

The International Journal of Advanced Science Computing and Engineering (IJASCE) recognizes that scholarly evaluation continues after publication. Readers, authors, researchers, institutions, and other stakeholders may identify errors, alternative interpretations, ethical concerns, or other matters that require discussion or amendment of the published record.

IJASCE is committed to maintaining an accurate, transparent, and reliable scholarly record through appropriate mechanisms for post-publication discussion, corrections, expressions of concern, retractions, and other necessary editorial notices.

This policy implements the COPE Core Practice on Post-Publication Discussions and Corrections and is informed by relevant COPE guidance, including the COPE Retraction Guidelines and the Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing.

2. Scope

This policy applies to all content published by IJASCE and covers:

• post-publication scholarly comments and concerns;

• author responses to substantive post-publication concerns;

• corrections to published articles;

• corrections to metadata or publication information;

• expressions of concern;

• retractions;

• retraction and republication in exceptional circumstances;

• removal of published material in exceptional circumstances;

• updates to the status of an article following institutional or editorial findings; and

• other amendments necessary to maintain the integrity of the scholarly record.

3. General Principles

IJASCE will correct the scholarly record when reliable evidence demonstrates that published content requires amendment.

Editorial action will be based primarily on:

• the nature and seriousness of the problem;

• the reliability of the published findings or conclusions;

• whether the problem can be adequately corrected without invalidating the article as a whole;

• whether readers need to be alerted while a serious matter remains unresolved;

• the integrity and transparency of the scholarly record; and

• relevant IJASCE policies and COPE guidance.

Post-publication notices are intended primarily to correct and clarify the scholarly record rather than to punish authors or other individuals.

IJASCE will distinguish honest error from possible misconduct. Correction of the scholarly record does not necessarily imply misconduct.

4. Post-Publication Discussion

IJASCE welcomes evidence-based scholarly discussion concerning its published articles.

Readers, authors, institutions, and other stakeholders may submit substantive comments, criticisms, requests for clarification, replication findings, or concerns through the journal's official contact channel.

A post-publication communication should:

• clearly identify the article concerned;

• describe the specific issue or scholarly question;

• provide relevant evidence, references, data, or analysis where available;

• distinguish factual concerns from differences in interpretation or opinion; and

• use professional and non-defamatory language.

IJASCE may invite the authors of the original article to respond when this would contribute to a fair and informative scholarly discussion.

Where appropriate, IJASCE may publish a formal comment, author response, editorial note, or other post-publication communication supported by the journal's publication system and editorial procedures. Such material may be subject to editorial assessment and, where necessary, independent review.

IJASCE may also become aware of substantive discussions or concerns raised on external scholarly discussion platforms. However, individuals seeking formal editorial action are encouraged to communicate the concern directly to the journal so that it can be assessed through the journal's established procedures.

5. Reporting Errors or Concerns

Authors, readers, reviewers, editors, institutions, and other parties should inform IJASCE when they identify an error or concern that may materially affect a published article.

Reports should, where possible, include:

• the article title, DOI, or other identifying information;

• a clear description of the issue;

• the location of the affected material within the article;

• supporting evidence or relevant sources; and

• an explanation of the potential effect on the article's findings, interpretation, attribution, or integrity.

The journal will consider concerns regardless of whether they originate from a named or anonymous source, provided sufficient information is available for meaningful assessment.

6. Editorial Assessment

When IJASCE receives a credible post-publication concern, the journal will conduct an appropriate editorial assessment.

Depending on the issue, this may include:

• reviewing the article and relevant editorial records;

• requesting clarification from the authors;

• requesting data, code, images, documentation, or other supporting material;

• consulting independent subject, statistical, technical, or ethical experts;

• reviewing applicable IJASCE policies and COPE guidance;

• communicating with another journal where related publications are involved;

• contacting an institution or other competent authority where formal investigation is necessary; or

• taking interim action when readers require timely notification of a serious unresolved concern.

IJASCE distinguishes editorial assessment from a formal institutional investigation of researcher misconduct. Where formal investigation of researcher conduct is necessary, the relevant institution or competent authority normally has responsibility for that investigation.

7. Corrections

A Correction may be published when an error or omission affects the published record but does not invalidate the article's principal findings or conclusions.

