Corrections, Retractions & Expressions of Concern Policy

CORRECTIONS, RETRACTIONS & EXPRESSIONS OF CONCERN POLICY

Pedagogical Perspective (PedPer)

ISSN: 2822-4841 | DOI Prefix: 10.29329

Quick Summary
Pedagogical Perspective (PedPer) (eISSN: 2822-4841) is committed to maintaining the accuracy, transparency, and integrity of the scholarly record. When necessary, the journal will publish Corrections, Expressions of Concern, or Retractions to address errors or potential/confirmed misconduct, guided by COPE Retraction Guidelines and best practices. This policy also governs pre-publication manuscript withdrawal requests.

1) Definitions

Correction (Erratum/Corrigendum): A notice that corrects an error that does not invalidate the main conclusions of the article (e.g., author name, affiliation, minor factual/formatting errors, figure/table labeling, minor numerical errors). An Erratum addresses publisher- or production-related errors; a Corrigendum addresses author-related errors.
Expression of Concern: A public notice issued when there are serious concerns about an article, but the outcome of an investigation is pending or inconclusive.
Retraction: A notice indicating that an article's findings or integrity are unreliable due to major error or confirmed misconduct.
Partial Retraction: In rare cases where only a specific portion of an article (e.g., one study within a multi-study paper, a single dataset, or specific results) is found to be unreliable while the remainder is sound, PedPer may issue a partial retraction. The notice will clearly specify which portions are retracted and which remain valid.
Removal (Exceptional): Rarely used and only in exceptional circumstances (e.g., legal issues, serious privacy risks, content that could pose a serious health risk if acted upon). If removal is necessary, the bibliographic record (title, authors, DOI) remains and a removal notice is posted explaining the reason.
Withdrawal (Pre-Publication): A request by the author(s) to remove a manuscript from the editorial process before formal publication. Withdrawal requests are subject to editorial review and, if made without a legitimate reason during or after the production stage, may be subject to a withdrawal fee (see Section 5).

2) When PedPer Issues a Correction

PedPer may issue a Correction when:

An honest error is identified that affects accuracy or clarity but does not invalidate the main results or conclusions; or
An update is necessary to ensure correct attribution (e.g., author name, ORCID, affiliation, funding acknowledgment) or correct presentation.

How it appears: A separate Correction notice is published with its own DOI, dated, and bidirectionally linked to the original article. The original article remains available and clearly indicates that a Correction exists.

3) When PedPer Issues an Expression of Concern

PedPer may issue an Expression of Concern when:

There is credible evidence of a serious problem (e.g., possible misconduct, unreliable data), and
An investigation is ongoing, delayed, or cannot be completed promptly; or
The available information is insufficient to reach a final conclusion, but readers should be alerted.

An Expression of Concern may be updated, replaced by a Correction, or escalated to a Retraction once the investigation is concluded.

How it appears: A separate notice is published with its own DOI, dated, and bidirectionally linked to the article to inform readers while the matter is being examined.

4) When PedPer Retracts an Article

PedPer may retract an article when:

Findings are unreliable due to major error (e.g., critical miscalculation, fundamental methodological flaw) or
Misconduct is confirmed, including (but not limited to):

Plagiarism
Data fabrication or falsification
Manipulated images or data
Duplicate/redundant publication
Serious authorship violations (ghost/gift authorship, undisclosed contributors)
Undeclared conflicts of interest that significantly affect interpretation
Peer review manipulation
Undisclosed use of generative AI tools that materially affects the reliability of the work (see Generative AI Policy)
Failure to obtain required ethics approval for research involving human participants

How it appears: The article remains accessible to preserve the scholarly record but is clearly marked "RETRACTED" (e.g., watermark across each page and/or a prominent header). A Retraction notice is published with its own DOI, dated, and bidirectionally linked to the article, explaining the reason at an appropriate level of detail.

5) Manuscript Withdrawal Policy NEW

Authors who wish to withdraw a submitted manuscript must notify the editorial office in writing at info@pedagogicalperspective.com as early as possible. Withdrawal requests are handled differently depending on the stage of the manuscript and the reason provided.

5.1 Legitimate Grounds for Withdrawal

Consistent with COPE guidelines, PedPer recognizes the following as legitimate grounds for withdrawal at any stage:

Discovery of a serious error or flaw that invalidates the findings;
Confirmed duplicate/redundant submission or publication;
Research ethics violation identified after submission;
Authorship dispute requiring resolution before publication;
Legal or institutional constraints that prevent publication.

