Correction and Retraction Policies

Post-Publication Integrity

Corrections & Retraction Policy

Asia Book Registry is committed to maintaining the integrity of the scholarly record. This policy governs how errors, concerns, and misconduct are addressed after a work has been indexed or published in our registry.

▶ COPE Guidelines 2023

▶ ICMJE Recommendations

▶ STM Best Practices

Core Principle: The scholarly record must be both accurate and permanently preserved. Asia Book Registry never silently removes or alters indexed records. All corrections, expressions of concern, and retractions are clearly documented, linked, and permanently archived to maintain the integrity and transparency of the academic literature.

Section 1

Types of Post-Publication Actions

Asia Book Registry recognizes four distinct categories of post-publication action, each with different levels of severity, process, and implications for the scholarly record. The appropriate action is determined by the nature and severity of the issue identified.

Correction
(Erratum / Corrigendum)

A formal notice that corrects a specific, limited error in an otherwise reliable work. The original record remains intact with an appended correction notice.

Severity: Minor

Expression
of Concern

Issued when there are serious concerns about reliability or integrity, but a full investigation is still pending. Alerts readers while the process is ongoing.

Severity: Moderate

Retraction

Formal removal from the scientific record due to fundamental flaws, misconduct, or errors that invalidate the entire work's conclusions. Record is permanently marked.

Severity: Major

Removal /
Withdrawal

Exceptional cases only — legal obligations, defamation, national security, or personal safety. The metadata record is retained; only the full content is removed.

Severity: Exceptional

Section 2

Corrections Policy

2.1 What Warrants a Correction

A correction is issued when an error does not invalidate the overall conclusions of the work but does affect the reliability of a specific element. Corrections may be initiated by the authors themselves, by readers, or by the editorial team.

Error Type	Examples	Action
Typographical / factual error	Incorrect year, misspelled name, wrong ISBN digit, transposed numbers	Erratum notice appended to registry entry
Author information error	Misspelled name, wrong affiliation, missing ORCID, incorrect email	Corrigendum; metadata record updated
Bibliographic metadata error	Wrong publisher, edition mismatch, incorrect page count, wrong subject category	Corrigendum; metadata updated with version note
Omitted acknowledgement / conflict	Missing funder, forgotten co-author acknowledgement (non-authorship)	Erratum appended; disclosure record updated
AI usage declaration update	AI tool used in writing/editing/analysis not declared at submission	Erratum with updated declaration; may escalate if intentional

2.2 Correction Process & Timeline

1	Notification submitted — Author, reader, or editor submits correction request to contact@explorerfrontier.com with full documentation of the error and supporting evidence.
2	Editorial acknowledgement — Within 5 working days, the editorial team acknowledges receipt and assigns the case for review.
3	Editorial assessment — The editor evaluates the nature and severity of the error. Authors are contacted to confirm the correction or provide clarification. Target: 10 working days.
4	Correction notice published — An erratum or corrigendum is formally published and linked bidirectionally to the original registry entry. The original record is not altered but is clearly marked with a correction flag.
5	Notification disseminated — All parties (authors, relevant indexing services including CrossRef, Google Scholar) are notified of the correction. Metadata propagation is initiated.

Erratum vs Corrigendum: An erratum is issued when the error was introduced by ABR (production/editing stage). A corrigendum is issued when the error originated with the author(s). Both carry equal weight in the scholarly record.

Section 3

Expression of Concern

An Expression of Concern (EoC) is a temporary alert mechanism. It signals to readers that serious questions have been raised about a work's reliability or integrity, while a full investigation is still in progress. An EoC is not a determination of guilt or misconduct — it is a transparency measure.

When an Expression of Concern is Issued
● Credible allegations of misconduct Fabrication, falsification, plagiarism, or undisclosed AI authorship — when allegations are credible but investigation is incomplete.	● Author disputes unresolved Ongoing authorship disputes that the editorial team cannot resolve through normal channels.
● Data integrity concerns Questions about data manipulation, image duplication, or statistical irregularities requiring external expert review.	● Institutional investigation pending The author's institution has commenced a formal investigation; ABR awaits the outcome before taking permanent action.

Outcome of an EoC: Once the investigation concludes, the EoC is either (a) replaced by a Correction if the concern is resolved with minor issues, (b) replaced by a Retraction Notice if misconduct is confirmed, or (c) fully withdrawn with a notice of exoneration if the concern is unfounded. The EoC itself is never silently removed — all three outcomes are permanently linked to the original record.

