INTELLECT JOURNAL • EDITORIAL & PUBLICATION ETHICS

Correction and Retraction Policy

Transparent post-publication updates and preservation of the scholarly record

Intellect: Indonesian Journal of Learning and Technological Innovation is committed to preserving an accurate, trustworthy, and transparent scholarly record. When a significant error or concern is identified after publication, the journal considers an appropriate and proportionate editorial response based on the available evidence.

This policy explains when and how the journal may issue corrections, expressions of concern, retractions, or exceptionally, removal notices. It complements the journal’s Publication Ethics, Research Misconduct, Conflict of Interest, and Post-Publication Discussion policies.

1. Purpose and Scope

This policy applies to all scholarly content published by Intellect, including articles released online before assignment to a particular issue. Once scholarly content has been made publicly available as a journal publication, concerns about its reliability are handled through the post-publication procedures described here.

The journal considers concerns raised by authors, readers, reviewers, editors, institutions, or other stakeholders. Decisions are based on the integrity and reliability of the published work, the seriousness of the problem, and the feasibility of correcting it without misleading readers.

2. Types of Post-Publication Action

Editorial clarifications or addenda may also be issued when they are justified by the scholarly record. A new interpretation, additional analysis, or subsequent research result does not automatically require a correction to an otherwise reliable article.

3. Circumstances That May Warrant Retraction

Consistent with the COPE Retraction Guidelines (2025), the journal may consider retraction when sufficiently supported evidence indicates that the work should no longer be treated as a reliable part of the scholarly record. Relevant circumstances may include:

• Major errors or unreliable findings: serious mistakes in data, analysis, calculations, or interpretation that invalidate essential findings or conclusions.
• Data or image integrity concerns: fabrication, falsification, inappropriate manipulation, or other irregularities materially affecting the evidence.
• Plagiarism or redundant publication: substantial unattributed use of others’ work, or overlapping publication without adequate disclosure, permission, or justification.
• Unethical or unauthorized research: serious breaches of research ethics, participant rights, privacy, or permissions for data and materials.
• Compromised editorial processes: manipulated or fabricated peer review, fictitious identities, paper-mill involvement, or other serious interference with scholarly evaluation.
• Material undisclosed competing interests: undisclosed relationships that may have substantially affected the interpretation of the work or the integrity of its assessment.

Retraction is not automatic following an allegation, a high text-similarity score, a disagreement over interpretation, or an authorship dispute. The journal assesses whether the evidence and resulting concerns are serious enough to justify retraction rather than correction or another action. An honest error may nevertheless justify retraction if the principal findings are no longer reliable.

4. Reporting Errors and Concerns

Authors and other stakeholders should notify the journal promptly when they identify a significant error or a credible concern about a published article. Reports should be submitted through the official Intellect Contact page and, where possible, include:

1. The title, author(s), year, DOI (if available), or URL of the article concerned.
2. A clear description of the apparent error, discrepancy, or ethical concern.
3. Supporting evidence, calculations, references, or other information sufficient to support an initial assessment.
4. Contact details and any relevant competing interests, where the correspondent is willing to provide them.

The journal may consider a substantiated anonymous report. However, insufficient evidence or the absence of a reliable contact channel can limit further inquiry. Reporters should not transmit identifiable participant data or confidential manuscripts through insecure channels.

5. Editorial Assessment and Fair Procedure

The Editor-in-Chief, or an editor appointed to act independently where a conflict exists, will assess the concern and determine an appropriate course of action. The journal may undertake the following steps, as relevant to the case:

1. Initial assessment: Identify the publication, the nature and seriousness of the concern, and the evidence available.
2. Author clarification: Invite the corresponding author and other relevant parties to respond and provide supporting material, except where this would be inappropriate for compelling legal or investigative reasons.
3. Independent examination: Seek advice from qualified, non-conflicted experts or contact research institutions and relevant publishers when specialized investigation is necessary.
4. Proportionate decision: Determine whether no public action, clarification, correction, an expression of concern, retraction, or exceptional removal is warranted.
5. Documentation and communication: Record the grounds for the decision and communicate the outcome to affected parties as appropriate.