Examples may include:

• errors in data presentation that do not invalidate the principal results;

• incorrect values, labels, equations, figure elements, or table entries;

• errors or omissions in attribution or citation;

• incorrect or incomplete funding or competing interest declarations;

• authorship changes supported by appropriate evidence;

• incorrect Data Availability or Ethics Statements;

• material metadata errors; or

• other errors for which correction is sufficient to restore an accurate scholarly record.

IJASCE normally uses the general label Correction rather than relying on the distinction between "erratum" and "corrigendum." The correction notice should explain what has been changed and why.

7.1 Minor Typographical and Production Errors

Minor spelling, punctuation, formatting, or typographical errors that do not affect meaning, interpretation, discoverability, attribution, or the scientific record do not necessarily require a formal correction notice.

IJASCE will not use the category of a minor typographical correction to make undisclosed substantive changes to a published article.

7.2 Correction Notices

A formal Correction should:

• be clearly identified as a correction;

• identify the affected article;

• describe the error and the correction accurately;

• state the date of the correction;

• be openly accessible;

• be permanently linked to the Version of Record; and

• where technically possible, be linked reciprocally from the affected article.

Where the full-text article is amended, the journal should make clear that a correction has occurred and maintain the relationship between the corrected article and the formal notice.

8. Expressions of Concern

An Expression of Concern may be published when substantial concerns exist about a published article but available evidence is not yet sufficient to determine whether correction or retraction is required.

An Expression of Concern may be appropriate when, for example:

• a serious question concerning reliability or research integrity remains unresolved;

• a relevant institutional investigation is underway and readers should be alerted before its conclusion;

• available evidence is inconclusive but sufficiently serious that readers should be informed;

• the journal has substantial concerns but cannot obtain information necessary to reach a definitive conclusion; or

• an investigation appears likely to require considerable time while continued reliance on the article may present a material risk.

An Expression of Concern is not a finding of misconduct and must not be written as though misconduct has already been established.

The notice should explain the nature of the unresolved concern as objectively as possible and should be linked to the affected article.

When sufficient information becomes available, IJASCE will reassess the article and may leave the publication unchanged, issue a correction, retract the article, or take another action appropriate to the evidence.

9. Retractions

IJASCE will consider retraction when reliable evidence demonstrates that an article is seriously unreliable, unethical, unlawfully published, or otherwise substantially compromises the integrity of the scholarly record.

Circumstances that may warrant retraction include:

• clear evidence that the principal findings are unreliable because of major error, miscalculation, experimental error, fabrication, falsification, or inappropriate manipulation;

• substantial plagiarism;

• redundant publication for which retraction is appropriate under COPE guidance;

• use of material or data without required authorization;

• serious copyright, privacy, or other legal infringement;

• research that is fundamentally unethical;

• publication resulting from materially compromised or manipulated peer review;

• a major undisclosed competing interest that materially undermines interpretation, recommendations, or confidence in the article; or

• another serious problem that renders the article's principal findings or conclusions unreliable.

Retraction does not require a finding of deliberate misconduct. An article may require retraction because of a major honest error when the findings can no longer be relied upon.

9.1 When Retraction Is Usually Not Appropriate

Retraction will not normally be used when:

• the principal findings remain reliable and the problem can be adequately addressed through a correction;

• an authorship dispute exists but there is no reason to doubt the reliability of the findings;

• evidence remains inconclusive and an Expression of Concern or further assessment is more appropriate; or

• a competing interest discovered after publication does not materially affect the interpretation, recommendations, or conclusions of the article.

9.2 Retraction Notices

A retraction notice will:

• be clearly identified as a Retraction;

• identify and link to the retracted article;

• state who is retracting the article;

• state the reason for retraction;

• distinguish evidence of misconduct from honest error where this is known;

• attribute institutional findings to the institution where appropriate;

• use objective, factual, and non-inflammatory language;

• be published promptly once the basis for retraction is sufficiently established; and

• remain freely accessible.

9.3 Treatment of the Retracted Article

A retracted article will normally remain part of the scholarly record rather than being deleted.

The article should be clearly marked as retracted, and the retraction notice should be prominently and permanently linked to it. Where technically possible, each accessible version of the article should clearly indicate its retracted status.

Retention of the retracted article is intended to preserve the publication history and prevent uncertainty concerning what was published and subsequently retracted.

10. Removal of Published Content

Complete removal of a published article is exceptional and is distinct from retraction.

IJASCE may restrict or remove content when continued public availability creates a compelling legal, privacy, confidentiality, security, safety, or other serious risk that cannot be adequately addressed by retraction alone.

