Maintaining the scholarly record
GRETA Journal will address significant errors and integrity concerns transparently after publication. Authors must promptly report an error they discover in their own work. Readers may send a documented concern to submissions@gretajournal.com, identifying the article and the passages or findings affected.
Assessing a reported problem
An unconflicted editor should assess the evidence and seek an explanation from the authors. Independent advice or institutional findings may be needed. The response should reflect the effect on the reliability of the work, rather than be used as a punishment. Authors should be consulted where possible, but a necessary notice must not depend on every author agreeing with it.
Types of notice
- Correction: for a material error or omission that can be corrected while the main findings remain reliable. The notice should explain what changed and link to the affected article.
- Expression of concern: when a serious unresolved issue warrants alerting readers while evidence is incomplete or an investigation continues. A later notice should explain the resolution.
- Retraction: when findings are unreliable, publication is seriously compromised, or another substantial integrity problem makes continued reliance on the article inappropriate. The notice should identify the article, explain the reason and state who is issuing it.
Notices should be clearly labelled, dated, accessible and linked to the original record. Retracted material should normally remain identifiable and accessible with a prominent retraction label, preserving the publication history. Silent replacement or deletion should be avoided. If exceptional circumstances require removal of content, a notice explaining the action should remain where possible.
Discussion and disagreement
Post-publication scholarly discussion may be submitted through the journal contact route; it does not require a public forum. Editors should assess substantive, evidence-based criticism and may invite an author response. Criticism should address the work rather than attack individuals. Ordinary differences of interpretation do not automatically justify a correction or retraction.
Challenges to the handling or outcome of a case should follow the Complaints and Appeals Policy. The responsible editor will coordinate notices, preserve the record of changes and arrange updates to any repositories or indexing services to which the journal has supplied the affected article.