JOVISHE: Journal of Visionary Sharia Economy, published by Yayasan Lembaga Studi Makwa (Makwa Foundation), Indonesia, is committed to maintaining an accurate, trustworthy, and accessible scholarly record. Responsibility for research integrity continues after publication. When a substantive error, ethical concern, or other reliability issue comes to light, the journal will consider an evidence-based response that is appropriate to the nature and seriousness of the problem.

This policy sets out the grounds, editorial authority, investigative procedures, notice requirements, and record-preservation arrangements for corrections, expressions of concern, retractions, and exceptional removals. It complements JOVISHE’s Publication Ethics, Research Misconduct, Plagiarism Policy, Conflict of Interest, and Post-Publication Discussion policies.

This policy applies to all material formally published by JOVISHE, including original research, review articles, conceptual contributions, applied innovation studies, and journal articles made publicly available online before issue assignment. Once an article is publicly released as scholarly journal content, a later concern is managed as a post-publication matter rather than through ordinary manuscript withdrawal.

Concerns may originate from authors, readers, researchers, institutions, peer reviewers, indexing services, or members of the editorial team. The journal considers both honest mistakes and possible research or publication misconduct; a decision concerning the reliability of the article does not necessarily imply a determination of an individual’s intent or culpability.

The policy is informed by the COPE Retraction Guidelines (2025), relevant ICMJE recommendations, Crossref practices for registered updates, NISO recommendations on communicating publication status, and the Indonesian accreditation technical guidance for 2026. These external documents guide implementation; they do not establish that a particular incident has occurred at JOVISHE.

JOVISHE distinguishes the following responses so that readers can understand both the severity of the issue and the precise status of the affected article.

A correction is considered when a specific, verifiable error or omission affects the accuracy, attribution, or interpretation of an article but does not invalidate its principal findings. JOVISHE may seek the original data, analytical files, corrected figures, or independent methodological advice before determining whether a correction is sufficient.

Trivial typographical or display changes without scientific significance may be implemented as minor amendments where justified, provided they do not conceal an important revision. Sensitive corrections to author identity or personal details should take appropriate account of privacy and safety. A revision that changes essential conclusions is not made acceptable merely by labeling it a correction.

Consistent with the COPE Retraction Guidelines (2025), the journal may consider retraction when sufficiently reliable evidence indicates that a publication should not continue to be presented as a dependable contribution to the scholarly record. Grounds may include:

• Unreliable central findings. Fundamental errors in research design, data, econometric analysis, calculations, or interpretation that invalidate important results, whether arising from honest error or misconduct.
• Fabricated or falsified evidence. Invented survey responses, financial records, transaction data, interviews, analyses, figures, or other research evidence; or misleading manipulation of source material.
• Substantial plagiarism or redundant publication. Unattributed appropriation or overlapping publication of findings without appropriate acknowledgement, authorisation, or scholarly justification.
• Serious ethics or privacy violations. Material breaches of applicable research ethics, permissions, participant consent, confidentiality, or lawful access to sensitive banking, business, institutional, or community data.
• Compromised publication or peer-review processes. Fabricated identities, manipulated reviewer reports, paper-mill involvement, purchased authorship, or other interference that significantly undermines publication integrity.
• Materially compromised impartiality or disclosure. Undisclosed interests or relationships that, in context and supported by evidence, seriously undermine confidence in the paper or its editorial assessment.

Retraction does not require proof of deliberate wrongdoing if the principal results are no longer reliable. Conversely, the journal will not presume misconduct solely from a retraction. The notice will distinguish an established honest error from suspected or substantiated misconduct when the available evidence reasonably permits that distinction.

Retracting an article is not the default response to ordinary scholarly disagreement, a different interpretation offered by later research, a single similarity-score threshold, a minor correctable error, or an allegation unsupported by credible evidence. Authorship disagreements and institutional complaints are assessed through the appropriate dedicated procedures, rather than treated as automatic grounds for retraction.

