IERJ's

Corrections, Retractions, Complaints and Appeals for Protecting the Scholarly Record

IERJ - International Education and Research Journal is committed to maintaining the accuracy, reliability, transparency, and integrity of the scholarly record. The journal recognizes that concerns may arise before or after publication and that appropriate editorial action may be required to correct errors, investigate allegations, resolve complaints, or reconsider editorial decisions.

This policy explains how IERJ handles article corrections, withdrawals, retractions, expressions of concern, removals, replacements, complaints, editorial appeals, authorship disputes, and post-publication concerns. Each matter is evaluated objectively and proportionately according to its nature, seriousness, available evidence, effect on the reliability of the article, and applicable ethical or legal requirements.

The purpose of corrective action is to protect readers and preserve an accurate scholarly record. Corrections and retractions are not intended merely to punish authors. They are used to ensure that published literature remains trustworthy, transparent, and appropriately documented.

Scope of This Policy

This policy applies to:

Manuscripts under editorial assessment or peer review.

Accepted manuscripts awaiting publication.

Articles published online or in print by IERJ.

Supplementary files, datasets, figures, tables, declarations, and article metadata.

Complaints concerning authors, reviewers, editors, Editorial Board members, journal staff, or the publisher.

Appeals against editorial decisions or procedural irregularities.

Reporting an Error or Concern

Authors, readers, reviewers, editors, institutions, funders, research participants, and other concerned individuals may report a suspected error, ethical concern, or publication problem to the IERJ Editorial Office.

A report should include, wherever available:

The title of the manuscript or published article.

The names of the author or authors.

The volume, issue, year, page numbers, DOI, or article link.

A clear description of the error, complaint, allegation, or disputed decision.

Relevant supporting evidence, correspondence, documents, or references.

The name and contact details of the person submitting the concern.

Anonymous allegations may be considered when they contain sufficiently specific, credible, and verifiable evidence. However, the journal may be unable to investigate vague, unsupported, malicious, repetitive, or unverifiable allegations.

Initial Assessment of Concerns

The Editorial Office will conduct an initial assessment to determine:

Whether the matter falls within the journal's responsibility.

Whether sufficient information has been provided.

Whether the concern affects the reliability, interpretation, legality, ethics, or authorship of the work.

Whether immediate action is required to protect readers, research participants, confidential information, or the scholarly record.

Whether the matter requires clarification from the authors, reviewers, editors, institution, ethics committee, funder, or another relevant party.

The journal may request additional information before opening a formal investigation. The submission of a complaint or allegation does not, by itself, establish misconduct or require the immediate removal of an article.

Fairness and Confidentiality

Concerns will be handled fairly, confidentially, and without unnecessary disclosure. Information will be shared only with individuals or organizations whose involvement is reasonably necessary to evaluate or resolve the matter.

Persons whose conduct or work is questioned will normally be given a reasonable opportunity to respond before a final decision is made, except when immediate action is necessary for legal, ethical, confidentiality, safety, or public-interest reasons.

The journal will avoid making premature findings and will distinguish between an allegation, available evidence, an institutional conclusion, and a final editorial decision.

Post-Publication Corrections

A correction may be issued when an error or omission affects the published article but does not invalidate its principal findings, interpretation, or overall reliability.

Corrections may address:

Incorrect author names, affiliations, contact details, or institutional information.

Errors in figures, tables, captions, equations, references, units, labels, or numerical values.

Omitted acknowledgements, funding information, declarations, or conflict-of-interest statements.

Minor errors in analysis, description, interpretation, or reporting that do not invalidate the main conclusions.

Production or formatting errors introduced during article preparation.

Other significant inaccuracies requiring a transparent amendment to the published record.

A correction notice should identify the article, explain what has been corrected, state who requested or initiated the correction where appropriate, and remain permanently linked to the original publication.

The published article may be updated where technically appropriate, but the existence and nature of the correction will be disclosed transparently. Corrections must not silently alter the scholarly record.

Minor Changes That May Not Require a Formal Notice

Minor typographical, formatting, or metadata errors that do not affect the meaning, interpretation, citation, indexing, or integrity of the article may be corrected directly at the journal's discretion.

A formal correction notice will normally be considered when a change affects:

Author identity or authorship sequence.

Data, results, conclusions, or interpretation.

Ethical, funding, or conflict-of-interest declarations.

Figures, tables, references, or information essential to understanding the work.

The discoverability, citation, or identification of the article.

Author-Initiated Corrections

Authors who identify a significant error after publication must notify the Editorial Office promptly and provide:

A clear description of the error.

