01
Correction
Used when a published error or omission requires amendment but does not invalidate the principal findings or reliability of the article.
Post-Publication Corrections & Retractions
Macaw Publications is committed to maintaining the accuracy, reliability, transparency, and permanence of the scholarly record. When a significant error, omission, ethical concern, or integrity issue is identified after publication, appropriate corrective action will be considered according to the nature, seriousness, and evidential basis of the concern.
Post-publication action may include a correction, publisher correction, author correction, editorial notice, expression of concern, retraction, or, in exceptional circumstances, removal of content. Corrective action is intended to protect the scholarly record rather than to punish authors, editors, reviewers, or other individuals.
Accuracy • Transparency • Permanence • Scholarly Accountability
01
POLICY PURPOSE
Protecting the Integrity of the Scholarly Record
Published scholarly literature forms part of a permanent academic record. Macaw Publications therefore seeks to preserve the original publication history while ensuring that readers are informed clearly when reliable evidence demonstrates that a publication requires correction, qualification, retraction, or another form of editorial action.
Corrective action is determined according to the effect of the identified problem on the accuracy, interpretation, reliability, ethics, or integrity of the publication.
The existence of an error does not automatically require retraction. Where the central findings remain reliable and the problem can be corrected adequately, a correction or another proportionate notice may be more appropriate.
02
POLICY SCOPE
Content Covered by This Policy
This policy applies to scholarly and editorial content published by journals of Macaw Publications, including research articles, review articles, methodological papers, case studies, communications, editorials, letters, special-issue content, supplementary material, corrections, and other published records where post-publication action may be required.
Authors
Authors should notify the relevant journal promptly when they identify a significant error, omission, or other issue affecting their published work.
Editors
Editors are responsible for evaluating post-publication concerns impartially and determining the appropriate scholarly response.
Publisher
Macaw Publications supports investigation, documentation, publication of corrective notices, metadata updating, and preservation of the scholarly record.
Readers & Third Parties
Readers, reviewers, institutions, researchers, and other parties may report credible concerns about published content for editorial assessment.
03
CORRECTIVE PRINCIPLE
Proportionate and Evidence-Based Action
The nature of the corrective action should correspond to the seriousness and effect of the identified problem.
Editorial decisions concerning published material are based on available evidence, the reliability of the publication, the seriousness of the concern, applicable ethical and legal obligations, and the need to maintain an accurate scholarly record.
Macaw Publications does not retract an article merely because criticism has been raised, because authors disagree with one another, or because an article has become controversial. Corrective action requires appropriate scholarly, ethical, factual, or legal justification.
04
CORRECTIVE MECHANISMS
Forms of Post-Publication Action
02
Publisher Correction
Used where a material error was introduced during editorial processing, production, typesetting, publication, or metadata preparation.
03
Author Correction
Used where authors identify a material error or omission in the published article that can be corrected without invalidating the principal conclusions.
04
Editorial Note
May be used to provide important editorial clarification concerning the publication where correction or retraction is not the appropriate mechanism.
05
Expression of Concern
Used to alert readers to significant unresolved concerns about a publication while investigation or clarification is continuing.
06
Retraction
Used when reliable evidence demonstrates that the findings, integrity, ethical basis, or publication process has been compromised to an extent that the work should no longer be relied upon as part of the valid scholarly literature.
05
CORRECTIONS
When a Published Article May Be Corrected
A formal correction may be appropriate where an error affects the accuracy, clarity, attribution, interpretation, or completeness of the published record but does not invalidate the article's central findings.
01
Incorrect numerical values, calculations, labels, units, tables, figures, or descriptions that require substantive clarification.
02
Errors that affect interpretation of part of the article but do not invalidate its overall conclusions.
03
Material omissions in acknowledgements, funding information, competing-interest declarations, or relevant disclosure statements.
04
Incorrect author affiliation, author information, or contributor information where documentary support justifies correction.
05
Errors introduced by the journal or publisher during editing, production, typesetting, metadata processing, or publication.
06
Other errors for which a transparent correction is sufficient to restore the accuracy and usability of the scholarly record.