When a serious concern is plausible but the evidence remains incomplete, an investigation is delayed, or competing accounts cannot yet be reconciled, the journal may issue an Expression of Concern to inform readers without prejudging the outcome. This notice is not a finding of misconduct and may later be followed by a correction, retraction, clarification, or statement resolving the concern.

Authors who discover a significant error in their own work should promptly inform the journal and cooperate in correcting the record. Readers and other stakeholders may report credible, evidence-based concerns through the JOVISHE Editorial Office. The reporting channel is intended for published-article concerns; new research submissions follow the normal submission pathway.

Information to include where available

• Article identification: complete title, author(s), year, volume or issue, and DOI or a permanent article URL.
• Nature of concern: the exact passage, dataset, figure, numerical result, citation, or procedure at issue, with a clear description of why it may be problematic.
• Supporting evidence: references, corrected computations, relevant correspondence, or other verifiable materials that allow a preliminary assessment.
• Contact and potential interests: contact information where the reporter is willing to provide it and disclosure of any relevant relationship that may bear on the concern.

JOVISHE may evaluate well-substantiated anonymous reports; however, limited information can constrain verification or communication. Sensitive respondent records, identifiable banking information, restricted data, or confidential manuscripts should not be transmitted through insecure or public channels. The journal will handle reports confidentially to the extent compatible with a fair assessment and legal obligations.

The journal follows a proportionate process that gives relevant parties an opportunity to respond and separates the evaluation of article reliability from any institutional investigation of personal wrongdoing. The following stages may overlap when urgency, legal restrictions, or the character of the evidence requires a different sequence.

The journal seeks to act promptly, particularly when continued reliance on published findings could cause harm. Resolution time depends on the seriousness of the matter, access to evidence, responsiveness of the parties, and any external investigation. No guaranteed case-closure period is promised. When a significant reliability concern remains unresolved for an extended period, an expression of concern may be appropriate.

The Editor-in-Chief has responsibility for decisions affecting the editorial status of JOVISHE publications, informed by non-conflicted editorial advisers and qualified experts where necessary. If the Editor-in-Chief is directly involved in the article or holds a relevant competing interest, responsibility will be assigned to an independent editor or other appropriately authorised, non-conflicted decision-maker. The publisher supports this process without overriding independent scientific judgment.

Affected authors should ordinarily receive sufficient information about the concern and an appropriate opportunity to provide an explanation or underlying evidence. The editorial office may contact their research institutions, funding organisations, or other publishers where serious findings require expertise or an institutional inquiry. The institution may determine researcher misconduct; the journal remains responsible for the reliability and status of its own publications.

Reasonable efforts should be made to notify authors of proposed retractions and consider their responses, but agreement from every author is not a prerequisite for a justified editorial notice. Review fees, organisational position, sponsorship, personal influence, and the commercial interests of the publisher must never determine whether a correction or retraction is issued.

A correction, expression of concern, retraction, or exceptional removal notice must be clearly named and distinguished from an ordinary journal article. The notice should be dated, permanently accessible where legally possible, and readily discoverable from the affected publication and journal records. An editorial notice should not imply that the named authors committed misconduct where this has not been established.

When a notice is issued before a concern can be conclusively resolved, the language must accurately distinguish verified evidence from unresolved allegations. Where a later development changes the disposition of a case, JOVISHE may issue a further linked notice rather than silently deleting the earlier editorial statement.

JOVISHE will preserve clear links among the original publication, any formal post-publication notice, and subsequent related updates. The article landing page should indicate its current status and provide a prominent link to the notice. Retracted material should remain publicly accessible with an unmistakable label wherever legally and ethically permissible; readers should not be left with an apparently unmodified article that has in fact been retracted.

In OJS, the editorial office should retain the original bibliographic identity of the article and create a traceable notice or public record using the appropriate publishing workflow. When a downloadable full text is labeled as corrected or retracted, the journal should preserve a defensible version history and avoid replacing substantive material without disclosure. Original submission, acceptance, online-publication, and issue-publication dates must remain faithful to the events that actually occurred.