The exact correction requested.

An explanation of how the error occurred.

An assessment of whether the error affects the results or conclusions.

Supporting data or documentation where necessary.

Confirmation that all authors agree with the requested correction.

The Editor-in-Chief will determine whether the matter requires a direct amendment, formal correction, expression of concern, retraction, or another response.

Authorship Corrections

Requests to add, remove, reorder, or replace authors after acceptance or publication will be considered only when supported by a legitimate explanation and sufficient evidence.

The journal may require:

A written explanation for the proposed authorship change.

Written agreement from all existing and proposed authors.

A revised author-contribution statement.

Institutional confirmation or investigation where the authors disagree.

Approval from the Editor-in-Chief.

Authorship disputes that cannot be resolved through documentary evidence may be referred to the authors' institution because journals are generally not equipped to determine factual contribution disputes independently.

When an authorship change is approved after publication, a formal correction notice may be issued.

Article Withdrawal Before Final Publication

Article withdrawal generally applies to a manuscript that has been submitted, accepted, scheduled, or made available as an early version but has not completed final publication.

Withdrawal may be considered when:

The authors submit a justified withdrawal request before publication.

The manuscript was submitted simultaneously to another journal.

Serious plagiarism, fraudulent authorship, fabricated data, or copyright infringement is identified.

Ethical approval, informed consent, or other mandatory authorization is found to be invalid or absent.

A legal or safety concern prevents publication.

Authors must submit withdrawal requests in writing from the corresponding author's registered email address. A manuscript remains under consideration by IERJ until the withdrawal has been formally confirmed by the Editorial Office.

Withdrawal after acceptance, payment, formatting, scheduling, DOI-related processing, printing, or other production work may remain subject to the journal's applicable fee and refund policies.

Article Retraction

Retraction may be necessary when the findings or conclusions of a published article are no longer reliable, when serious misconduct has occurred, or when publication significantly violates ethical or legal requirements.

An article may be considered for retraction when:

There is clear evidence that the findings are unreliable because of fabrication, falsification, manipulation, major analytical error, or serious methodological error.

The article contains substantial plagiarism or unauthorized copyrighted material.

The findings have been published previously without appropriate disclosure, permission, or justification.

The research was conducted or reported without required ethical approval or informed consent.

Authorship was fraudulent, purchased, fabricated, or materially misrepresented.

The peer-review or publication process was manipulated or compromised.

A serious undisclosed conflict of interest undermines the credibility or interpretation of the work.

The article reports unethical, unlawful, or seriously misleading research.

The authors request retraction because a major honest error invalidates the main results or conclusions.

Retraction Process

Before deciding whether to retract an article, IERJ may:

Contact the corresponding author and co-authors for an explanation.

Request raw data, ethical approval, consent documentation, source files, or other supporting evidence.

Consult reviewers, subject experts, statistical advisers, or Editorial Board members.

Contact the authors' institution, ethics committee, funder, research-integrity office, or another relevant organization.

Seek legal or technical advice where necessary.

The journal may proceed with a retraction even when one or more authors disagree, provided that the available evidence supports the decision.

A retraction will not be delayed solely because authors fail to respond, cannot be contacted, or refuse to cooperate.

Retraction Notice and Article Record

A retraction notice should:

Clearly identify the retracted article.

State that the article has been retracted.

Explain the reason for the retraction as clearly as reasonably possible.

Identify who initiated or agreed to the retraction where appropriate.

Distinguish honest error from confirmed misconduct when the evidence permits.

Avoid defamatory, speculative, or unsupported statements.

Remain freely accessible and permanently linked to the original article.

The original article will ordinarily remain available as part of the scholarly record but will be clearly marked as retracted. Retraction metadata may also be communicated to DOI agencies, databases, indexing services, repositories, libraries, and other relevant platforms.

Partial Retraction

IERJ will generally avoid using a partial retraction when a transparent correction can adequately address a limited problem.

If only a clearly separable part of an article is unreliable and the remaining findings continue to be valid, the journal may consider a detailed correction or another appropriate notice. The action selected must not create uncertainty about which parts of the article remain reliable.

Expression of Concern

An Expression of Concern may be published when substantial questions have been raised about an article but the available evidence is incomplete, inconclusive, disputed, or subject to an ongoing investigation.

An Expression of Concern may be appropriate when:

There is credible evidence of possible misconduct, but no final determination has been made.

An institutional or external investigation is ongoing or unreasonably delayed.

The authors or institution have not provided information required to resolve serious concerns.