06
MINOR AMENDMENTS
Typographical and Non-Substantive Errors
Minor typographical or formatting errors that do not affect meaning, interpretation, indexing, attribution, data, conclusions, or scholarly use may not require a separate formal correction notice.
A change that materially alters the scholarly content, author information, data interpretation, ethical disclosure, or bibliographic record should not be treated as a routine typographical amendment.
Significant post-publication changes should be documented transparently rather than silently replacing substantive content in the Version of Record.
07
CORRECTION NOTICE
Publication and Linking of Corrections
Formal corrections should be readily identifiable and should allow readers and indexing systems to understand what has been changed.
01
The notice should clearly identify itself as a Correction, Author Correction, or Publisher Correction as appropriate.
02
The affected article should be identified by title, author information, journal details, and DOI or other persistent identifier where available.
03
The notice should describe the nature of the correction sufficiently clearly for readers to understand the change.
04
The correction notice and the original article should be linked electronically in both directions where technically possible.
05
Article-level metadata should be updated where the correction affects bibliographic or descriptive metadata.
08
INTERIM EDITORIAL NOTICE
Expression of Concern
An Expression of Concern may be issued when serious questions about a publication remain unresolved and readers should be alerted while further assessment is continuing.
An Expression of Concern may be considered where there is credible evidence suggesting that the reliability, ethics, or integrity of an article may be materially affected, but the available information is not yet sufficient to support a final correction or retraction decision.
It may also be appropriate when a relevant institutional or independent investigation is underway and the outcome is unlikely to be available within a reasonable period.
An Expression of Concern is not a determination of misconduct. It is a mechanism for informing readers that significant unresolved concerns exist.
09
FOLLOW-UP
Resolution of an Expression of Concern
When sufficient evidence becomes available, the journal should reassess the matter and determine whether a correction, retraction, editorial clarification, or other resolution is appropriate.
The outcome should be linked to the relevant article and Expression of Concern so that readers can follow the post-publication history of the record.
The earlier Expression of Concern may remain accessible as part of the publication history and may be updated or linked to the final resolution.
10
RETRACTIONS
Purpose of Retraction
Retraction is a mechanism for correcting the scholarly literature when an article should no longer be relied upon.
Retraction does not necessarily mean that every author has committed misconduct. An article may require retraction because of honest error, unreliable data, methodological failure, publication misconduct, unethical research, compromised peer review, or another serious circumstance that substantially undermines the reliability or integrity of the publication.
Retraction decisions are focused primarily on protecting readers and correcting the scholarly record.
11
RETRACTION CRITERIA
Circumstances That May Warrant Retraction
Retraction may be considered where sufficiently reliable evidence demonstrates one or more serious problems such as the following.
01
Findings or conclusions are unreliable because of major error, miscalculation, methodological failure, experimental error, or other substantial defect.
02
Fabrication, falsification, deceptive manipulation of data, images, results, or other research material has materially affected the publication.
03
Substantial plagiarism or misappropriation compromises the integrity of the work.
04
The article reports substantially redundant or duplicate publication without appropriate disclosure, justification, permission, or cross-reference.
05
The research was conducted or reported in serious violation of applicable ethical requirements.
06
Required consent, ethical approval, or legal authority was materially absent or misrepresented in circumstances that undermine publication integrity.
07
Authorship or contributor manipulation is sufficiently serious to undermine the integrity or provenance of the publication.
08
Peer review or editorial processing was fabricated, manipulated, compromised, or otherwise invalidated.
09
Undisclosed competing interests materially affected the interpretation, evaluation, or credibility of the work.
10
Other evidence demonstrates that the article cannot reasonably continue to be relied upon as a valid scholarly publication.
12
PROPORTIONALITY
When Retraction May Not Be Necessary
Retraction is generally not required when a limited error can be corrected without compromising the reliability of the article as a whole.
An authorship dispute alone does not ordinarily justify retraction where there is no reason to doubt the validity, reliability, ethical basis, or integrity of the underlying research. Appropriate documentation may instead support an authorship correction where justified.
Differences of scholarly interpretation, legitimate debate, criticism, or subsequent research reaching a different conclusion do not by themselves constitute grounds for retraction.
13
ASSESSMENT PROCESS
Evaluation Before Retraction
Retraction decisions should follow an appropriate assessment of the available evidence and should not be based solely on allegation, reputation, or external pressure.