Section 4

Retraction Policy

4.1 Grounds for Retraction

A retraction is the most serious post-publication action. Consistent with COPE Retraction Guidelines (2019, updated 2023), ABR will retract a work when there is clear evidence of any of the following:

Research Misconduct Fabrication, falsification of data, results, or conclusions. Plagiarism of significant portions of another work without attribution.	Invalid Results Unreliable data due to major errors (calculation, equipment failure, methodological flaws) that cannot be corrected and that invalidate the conclusions.	Duplicate Publication The work has been published elsewhere without proper citation or permission, or substantial portions are reproduced without disclosure (self-plagiarism).
Unethical Research Work involving human subjects conducted without proper ethics approval (KEPK, IRB, or equivalent), or that violates the Declaration of Helsinki.	Fraudulent Authorship Ghost authorship, gift authorship, or authorship obtained through coercion. Undisclosed AI authorship where an AI is listed or substantially credited as a primary contributor.	Legal / Ethical Violation Copyright infringement, privacy violations, defamation, or any other legal or regulatory violations that necessitate removal of the work.

4.2 Retraction Process — COPE-Compliant Procedure

Step	Action	Responsible Party	Timeline
01	Allegation received — Report received via email or submitted by editor, reviewer, or reader.	Editor-in-Chief	Day 1
02	Preliminary assessment — Determine if allegation is credible; contact authors for initial response; consider EoC if warranted.	Editorial Board	Days 2–7
03	Investigation — Full review of all evidence including original submission, correspondence, and third-party reports. Authors given formal right of response (minimum 14 days).	Editorial Board + External Expert (if required)	Up to 60 days
04	Decision — Editorial Board reaches a formal conclusion: retract, correct, or clear. Decision is final and does not require author agreement.	Editor-in-Chief	Day 61–65
05	Retraction Notice published — Formal Retraction Notice is issued and bidirectionally linked to the original record. The original entry remains visible but is clearly watermarked "RETRACTED."	Editorial Team	Within 5 days of decision
06	Dissemination & reporting — CrossRef, relevant indexing databases, and the author's institution are formally notified. Referral to COPE or relevant authorities where applicable.	Editorial Team	Within 10 days of notice

4.3 The Permanent Record Principle

Consistent with COPE guidelines and the STM Integrity Hub best practices, Asia Book Registry never silently deletes a retracted entry. The retracted work remains in the registry because:

● Citations in other works exist Researchers who have already cited the retracted work must be able to find the retraction notice to evaluate their own citations.	● Institutional accountability A permanent record enables institutions, funders, and ethics bodies to conduct their own reviews and apply appropriate consequences.
● Transparency to the community Full transparency serves the research community by making the history of a work accessible, rather than hiding it as if it had never existed.	● Deterrence of future misconduct The permanent, visible record of a retraction serves as a deterrent and reinforces the integrity standards of the scholarly ecosystem.

Section 5

Removal and Withdrawal Policy

Removal differs from retraction in that it is not initiated due to scientific misconduct or data errors. It is an exceptional measure reserved for situations where the continued presence of a work in the registry would cause demonstrable legal harm, violate personal safety, or breach legal obligations. In all removal cases, the bibliographic metadata record is retained with a notice explaining the removal.

Ground for Removal	Criteria & Process
Court order / legal injunction	A valid court order or legal injunction from a recognized jurisdiction requires removal. Legal documentation must be provided and reviewed by ABR's legal counsel.
Personal safety / privacy risk	Work contains personally identifiable information that poses a direct safety risk (e.g., identity of protected individuals, victims of crime). Consistent with EU GDPR Art. 17 "right to erasure" under applicable circumstances, Swiss nDSG Art. 32, and UU PDP No. 27/2022 Art. 35.
Defamatory content	Content determined by a competent authority or legal review to be defamatory, harmful to reputation, or constituting harassment.
Copyright infringement (legal)	A verified DMCA takedown notice or equivalent legal claim of copyright infringement by the rightful IP owner, where resolution cannot be achieved through correction.

Author-initiated removal requests: Authors may not unilaterally request removal of their indexed work without legal grounds. Indexing in ABR constitutes a commitment to the permanent scholarly record. Requests for author-initiated removal are reviewed on a case-by-case basis by the Editorial Board and are generally declined absent the exceptional grounds described above.