An institution may investigate allegations about its researchers, while the journal remains responsible for the integrity of its own published record. The journal may act on reliable evidence without waiting indefinitely for an institutional determination. Editors involved in the article or holding a relevant competing interest must not oversee the assessment.

The journal aims to address serious concerns promptly while allowing a fair opportunity for clarification. It does not promise a fixed resolution period, because investigations may depend on evidence, expertise, and external proceedings. Authors’ agreement is sought where appropriate but does not determine the journal’s authority to correct or retract a publication.

6. Preparing and Publishing Formal Notices

A formal correction, expression of concern, or retraction notice will be clearly labeled, dated, freely accessible, and linked to the affected publication whenever technically possible. The notice should provide enough information for readers to understand the nature and significance of the change.

• Identification: State the article title, author(s), journal citation, and DOI or stable article URL.
• Reason and impact: Explain what is being corrected or why the content can no longer be relied upon; distinguish proven facts from unresolved concerns.
• Responsibility: Identify whether the notice is issued by the editors, publisher, authors, or another responsible party, as appropriate.
• Visibility and linkage: Link the notice and affected article in both directions where the publishing platform permits; visibly mark the article’s status.
• Persistent identification: Where supported by the journal’s registration workflow, assign a distinct DOI to a substantive notice and register the relationship in Crossref metadata.

Notices should use factual, neutral language and avoid unnecessary personal allegations. Notices are public statements about the status of the article, not confidential disciplinary findings. When further evidence changes an earlier conclusion, the journal may issue an additional linked notice explaining the updated outcome.

7. Preservation of the Publication Record

Wherever legally and ethically permissible, the original article and its bibliographic record will remain accessible after correction or retraction, accompanied by a conspicuous status notice and links to the relevant editorial decision. A retracted article must be clearly identified as retracted on its landing page and, where technically feasible, in downloadable full-text versions.

The journal will not alter historical submission, acceptance, or original publication dates merely to make an amended article appear unchanged. Any editorially significant revision must be traceable through its notice or version history. Where supported, updates will also be communicated through registered DOI metadata and relevant indexing or discovery services.

Crossref recommends registering separate, linked records for editorially significant updates. The journal will follow this approach where its technical and registration arrangements permit; this policy does not imply that the journal currently operates the Crossmark service.

8. Withdrawal Before Publication and Exceptional Removal

A manuscript that has not yet been published may be withdrawn or rejected through the editorial workflow in accordance with the journal’s submission and ethics policies. Such action is distinct from a post-publication retraction. An article already released online, including an online-first article, is considered published for purposes of this policy.

Removal of an already published article is exceptional and may be considered when continued access presents a compelling legal, privacy, or safety concern. Where possible, the journal will preserve an accessible notice identifying the work and explaining why full content is unavailable, without disclosing protected information. Removal will not be used to obscure research errors or suppress legitimate criticism.

9. Appeals, Accountability, and Related Policies

Authors or other affected parties may request reconsideration by providing a reasoned explanation and any new material evidence to the Editorial Office. Where feasible, an independent editor who was not involved in the original decision will review the request. Disagreement with an editorial decision does not in itself establish that the decision was improper.

Possible research misconduct is handled under the journal’s separate Research Misconduct procedures. Evidence-based scholarly critique is addressed through its Post-Publication Discussion procedures, while competing interests are assessed under its Conflict of Interest Policy. Editorial and financial decisions remain independent of the Article Processing Charge; the journal does not offer paid fast-track review.

Standards and guidance

COPE — Retraction Guidelines (2025)  ·  COPE — Expressions of Concern  ·  COPE–DOAJ Transparency Principles

Crossref — Corrections, Retractions and Version Control  ·  Scopus — Content Policy and Selection

Publisher: Yayasan Lembaga Studi Makwa (Makwa Foundation)
Journal: Intellect: Indonesian Journal of Learning and Technological Innovation