Corrections, Retractions, and Expressions of Concern

Georgian Medical Journal · Publication Policy

Public Health Institute of Georgia (PHIG) · COPE Retraction Guidelines · ICMJE · Crossmark · CC BY 4.0 · editor@gmj.ge

The Georgian Medical Journal (GMJ) is committed to maintaining the integrity of the published scientific record. When errors, ethical concerns, or evidence of misconduct are identified in published articles — whether by authors, readers, editors, reviewers, or institutions — GMJ has a duty to act promptly and transparently. This policy describes the circumstances, procedures, and principles governing the issuance of corrections (errata/corrigenda), retractions, and expressions of concern.

GMJ follows the COPE Retraction Guidelines, the ICMJE Recommendations, and the COPE Flowcharts for handling post-publication issues. All post-publication notices are tracked through Crossmark.

1. Corrections (Errata and Corrigenda)

1.1 When a correction is issued. A correction is published when an error is identified in a published article that does not invalidate the overall findings, conclusions, or integrity of the work but is sufficiently important to require formal notice. Examples include:

— Errors in author names, affiliations, or ORCID iDs
— Incorrect or missing funding acknowledgements or conflict-of-interest disclosures
— Errors in numerical data (e.g., a wrong number in a table) that do not change the statistical conclusions
— Mislabelled or incorrectly placed figures or tables
— Typographical or formatting errors introduced during the production process
— Missing or incorrect references
— Omission of required ethics approval or consent statements that can be retrospectively verified

1.2 Terminology. GMJ uses the term Erratum for errors introduced by the journal (e.g., during editing or typesetting) and Corrigendum for errors introduced by the author(s). Both are published as formal correction notices.

1.3 Process.

— The error may be reported by the author(s), a reader, an editor, or identified during post-publication quality checks
— The Editor-in-Chief (or designated editor) assesses whether the error warrants a formal correction or can be handled as a minor update (e.g., a typographical fix in the online version with a note in the article metadata)
— For author-reported errors, the corresponding author submits a written request describing the error, the corrected information, and confirmation that all authors agree to the correction
— A formal correction notice is prepared, reviewed by the Editor-in-Chief, and published

1.4 Format and publication of corrections.

— The correction notice is published as a separate, citable article with its own DOI
— The notice clearly identifies the original article (title, authors, DOI, volume, issue, article number) and describes the specific error and the corrected information
— The original article is updated with a prominent link to the correction notice (e.g., "A correction to this article has been published: [DOI]")
— The correction notice is listed in the table of contents of the issue in which it is published
— Crossmark metadata is updated so that anyone accessing the original article is alerted to the correction
— Both the original article and the correction notice remain permanently available in the journal archive

2. Retractions

2.1 When a retraction is issued. A retraction is the most serious post-publication action and is used to alert readers that an article's findings can no longer be relied upon. GMJ will consider retraction when:

— There is clear evidence that the findings are unreliable, either as a result of a major error (e.g., miscalculation or experimental flaw) or as a result of fabrication, falsification, or other research misconduct
— The article constitutes plagiarism (substantial unattributed use of another's work)
— The article reports research conducted without the required ethical approvals or in violation of research ethics regulations
— The peer-review process was seriously compromised or manipulated
— The article has been published elsewhere without appropriate disclosure, cross-referencing, or justification (duplicate publication)
— Copyright has been infringed or there is a serious legal issue
— Authorship is disputed to a degree that undermines the reliability of the findings and cannot be resolved

2.2 Who can request a retraction.

— The author(s) of the article
— The Editor-in-Chief, acting on evidence obtained through editorial review, post-publication monitoring, or reader reports
— The author's institution or employer, following a formal misconduct investigation
— A funding body, if the research was funded under conditions that were violated
— In rare circumstances, a legal authority or regulatory body

2.3 Process.

— When grounds for retraction are identified, the Editor-in-Chief initiates an assessment following the relevant COPE flowchart
— The corresponding author is notified in writing and given an opportunity to respond within a reasonable timeframe (typically 14–30 days)
— If the author(s) agree to the retraction, the process proceeds with their cooperation
— If the author(s) disagree, the Editor-in-Chief may proceed with a unilateral retraction if the evidence is sufficient, in consultation with the editorial board or external advisors as appropriate
— The author's institution may be contacted for further information or to request the findings of any institutional investigation
— The decision to retract is made by the Editor-in-Chief, who has final authority

2.4 Format and publication of retractions.

— A retraction notice is published as a separate, citable article with its own DOI
— The notice is titled "Retraction: [Original Article Title]" and clearly identifies the retracted article (title, authors, DOI, volume, issue, article number)
— The notice states the reason(s) for retraction as specifically as possible, without legal risk to the journal, and identifies who initiated the retraction (the authors, the editor, or the institution)
— The retracted article is not removed from the journal archive. It remains permanently accessible but is clearly marked with:
    — A prominent "RETRACTED" watermark on every page of the PDF
    — A "RETRACTED" label in the article title in the online version and in all metadata
    — A bidirectional link between the retraction notice and the original article
— The retraction notice is listed in the table of contents of the issue in which it is published
— Crossmark and Crossref metadata are updated immediately
— Indexing databases (Crossref, Google Scholar, OpenAlex, and others as applicable) are notified through standard metadata channels

2.5 Partial retraction. GMJ does not issue partial retractions. If only part of an article is unreliable, the Editor-in-Chief will determine whether a correction (if the core findings remain valid) or a full retraction (if the unreliable portion undermines the overall conclusions) is the appropriate action.

