Purpose and Scholarly-Record Principle
Treata Scholars maintains published content as part of a durable scholarly record. When material errors, integrity concerns, or new evidence affect that record, the publisher and journal should use a visible, proportionate, and persistent mechanism to inform readers.
Post-publication notices are intended to improve the accuracy and reliability of the record. They should not be used primarily to punish authors, institutions, reviewers, or editors.
No Silent Substantive Changes
Substantive changes to published scholarly content should not be made silently. Minor production corrections that do not alter meaning may be handled according to journal production practice, but changes affecting interpretation, attribution, data, conclusions, disclosures, or other material information require an appropriate transparent record.
Where an article is updated, the relationship between the original publication and the amendment should remain intelligible to readers and indexing systems.
Corrections
A correction is appropriate when a published article contains an error or omission that should be fixed but the work remains sufficiently reliable overall. Corrections may address author information, disclosures, data presentation, figures, tables, methods, factual statements, or other material elements.
The correction notice should identify what changed and why, without obscuring the original publication history.
Retractions
Retraction is appropriate when findings or content are no longer sufficiently reliable to remain part of the literature without a clear warning, or when publication is seriously compromised by fabrication, falsification, plagiarism, unethical research, invalid authorship or publication processes, duplicate publication, or another fundamental problem.
Retraction does not necessarily imply that every author committed misconduct. The notice should focus on the reliability and publication status of the work and should distinguish established facts from unresolved allegations where relevant.
Expressions of Concern
An expression of concern may be used when substantial questions about the reliability or integrity of an article remain unresolved and readers should be alerted while an investigation or evidence-gathering process continues.
It should not be used merely because a complaint exists. The concern should be sufficiently serious and credible to justify a public notice, and the notice should be reviewed when material new information becomes available.
Article Removal and Exceptional Restrictions
Complete removal of published content should be exceptional because preservation of the scholarly record is a core principle. Removal or restriction may be necessary in circumstances involving serious legal obligations, privacy or safety risks, unlawful content, or other compelling reasons that cannot be managed adequately through a standard notice.
Where feasible, bibliographic information and an explanation for the removal should remain available without reproducing material that must be restricted.
Authorship, Data and Disclosure Amendments
Post-publication changes to authorship, competing-interest statements, funding information, ethics information, data availability, or other declarations should be assessed for their materiality and the reason for the change. A transparent correction may be required even when the article’s conclusions remain reliable.
Changes should not be used to rewrite publication history or conceal an earlier omission.
Process, Evidence and Author Involvement
Editors should gather sufficient information to determine what the record requires and should normally inform affected authors of proposed substantive notices, allowing a reasonable opportunity for relevant factual input. Author disagreement does not give an author a veto over necessary editorial action.
Where institutions or other bodies are investigating related conduct, their findings may inform the decision, but the journal retains responsibility for its own publication record.
Notice Content, Linking and Persistence
Notices should identify the affected article clearly, state the type and reason for the action as accurately as circumstances permit, and be linked bidirectionally with the article where technically feasible. The article’s DOI and bibliographic identity should remain persistent.
Retracted content should ordinarily remain accessible with clear labeling unless exceptional removal is required. Metadata supplied to discovery and preservation systems should be updated appropriately.
Appeals and Later Evidence
Authors or other parties may challenge a post-publication decision through the applicable appeal or complaint process. An appeal should be considered on its substantive merits but does not automatically suspend a notice needed to protect readers.
If reliable new evidence materially changes the basis for a correction, expression of concern, or retraction, the journal should update the record transparently rather than leaving a known misleading notice unchanged.
Journal Implementation and Version Control
This policy is publisher mandatory. Journals may define production workflows, notice templates, and escalation responsibilities, but they must preserve the principles of visibility, persistence, proportionality, and an intelligible publication history.
Material changes to this policy should be versioned and preserved.
Version Control
Version 1.0. This page is the canonical publisher-level text for the current version. Material revisions should be versioned and dated, while superseded versions remain identifiable so that historical applicability can be determined.