ISSN (Print): 2583-XXXX | ISSN (Online): 2583-YYYY

Retraction & Amendment Policy

Administrative Mechanisms for Correcting, Amending, and Safeguarding the Scholarly Record

The Editorial Board of Plant Stress Biology recognizes that safeguarding the absolute permanence, factual accuracy, and ethical alignment of published scholarly papers is a fundamental duty. Once an article is assigned a Digital Object Identifier (DOI) and distributed into public indexing metadata databases, it forms an unalterable piece of the scientific record. When valid inconsistencies, structural ethical breaches, or empirical mistakes are brought to light, the journal deploys specific rectifying updates. These mechanisms conform strictly to the standard operational flowcharts designated by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

1. Editorial Errata and Author Corrigenda

This correction path is utilized when a published paper contains a localized, honest structural error or typographical oversight—such as an inaccurate contact email, a misspelled author index surname, or an incorrect mathematical scaling variable inside a table cell—that does not alter the fundamental scientific conclusions, experimental outcomes, or biological insights of the paper.

In these circumstances, the original PDF version remains actively accessible online without modifications. A separate, dynamic cross-referenced Correction Notice is generated, assigned its own distinct DOI tracking string, and permanently attached to the article's digital metadata page. This notice clearly displays the specific parameter changes to ensure transparency for academic readers.

2. Formal Expressions of Concern

An official Expression of Concern is issued directly by the Editor-in-Chief when an ongoing investigation into potential research misconduct encounters complex, deadlocked, or highly sensitive parameters. This mechanism is typically deployed under two specific scenarios:

First, if the journal receives strong, verifiable indicators of potential data manipulation, text plagiarism, or unauthorized figure usage, but the authors' home academic institution refuses to launch an objective internal review. Second, if a complex investigation is actively progressing but requires months of advanced technical auditing, and the editorial board determines that the public research community must be alerted to the unverified status of the findings immediately. This notice remains active until a definitive determination is finalized.

3. Formal Article Retraction

A full retraction represents a critical administrative step reserved for instances where severe empirical flaws, ethical violations, or structural integrity failures render the published scientific findings completely invalid or untrustworthy.

In alignment with COPE guidelines, a manuscript will be officially retracted if there is clear proof of widespread data fabrication, calculation manipulation, systemic plagiarism, unauthorized duplication across multiple journals, or a complete failure to secure necessary regulatory bio-safety permissions.

To protect the historical record, the original article file is never deleted or removed from the website architecture. Instead, a distinct, prominent "RETRACTED" visual watermark is permanently embedded across every page of the active PDF document. A standalone, detailed Retraction Statement is then linked directly to the file metadata, explaining exactly who requested the retraction and detailing the specific empirical or ethical grounds for the decision.

4. Comprehensive Investigative Pipeline

Any international reader, indexing agency, peer reviewer, or co-author can initiate a formal ethical inquiry regarding printed material by submitting a structured case report to the Managing Editor. The journal processes these claims through a standardized pipeline:

  1. Initial Fact-Checking: The editorial managers perform a confidential screening of the flagged figures, data points, or text rows against automated multi-database verification tools.
  2. Formal Author Communication: If initial discrepancies are validated, the Editor-in-Chief contacts the corresponding author, providing a strict 14-day window to deliver original raw data files and comprehensive written clarifications.
  3. Board Review Panel: If the author's response is insufficient or lacks transparency, the file is escalated to an independent technical sub-committee of the Editorial Board, supplemented by external peer reviewers.
  4. Definitive Action: Based on the committee's final assessment, the journal issues a formal correction, an expression of concern, or a full retraction, and updates all global index registries.