Where removal is necessary, IJASCE should preserve an appropriate bibliographic or explanatory notice whenever legally and ethically permissible so that the scholarly record does not disappear without explanation.

11. Retraction and Republication

Retraction and republication may be considered only in exceptional circumstances when an article requires substantial correction but a corrected version can legitimately and transparently replace unreliable content while preserving the publication history.

The original publication must not simply disappear or be silently replaced. The original article, retraction notice, and republished article should be clearly linked so that readers can understand the complete history of the publication.

12. Version of Record and Article Amendments

IJASCE treats the published article as the Version of Record. Once published, substantive content should not be silently rewritten, replaced, supplemented with new findings, or materially altered without an appropriate documented editorial mechanism.

Corrections are intended to correct the existing record, not to convert a published article into a continuing research document.

New data, additional experiments, substantially revised analyses, or new findings that extend the original study should normally be communicated through a new scholarly work rather than inserted retrospectively into the published Version of Record.

Where the publishing platform technically maintains article versions, IJASCE will ensure that material changes are transparent and that readers can identify the relationship between versions and associated notices.

13. Metadata and Indexing Updates

When a formal correction, expression of concern, or retraction is issued, IJASCE will update the article's journal metadata as appropriate and, where technically supported, communicate the changed publication status to relevant DOI, indexing, abstracting, repository, or scholarly infrastructure services.

The purpose is to ensure that the publication status is visible not only on the IJASCE website but also, where possible, through systems used to discover and cite the article.

14. Institutional Findings and Editorial Decisions

IJASCE may cooperate with research institutions, employers, funders, other journals, or competent authorities when post-publication concerns require evidence or formal investigation beyond the journal's authority.

The journal does not ordinarily determine whether an individual has committed formal research misconduct. Such determinations normally fall within the authority of the relevant institution or competent body.

However, IJASCE retains responsibility for the status of content it publishes. A decision to correct, issue an Expression of Concern, or retract an article does not necessarily depend on a formal institutional finding of misconduct when sufficient evidence already demonstrates that action is required to protect the scholarly record.

15. Responsibilities

Authors must notify IJASCE promptly when they discover a material error in their published work and must cooperate with legitimate post-publication inquiries.

Readers and other stakeholders are encouraged to raise evidence-based concerns and provide sufficient information for meaningful editorial assessment.

Editors are responsible for assessing post-publication concerns fairly, managing relevant competing interests, consulting appropriate expertise, following applicable IJASCE policies and COPE guidance, and determining what editorial action is necessary to maintain the scholarly record.

Institutions and competent authorities may be responsible for formal investigation of research or researcher conduct when matters exceed the journal's authority.

16. Communication and Timeframes

IJASCE aims to acknowledge substantive post-publication concerns within five business days.

The time required to resolve a concern depends on its complexity, the evidence available, the need for expert advice, author responses, and any institutional involvement. IJASCE therefore does not impose a fixed deadline for completing complex post-publication assessments.

Where a serious concern cannot be resolved promptly and readers may need to be alerted, the journal will consider whether an interim Expression of Concern or other appropriate notice is warranted.

17. Appeals and Complaints Concerning Post-Publication Decisions

Authors or other affected parties may raise a complaint or appeal concerning the journal's handling of a correction, expression of concern, retraction, or other post-publication action in accordance with the IJASCE Complaints and Appeals Policy.

An appeal does not automatically suspend a correction or retraction that the editor considers necessary to protect the scholarly record.

18. Related Policies and References

• COPE Core Practice — Post-Publication Discussions and Corrections

• COPE Retraction Guidelines, DOI: 10.24318/cope.2019.1.4

• COPE guidance and flowcharts concerning post-publication concerns, corrections, expressions of concern, and retractions

• COPE Guidelines on Cooperation Between Research Institutions and Journals on Research Integrity and Publication Misconduct Cases

• Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing, developed by COPE, DOAJ, OASPA, and WAME

• IJASCE Allegations of Misconduct Policy

• IJASCE Complaints and Appeals Policy

• IJASCE Plagiarism and Text Overlap Policy

• IJASCE Data and Reproducibility Policy

• IJASCE Ethical Oversight Policy

• IJASCE Conflicts of Interest / Competing Interests Policy

19. Review and Updates

This policy was reviewed in September 2026. IJASCE will review and update the policy periodically in response to developments in COPE guidance, post-publication standards, publishing infrastructure, and recognized practices for maintaining the integrity of the scholarly record.