The reliability of the article is uncertain, but immediate retraction is not yet justified.

Readers should be warned about a potential risk while further evaluation continues.

The Expression of Concern will be linked to the article and may later be followed by a correction, retraction, removal, replacement, or notice that the concern has been resolved.

In some cases, an Expression of Concern may remain the final published notice when the matter cannot be resolved conclusively but readers still need to be informed of the uncertainty.

Article Removal

Complete removal of a published article is reserved for exceptional circumstances because preserving the scholarly record normally requires that published content remain accessible.

Removal may be considered when:

Publication violates a court order or binding legal requirement.

The article contains unlawful, defamatory, or seriously infringing content.

Continued availability poses a serious and immediate risk to health, safety, privacy, or security.

Confidential or identifiable participant information was published without valid authorization and cannot be adequately corrected through redaction.

Exceptional copyright or intellectual-property circumstances legally require removal.

Where an article is removed, its bibliographic record will ordinarily remain available with a notice explaining the reason for removal, subject to legal and confidentiality restrictions.

Article Replacement

Replacement may be considered in exceptional circumstances when an article contains information that could cause serious harm if acted upon, but a corrected and peer-reviewed version is necessary to preserve the value of the research.

The replacement version will be clearly identified, dated, and linked to the original record and relevant notice. Replacement must not be used to conceal errors or silently rewrite the publication history.

Duplicate and Redundant Publication

When an article substantially duplicates previously published work without adequate disclosure or justification, IERJ may issue a correction, retraction, or another notice depending on:

The extent of duplication.

Whether copyright or licensing conditions were violated.

Whether the duplication misleads readers or distorts the scholarly record.

Whether transparent secondary publication was permitted and appropriately disclosed.

Complaints Policy

IERJ accepts legitimate complaints concerning:

Editorial procedures or unreasonable delays.

Reviewer or editor conduct.

Alleged bias, discrimination, conflict of interest, or breach of confidentiality.

Publication ethics or research-integrity concerns.

Copyright, plagiarism, duplicate publication, or authorship issues.

Website information, policies, fees, certificates, or publication services.

Conduct of the Editorial Office, Editorial Board, journal representatives, or publisher.

How to Submit a Complaint

Complaints must be submitted in writing to the Editorial Office and should contain:

The complainant's full name and contact information.

The manuscript or article details, where applicable.

A clear description of the complaint.

Relevant dates, communications, evidence, or supporting documents.

The remedy or outcome being requested.

Complaints should be factual, respectful, and specific. Abusive, threatening, discriminatory, defamatory, repetitive, or knowingly false communications may be closed without further consideration.

Complaint Review Process

The complaint will initially be reviewed by the Editorial Office or an appropriate editor. Where the complaint concerns the person normally responsible for handling it, the matter should be assigned to another editor, senior editorial representative, or publisher representative who is not directly involved.

The journal may:

Request further information from the complainant.

Obtain a response from the person whose actions are questioned.

Examine editorial records, reviewer reports, correspondence, and applicable policies.

Seek advice from independent editors, experts, institutions, or legal advisers.

Correct a procedural error, provide clarification, reopen a matter, or reject the complaint with reasons.

The journal will aim to communicate the outcome within a reasonable period. Complex complaints involving institutions, third parties, legal matters, or research-misconduct investigations may require additional time.

Editorial Appeals

Authors may appeal an editorial decision when they believe that:

A significant factual or procedural error affected the decision.

Reviewer or editor comments were based on a clear misunderstanding of the manuscript.

Relevant evidence or information was overlooked.

An undisclosed conflict of interest or inappropriate bias may have influenced the evaluation.

The journal's published editorial procedure was not followed.

An appeal is not a request for routine reconsideration merely because the author disagrees with the outcome.

Submitting an Appeal

An appeal should be submitted by the corresponding author from the registered email address and should include:

The manuscript title and reference details.

The date and nature of the editorial decision.

A concise explanation of the grounds for appeal.

A point-by-point response to the specific issues disputed.

Supporting evidence showing a material factual, ethical, or procedural error.

The appeal should not contain a substantially rewritten manuscript unless the journal specifically requests one.

Appeal Assessment

Wherever practicable, an appeal will be considered by an editor or senior editorial representative who was not directly responsible for the original decision.

The appeal reviewer may:

Uphold the original decision.

Request additional clarification or documentation.

Obtain an additional independent review.

Return the manuscript to editorial consideration.

Modify or overturn the original decision where justified.

Successful appeal does not guarantee acceptance. It means that the manuscript may undergo further editorial assessment or peer review.