3. Expressions of Concern

3.1 When an expression of concern is issued. An expression of concern is published when the Editor-in-Chief has well-founded concerns about the integrity or reliability of a published article but does not yet have sufficient evidence to issue a definitive correction or retraction. Circumstances include:

— An investigation into alleged misconduct is ongoing and is unlikely to be resolved promptly
— Evidence of misconduct or error is inconclusive, but the concerns are too serious to ignore
— The institution responsible for conducting the investigation has not completed its inquiry in a reasonable timeframe or has not conducted an adequate investigation
— The authors' institution has been unable or unwilling to investigate

3.2 Process.

— The Editor-in-Chief documents the specific concerns and the steps taken to investigate them
— The author(s) are notified and given an opportunity to respond
— The expression of concern is published as a separate, citable notice with its own DOI
— The original article is updated with a link to the expression of concern
— Crossmark metadata is updated

3.3 Resolution. An expression of concern is an interim measure. When the investigation concludes, the expression of concern is replaced by one of the following: a statement confirming that the article is reliable and the expression of concern is lifted; a correction, if specific errors are identified; or a retraction, if the findings are determined to be unreliable. The resolution notice is published with its own DOI and linked to both the expression of concern and the original article.

4. Removals (Exceptional Circumstances)

In very rare and exceptional circumstances, an article may be removed from the online journal in addition to being retracted. This applies only when:

— The article content constitutes a serious legal risk (e.g., defamation, privacy violation) and a court order has been issued
— The article contains data that, if published, would pose a genuine risk to an individual's safety or security
— The article contains content that, if publicly available, could cause serious public health harm

In such cases, the article metadata, title, and a notice explaining the reason for removal are retained in place of the full text. The retraction notice remains permanently published and indexed. Removal is an action of last resort and is taken only with legal advice.

5. General Principles Governing All Post-Publication Notices

Transparency: All correction, retraction, and expression of concern notices are freely and permanently accessible. They are never hidden, removed, or made available only to subscribers.

Permanence: Both the notice and the original article (with appropriate markings) remain permanently in the journal archive. GMJ does not silently remove, replace, or alter published articles.

Identification: Each notice is published as a separate, citable article with its own DOI, linked bidirectionally to the original article.

Discoverability: Notices are listed in the table of contents, indexed by Crossref, tracked by Crossmark, and discoverable through Google Scholar, OpenAlex, and other indexing services.

Timeliness: GMJ aims to publish post-publication notices as promptly as possible. Corrections are typically published within 30 days of the error being confirmed. Retractions and expressions of concern are published as soon as the editorial assessment or investigation permits.

Fairness: Authors are always given an opportunity to respond before a retraction or expression of concern is published. The notice states the reason(s) as specifically as possible and identifies who initiated the action.

COPE compliance: All decisions follow the COPE Retraction Guidelines and relevant COPE flowcharts.

6. Post-Publication Monitoring

GMJ monitors published articles for potential issues through reader and author correspondence, plagiarism alerts from Crossref Similarity Check, citation anomaly detection, and reports from institutions, funders, or regulatory bodies. Readers who identify errors or concerns in published articles are encouraged to contact the Editorial Office at editor@gmj.ge. All reports are acknowledged within 7 working days and assessed following the procedures described above.

7. Notification to Third Parties

When a retraction or expression of concern is published, GMJ takes reasonable steps to notify relevant third parties, which may include:

— The author's institution and/or employer
— The funding body that supported the research
— The ethics committee that approved the research
— Indexing and abstracting services (Crossref, Google Scholar, OpenAlex, and others) through standard metadata updates
— Other journals that may have published related work by the same author(s), if misconduct is substantiated
— Retraction Watch, if applicable

8. Reference Standards

— COPE Retraction Guidelines (publicationethics.org/retraction-guidelines)
— COPE Flowcharts — for suspected misconduct, redundant publication, and related scenarios (publicationethics.org/guidance/Flowcharts)
— ICMJE Recommendations — Corrections, Retractions, Republications, and Version Control (icmje.org)
— Crossmark — Version-of-record status tracking (crossref.org/services/crossmark)
— COPE / DOAJ / OASPA / WAME — Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing (cope.org)