For editorially significant updates, Crossref recommends a distinct, registered update notice with its own DOI and a metadata relationship identifying the publication being corrected or retracted. JOVISHE will follow this model where DOI registration and technical arrangements permit, and will update relevant indexes or discovery services where supported. This policy does not assert that the journal has already implemented Crossmark or automated update propagation.

The purpose is to make the status of an article discoverable by both people and machines, consistent with the NISO RP-45-2024 CREC recommendations. DOI identifiers are persistent: a retraction is not implemented by deleting the original DOI or retrospectively changing the publication date.

A manuscript still under consideration but not yet publicly published may be withdrawn, rejected, or otherwise closed according to the journal’s submission and editorial procedures. This is distinct from retracting a publication. An article released as online-first content is already a public publication for the purposes of this policy, even if it has not yet been placed in a numbered issue.

Removal of a publicly released article is reserved for circumstances in which continued access creates a compelling legal, privacy, or safety risk, such as unlawful publication of identifiable confidential information or a binding legal restriction. Where lawful and practicable, a public bibliographic notice will state that content has been removed and why its full text is unavailable, without repeating protected information.

JOVISHE will not conceal a problematic article through routine deletion, silent PDF replacement, retroactive changes to article timestamps, or insertion of newly issued notices into an earlier closed issue as if they had been published then. Formal notices should carry their true publication dates and be assigned to an appropriate current publishing record or issued as transparently dated notices in accordance with the journal’s actual OJS workflow.

Authors have a continuing obligation to notify the Editorial Office if they discover material inaccuracies in their published work. A request for correction should identify the affected content precisely, supply the proposed corrected wording or files, explain the effect on results and conclusions, and provide the information necessary to verify the change. Relevant coauthors should be consulted, and disagreements about corrections or authorship should be disclosed rather than concealed.

Authors are expected to cooperate with proportionate editorial requests for research records, underlying calculations, survey instruments, permission documents, and other material relevant to the published conclusions, subject to privacy, consent, and legal restrictions. A request that an article be retracted merely because an author later prefers not to be associated with it does not itself establish grounds for retraction.

Any correction or retraction decision is independent of the journal’s article-review fee. An editorial notice is not an opportunity to charge for acceptance or to condition the correction of unreliable findings on additional payment.

An author or materially affected party may request reconsideration of a correction or retraction decision by presenting a reasoned objection, significant new evidence, or a demonstrable procedural concern to the JOVISHE Editorial Office. Where practicable, an independent editor who did not make the initial decision and has no relevant competing interest will assess the request.

Appeals do not automatically suspend a justified notice intended to protect readers. When subsequent evidence materially changes an earlier conclusion, the journal will issue a suitable explanatory update that preserves a transparent account of what was previously communicated. Good-faith complainants should not face retaliation; the identities of reporters and confidential research records will be protected to the extent appropriate and legally permissible.

The editorial office should document receipt of the concern, chronology of communications, evidence considered, recusals and expert consultations, the reasons for the decision, the notice issued, and any actions taken to update metadata. Documentation should remain authentic and should not be backdated, fabricated, or selectively altered to suggest editorial processes that did not occur.

This policy is part of JOVISHE’s research-integrity framework. Allegations about researcher conduct are addressed through the Research Misconduct procedure; scholarly critique is handled through Post-Publication Discussion; conflicts of interest are considered under the applicable conflict policy; and unattributed reuse is assessed under the Plagiarism Policy. A question about the current published record may engage more than one policy, but the response should remain coordinated, consistent, and proportionate.

Related JOVISHE information

Additional dedicated policies include Research Misconduct, Post-Publication Discussion, Conflict of Interest, and Artificial Intelligence. Their public hyperlinks should be added to the journal navigation after the final OJS page addresses are confirmed.

International and national references