01
A concern is received from an author, editor, reviewer, reader, institution, publisher, research-integrity office, or another credible source.
02
The journal conducts a preliminary assessment to determine whether the concern is sufficiently specific and credible to warrant further examination.
03
Authors and other relevant parties may be invited to provide explanations, evidence, underlying data, documentation, or other information.
04
Independent editorial, methodological, statistical, ethical, technical, or other specialist advice may be obtained where necessary.
05
Where appropriate, the matter may be referred to the authors' institution, research-integrity office, funder, ethics body, regulator, or another competent authority.
06
The responsible editor evaluates the available information and determines the appropriate corrective action.
14
INSTITUTIONAL REFERRAL
Role of Research Institutions and Competent Authorities
A journal is responsible for the scholarly record but is not necessarily the appropriate body to determine institutional research misconduct.
Where allegations require access to laboratory records, employment records, participant documentation, institutional systems, original research materials, or other evidence beyond the journal's authority, the matter may be referred to the relevant institution or competent body.
Macaw Publications may consider the findings of an appropriate institutional investigation together with other available evidence when deciding what action is required in relation to the published record.
15
RETRACTION NOTICE
How Retractions Are Published
Retraction notices should be clear, permanently accessible, identifiable to readers and discovery services, and linked to the article being retracted.
01
The title of the notice should clearly contain the term Retraction.
02
The notice should identify the retracted article, including its title, relevant authorship information, citation, and DOI or other persistent identifier where available.
03
The notice should state clearly that the article is being retracted.
04
The reason for retraction should be stated sufficiently clearly to explain why the publication should no longer be relied upon, while respecting legitimate legal, confidentiality, and privacy considerations.
05
Where relevant and supportable, the notice may identify whether the retraction follows author request, editorial action, institutional findings, publisher action, or another documented basis.
06
The retraction notice should be linked to the original article, and the article should link clearly to the retraction notice.
07
The notice should remain permanently accessible as part of the scholarly record.
16
PERMANENCE OF RECORD
Treatment of the Retracted Article
Retraction ordinarily does not mean deletion of the original scholarly record.
The original article should ordinarily remain accessible so that the history of the scholarly record can be understood.
The article should be marked prominently as RETRACTED and linked clearly to the formal retraction notice.
Where technically appropriate, a visible watermark or equivalent indication may be applied to the article PDF without obscuring the original scholarly content.
The DOI and bibliographic identity of the original article should ordinarily be preserved rather than reassigned to a replacement article.
17
AUTHOR PARTICIPATION
Author Agreement Is Not Always Required
Authors should ordinarily be informed and given a reasonable opportunity to respond to significant concerns before a final retraction decision, where circumstances permit.
However, inability to obtain unanimous author agreement does not prevent a journal from retracting an article when reliable evidence demonstrates that retraction is necessary to protect the scholarly record.
Where authors disagree with the retraction, the notice may state the relevant disagreement where appropriate and supportable.
18
RELIABILITY ASSESSMENT
Correction Rather Than Inappropriate Partial Retraction
Where a clearly identifiable portion of an article contains an error but the article remains reliable after transparent correction, the journal may issue an appropriate correction rather than retracting the complete article.
Where the problem undermines the overall reliability, provenance, ethical basis, or principal conclusions of the work, full retraction may be required.
The corrective mechanism selected should communicate the status of the article to readers without creating ambiguity about which findings remain reliable.
19
EXCEPTIONAL ACTION
Removal of Published Content
Complete removal of published scholarly content is exceptional.
Ordinarily, even retracted material remains available with clear retraction labelling. Removal may be considered only where continued public availability creates a serious legal, privacy, confidentiality, security, safety, or comparable risk that cannot reasonably be managed through ordinary correction or retraction procedures.
Where content must be removed, the bibliographic record should, where legally and technically permissible, remain available with an explanation indicating why the full content is no longer accessible.
20
AUTHORSHIP
Post-Publication Authorship Changes
Requests to add, remove, reorder, or otherwise amend authorship after publication require careful assessment because authorship is part of the provenance and accountability of the scholarly record.