The decision made after completing the appeal process will ordinarily be considered final unless substantial new evidence of an ethical or procedural concern becomes available.

Matters That Are Not Valid Grounds for Appeal

An appeal will not ordinarily succeed solely because:

The author disagrees with the reviewers' academic opinion.

The author requires urgent publication for promotion, examination, funding, employment, degree submission, or institutional deadlines.

Another journal has published a similar article.

The author has already paid for an unrelated service or previously published with IERJ.

The author disagrees with a properly applied journal policy.

The appeal introduces an entirely new manuscript rather than addressing the original decision.

Complaints About the Editor-in-Chief

A complaint concerning the conduct, conflict of interest, or decision-making of the Editor-in-Chief should be directed to the publisher or an appropriately independent senior representative.

The Editor-in-Chief should not independently decide a complaint concerning their own conduct. The matter should be evaluated by a person who was not directly involved and who can review the relevant records objectively.

Complaints About the Publisher

Complaints concerning the publisher should clearly identify the disputed conduct, policy, service, or decision and provide relevant supporting evidence.

Where appropriate, the matter may be reviewed separately from the routine editorial process to preserve editorial independence and procedural fairness.

Research Misconduct Allegations

Allegations involving plagiarism, fabricated data, falsified results, manipulated images, fraudulent authorship, invalid ethical approval, undisclosed conflicts, duplicate publication, citation manipulation, peer-review manipulation, or other misconduct will be handled under the journal's Publication Ethics and Research Integrity policies.

IERJ may request assistance from the authors' institution, ethics committee, funder, employer, or another competent authority because journals generally do not have the legal authority or investigative resources of research institutions.

An institutional conclusion will be considered carefully but will not automatically replace the journal's independent responsibility to protect the published record.

Post-Publication Discussion

IERJ supports responsible scholarly discussion of published articles. Readers may submit evidence-based comments, critiques, clarifications, or concerns to the Editorial Office.

Post-publication correspondence should:

Address the scholarly content rather than attack individuals.

Be supported by relevant evidence or reasoning.

Disclose relevant conflicts of interest.

Respect confidentiality, privacy, copyright, and legal requirements.

The journal may invite the original authors to respond and may publish a correction, response, commentary, expression of concern, or other notice when appropriate.

Protection Against Retaliation

IERJ will not knowingly disadvantage a person merely for raising a good-faith concern, complaint, or appeal through the appropriate process.

However, knowingly false allegations, harassment, intimidation, threats, misuse of confidential information, or complaints submitted primarily to damage another person's reputation may result in closure of the matter and other appropriate action.

Record-Keeping and Transparency

The journal may retain relevant correspondence, evidence, reviewer reports, editorial records, notices, institutional communications, and decisions for legitimate editorial, ethical, legal, and archival purposes.

Published corrections, retractions, expressions of concern, removal notices, and replacement notices will be made as clear, accessible, and permanently linked to the affected article as reasonably possible.

The journal will not normally delete a published notice merely because the individuals involved disagree with it, provided that the notice is accurate, proportionate, lawful, and supported by the available evidence.

Editorial Authority

The final decision concerning a correction, withdrawal, retraction, Expression of Concern, removal, replacement, complaint, or appeal rests with the Editor-in-Chief or an appropriately authorized and independent editorial or publisher representative.

Decisions will consider:

The available evidence.

The reliability and integrity of the article.

The seriousness and extent of the problem.

The interests of readers, research participants, authors, and the scholarly community.

Publication ethics, confidentiality, due process, and applicable law.

The need to act promptly while ensuring procedural fairness.

No Influence of Publication Charges

Payment of Publication Processing Charges does not prevent IERJ from correcting, retracting, removing, or otherwise acting upon a published article when justified.

Editorial and post-publication decisions are based on academic reliability, ethical compliance, legal requirements, and the integrity of the scholarly record. Payment does not purchase immunity from editorial action and does not guarantee a favourable complaint or appeal outcome.

Policy Updates

IERJ - International Education and Research Journal may revise this policy to reflect developments in publication ethics, legal requirements, digital publishing practices, and recognized standards for corrections, retractions, complaints, and editorial appeals.

The version published on the IERJ website represents the journal's current policy. Matters already under review may be handled under the policy applicable when the concern arose or under an updated policy when necessary to protect the scholarly record.

To report an error, request a correction, submit a complaint, appeal an editorial decision, or raise a post-publication concern, please contact the Editorial Office at [email protected]. Please include complete manuscript or article details and all relevant supporting information.