Section 6

Required Content of a Retraction Notice

All retraction notices issued by Asia Book Registry must conform to the COPE Retraction Guidelines and must include the following mandatory elements:

Element	Description
Title	"Retraction: [Original Work Title]" — the word "RETRACTION" must appear prominently in the title of the notice.
Authors	All original authors of the retracted work, listed in the same order as the original. If not all authors agree, this must be explicitly stated.
Link to original	Bidirectional link between the Retraction Notice and the original registry entry. Both records must display the link to each other.
Reason(s) for retraction	Clear, specific, and unambiguous statement of the reason(s) for retraction. Vague or non-specific notices (e.g., "author request") are not acceptable per COPE guidelines.
Who initiated	Clearly state whether the retraction was initiated by the authors, by ABR, by an institution, or by a third party.
Date of retraction	The exact date on which the retraction notice was formally published.
DOI / persistent identifier	The Retraction Notice must itself carry a persistent identifier (DOI where applicable) to ensure it is permanently citable and findable.
Open access	All retraction notices are published free of charge and with full open access, regardless of the open access status of the original work.

Section 7

AI-Related Corrections & Retractions

As AI tools become more prevalent in scholarly writing and research, Asia Book Registry establishes specific provisions for AI-related integrity issues, consistent with COPE's Position Statement on AI and Authorship (2023) and the STM AI Guidelines (2023).

▶ Leads to Correction

AI tool used in editing or language improvement but not declared — if the overall conclusions remain valid.
AI used for data visualization or statistical analysis without declaration — if results are verifiable.
Wrong AI tool listed in declaration (e.g., version cited incorrectly).
AI tool used for translation of sections — not declared in submission.

▶ Leads to Retraction

AI system (ChatGPT, GPT-4, Claude, Gemini, etc.) listed as a named author or given authorial credit.
Substantially AI-generated content submitted with deliberate concealment — constitutes fabrication.
AI-generated citations, references, or bibliographies submitted without verification (hallucinated references).
AI-generated data or experimental results presented as original human-conducted research.

Detection: ABR uses Turnitin iThenticate (including AI writing detection) and Grammarly Premium to assist in identifying undisclosed AI-generated content. These tools are used as indicators only — all final determinations are made by the Editorial Board after giving authors a full opportunity to respond.

Section 8

Responsibilities of Authors, Editors, and ABR

Authors

Promptly notify ABR of any discovered errors in their own work.
Cooperate fully and honestly in any investigation.
Respond to editorial inquiries within the stated timeframe (14 days).
Agree that ABR may proceed to retraction even without author consent where justified.
Not contact reviewers, editors, or staff in an attempt to improperly influence an investigation.

Editorial Board

Act promptly, fairly, and impartially on all allegations and correction requests.
Ensure authors are given a full right of response before any final decision.
Maintain strict confidentiality throughout investigation.
Follow COPE flowcharts as a procedural framework for all cases.
Not allow advertiser relationships or citation metrics to influence retraction decisions.

Asia Book Registry

Maintain this policy publicly and review it at minimum every two years.
Ensure all correction and retraction notices are permanently accessible.
Propagate corrections and retractions to all relevant indexing databases.
Operate independently of financial, political, or institutional pressures.
Refer to COPE where internal processes are insufficient or a conflict of interest exists.

Section 9

Reporting Errors & Appeals Process

How to Report an Error or Concern

Any person — including authors, readers, reviewers, librarians, or members of the public — may submit a report. Reports should include:

Title and ISBN of the work in question
A clear, specific description of the alleged error or concern
Supporting documentation or evidence
Your name and contact information (confidentiality guaranteed)

✉ contact@explorerfrontier.com

Subject line: ABR Integrity Report — [ISBN or Book Title]

Appeals Process

Authors who disagree with an editorial decision regarding a correction or retraction may submit a formal appeal. The appeal must:

Be submitted within 30 calendar days of the original decision
Include new substantive evidence not considered in the original review
Identify a specific procedural error in the original process
Be addressed directly to the Editor-in-Chief with the subject line "Appeal"

Note: Appeals that merely express disagreement without new evidence or identifying a procedural error will not be reconsidered. Unresolved disputes may be referred to COPE for independent mediation.

Standards & References

This policy is developed in accordance with: COPE Retraction Guidelines (2023) · COPE Flowcharts for Editors · ICMJE Recommendations for the Conduct, Reporting, Editing and Publication of Scholarly Work · STM Integrity Hub Best Practices · COPE Position Statement on AI and Authorship (2023) · EU GDPR Art. 17 · Swiss nDSG (2023) · UU PDP No. 27/2022 (Indonesia)

Policy Information

Version	1.0 — August 2025
Next review	August 2027
Approved by	ABR Editorial Board
Managed by	Explorer Frontier
Contact	contact@explorerfrontier.com