01
Requests should provide a clear explanation and appropriate documentary support.
02
Agreement among affected authors may be requested where appropriate.
03
Where authorship is disputed and cannot be resolved through documentation available to the journal, relevant institutions may be asked to investigate.
04
Approved substantive authorship changes should be made transparently through an appropriate correction notice.
21
AUTHOR IDENTITY
Author Name Corrections and Changes
Legitimate requests to correct an incorrectly published author name or update an author name may be considered with sensitivity to accuracy, privacy, indexing, citation continuity, and the author's circumstances.
The journal will seek an approach that maintains appropriate scholarly attribution without unnecessarily disclosing private or sensitive personal information.
22
SUPPORTING RECORDS
Corrections to Data and Supplementary Material
Supporting files form part of the published scholarly context and may require corrective action where material errors are identified.
Corrections involving datasets, supplementary figures, appendices, code, multimedia, or other supporting material should be evaluated according to their effect on the published findings.
If problems in supporting material undermine the reliability of the article itself, a correction to the supporting file alone may be insufficient.
23
SCHOLARLY DISCUSSION
Post-Publication Comments and Criticism
Constructive post-publication scrutiny is an important part of scholarly communication. Readers may raise evidence-based concerns regarding published work.
Concerns should identify the publication clearly and, where possible, provide specific evidence or reasoning that allows the journal to evaluate the matter.
Authors may be invited to respond to substantive scholarly criticism. Independent expert advice may also be obtained where necessary.
Criticism alone does not establish misconduct or unreliability. Editorial action depends on the evidence and the significance of the issue for the scholarly record.
24
REPORTING
Submitting a Post-Publication Concern
Authors, readers, reviewers, institutions, and other parties may report credible concerns about published content.
01
Identify the article title, journal, DOI, URL, or other information sufficient to identify the publication.
02
Describe the concern precisely and distinguish factual evidence from interpretation or allegation.
03
Provide relevant supporting documentation, references, images, data, or other evidence where legally and ethically appropriate.
04
Disclose any relevant competing interest that may reasonably affect interpretation of the complaint.
25
CONFIDENTIALITY & FAIRNESS
Handling Allegations Responsibly
Post-publication concerns are handled with appropriate confidentiality during assessment, particularly where allegations remain unresolved.
Information may be shared with authors, editors, reviewers, institutions, ethics bodies, research-integrity offices, regulators, legal advisers, or other parties where disclosure is reasonably necessary for fair and competent assessment.
The status, seniority, nationality, affiliation, reputation, or identity of the individual raising a concern should not determine whether credible evidence is evaluated.
26
METADATA INTEGRITY
Updating Scholarly Metadata
Corrective action should be reflected not only on the journal webpage but also in relevant publication metadata.
Where technically applicable, Macaw Publications will update article metadata associated with corrections, expressions of concern, retractions, or other material changes and will maintain appropriate links among related records.
Updated metadata may be communicated to DOI-registration infrastructure, repositories, discovery services, indexing and abstracting databases, library systems, or other scholarly metadata recipients where appropriate and supported.
27
PERSISTENT IDENTIFICATION
DOIs and Corrective Notices
A formal correction, retraction, or other independent post-publication notice may receive its own persistent identifier where appropriate.
The notice should identify and link to the affected article, while the original article record should link back to the relevant corrective notice.
Existing identifiers should not ordinarily be replaced merely because the publication has been corrected or retracted.
28
DISCOVERY SERVICES
Communication of Corrective Status
Corrective status should be communicated in a manner that supports accurate discovery and indexing.
Where relevant mechanisms are available, the publisher may submit updated metadata or corrective information to external services that receive journal records.
External databases control their own update processes and schedules. The publisher therefore cannot guarantee the time required for every external service to display a correction or retraction.
29
VERSION HISTORY
Preserving Publication History
Corrective action should preserve an understandable history of the scholarly publication rather than creating the misleading impression that a material problem never existed.
Where a Version of Record has been materially corrected, the associated notice should enable readers to understand what was changed and why.
Retraction, correction, and related notices form part of the permanent scholarly record and should remain accessible even after the underlying concern has been resolved.
30
APPEALS
Requests for Reconsideration
Authors or other directly affected parties may request reconsideration of a post-publication decision where substantive grounds are provided.
An appeal should identify significant factual, procedural, scholarly, or ethical information that was unavailable, overlooked, or materially misunderstood during the original assessment.
Mere disagreement with a correction or retraction decision does not by itself constitute sufficient grounds for reversal.
Where practicable, reconsideration may involve a senior editor or another qualified person who was not solely responsible for the original decision.
31
LEGAL & PRIVACY CONSIDERATIONS
Balancing Transparency with Legitimate Restrictions
Macaw Publications seeks to provide sufficient information in corrective notices to explain the scholarly reason for action.
In some circumstances, the detail that can be disclosed may be limited by privacy obligations, confidentiality, participant protection, legal proceedings, defamation risk, contractual obligations, court orders, regulatory requirements, or other legitimate constraints.
Such limitations should not be used to obscure the corrective status of an article.
32
EDITORIAL INDEPENDENCE
Corrections Are Independent of Commercial Considerations
Decisions to correct, qualify, retract, or otherwise amend the scholarly record should not be influenced improperly by Article Processing Charges, author payments, advertising, sponsorship, institutional prestige, citation performance, reputational considerations, or commercial interests.
Protection of the integrity and reliability of the scholarly record takes precedence over financial or reputational considerations.
33
SPECIAL ISSUES
Corrections to Guest-Edited and Special-Issue Content
Special-issue publications are subject to the same post-publication integrity standards as regular journal content.
Guest Editors do not have unrestricted authority over post-publication integrity decisions concerning their own work or manuscripts for which they have a material conflict of interest.
The Editor-in-Chief, another independent senior editor, or the publisher may assume responsibility for evaluating such cases where appropriate.
34
RESPONSIBLE REPORTING
Good-Faith Integrity Concerns
Good-faith scholarly concerns should be evaluated on the quality of the evidence provided rather than on the identity or status of the person reporting them.
Abuse, harassment, knowingly false allegations, disclosure of confidential material without legitimate justification, or repetitive unsupported complaints may be managed separately from genuine scholarly criticism.
35
REFERENCE FRAMEWORK
Scholarly Publishing Guidance
This policy is informed by recognised principles for maintaining the integrity, transparency, and permanence of the scholarly literature.
COPE
Committee on Publication Ethics guidance concerning corrections, expressions of concern, retractions, publication misconduct, and maintenance of the scholarly record.
Principles of Transparency
Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing developed by COPE, DOAJ, OASPA, and WAME.
Discipline-Specific Standards
Relevant professional, legal, research-integrity, and ethical standards may also be considered according to the subject matter of the publication.
Publisher Responsibility
Macaw Publications remains responsible for implementing its own published policies. Reference to external guidance does not transfer that responsibility to another organisation.
Reference to COPE, DOAJ, OASPA, WAME, or other external organisations does not imply membership, accreditation, endorsement, certification, or indexing status unless such status is separately stated and independently verifiable.
36
POST-PUBLICATION CONTACT
Corrections, Retractions and Integrity Enquiries
Reporting a concern about published material
Concerns relating to a particular publication should normally be submitted to the editorial office of the journal in which the article was published.
Publisher-level questions concerning corrections, retractions, expressions of concern, publication integrity, or unresolved post-publication matters may be directed to:
Macaw Publications
H.No. 4-123/8/172, Road No. 1, Indraprastha Colony,
Hathiguda, Hayath Nagar, Hyderabad,
Telangana – 501505, India
Email: publisher@macawpublications.com
Correspondence should identify the relevant publication and provide sufficient information to enable appropriate editorial assessment.
Policy version: 1.0 | Effective date: 09 August 2026 | Review cycle: Periodic review and revision as required
INTEGRITY OF THE SCHOLARLY RECORD
Correct Transparently. Retract Responsibly. Preserve the Record.
Macaw Publications is committed to maintaining an accurate and trustworthy scholarly record through proportionate, evidence-based, transparent, and permanent post-publication processes. Corrections, expressions of concern, retractions, and other editorial notices are used when necessary to ensure that readers can understand both the current status and the publication history of scholarly content.
Accuracy • Integrity • Transparency • Permanence