5.2 Non-Legitimate Grounds for Withdrawal

The following reasons are not considered legitimate grounds for withdrawal under COPE standards and will not be accepted without the withdrawal fee described in Section 5.4:

The journal is not listed in a particular country's academic journal ranking or evaluation list (e.g., national index or promotion-related lists);
The author received a better offer from another journal;
Change of mind without a scholarly or ethical reason;
Concerns about indexing or impact factor that could have been verified prior to submission.

⚠ Author Responsibility: Authors are expected to verify a journal's indexing status, scope, and relevance to their institutional or career requirements before submission. PedPer's indexing information is publicly available on the Abstracting & Indexing page.

5.3 Stage-Based Withdrawal Guidelines

Stage	Withdrawal Handling	Fee
Under peer review	Accepted upon written request with any stated reason	None
Post-acceptance / revision	Accepted for legitimate reasons; non-legitimate requests reviewed at Editor-in-Chief discretion	None (legitimate) / At discretion (non-legitimate)
Production stage	Only accepted for legitimate COPE-recognized reasons. Non-legitimate requests may be refused or subject to withdrawal fee.	350 USD (non-legitimate)
Published (DOI assigned)	Not applicable — post-publication Retraction process applies (see Section 4)	N/A

5.4 Withdrawal Fee for Production-Stage Requests Without Legitimate Grounds

When a manuscript has entered the production stage (copy-editing, typesetting, and/or preliminary DOI assignment completed) and the author requests withdrawal without a legitimate COPE-recognized reason, the following applies:

The Editorial Team will formally notify the author that the request has been reviewed and rejected on the grounds that no legitimate reason has been provided.
If the author does not accept this decision and insists on withdrawal, a withdrawal fee of USD 350 (three hundred and fifty US dollars) is required. This fee covers the editorial labour, copyediting, typesetting, and technical processing costs already incurred.
Upon confirmation of full payment, the manuscript will be removed from production and marked as "Withdrawn by Author" in the submission system.
The entire correspondence related to the withdrawal request will be retained in the editorial records in accordance with COPE documentation standards.

Note: The withdrawal fee is not a punitive measure but a cost-recovery mechanism reflecting the resources invested by the journal up to the production stage. It is applied solely in cases where no legitimate scholarly or ethical reason for withdrawal exists.

5.5 Editorial Decision and Appeals

The final decision on all withdrawal requests rests with the Editor-in-Chief. Authors who disagree with the editorial decision may submit a reasoned appeal to info@pedagogicalperspective.com within 15 business days of receiving the decision. Appeals are reviewed in accordance with the Complaints & Appeals Policy.

6) Initiation of Post-Publication Actions

Requests for Corrections, Expressions of Concern, or Retractions may be initiated by:

Authors (who are encouraged to report errors in their own work promptly)
Readers
Reviewers
Editors
Institutions, funders, or third parties

Concerns should be submitted to: info@pedagogicalperspective.com with supporting evidence where possible.

7) Investigation and Decision Process

When a concern is raised, PedPer will:

Acknowledge receipt within 5 business days and conduct an initial assessment.
Secure records (submission files, peer review logs, correspondence, published versions).
Request a response and documentation from authors when appropriate (response deadline: 15 business days).
Seek input from independent experts and/or contact relevant institutions/ethics committees for serious allegations.
Decide on the appropriate outcome: Correction, Expression of Concern, Retraction, or no action.

PedPer follows COPE flowcharts as a procedural reference throughout the investigation and aims to handle cases fairly, confidentially, and promptly.

Non-response by authors: If the authors do not respond within the specified deadline (or any agreed extension), the Editor-in-Chief may proceed to a decision based on the available evidence.

Target Timelines

Stage	Target Duration
Acknowledgment of report	≤ 5 business days
Initial assessment	≤ 2 weeks
Author response deadline	15 business days
Decision (straightforward cases)	≤ 8 weeks from report
Decision (complex cases / institutional referral)	May take longer; parties kept informed
Publication of notice (after decision)	As soon as practicable

Note: These timelines are targets. Complex cases — particularly those requiring institutional cooperation or external expert consultation — may take longer. All parties will be kept informed of progress.

8) Author Notification and Consent

Authors will normally be informed and given an opportunity to respond before a final decision is made.
PedPer may issue a Correction, Expression of Concern, or Retraction even if some or all authors disagree, when the Editor-in-Chief determines that such action is necessary to protect the integrity of the scholarly record.
The decision to publish a post-publication notice rests with the Editor-in-Chief.

9) Appeals Against Retraction Decisions

Authors who wish to appeal a retraction decision may do so by submitting a reasoned letter with supporting evidence to info@pedagogicalperspective.com within 30 days of receiving the retraction notification.

Appeals are reviewed by the Editor-in-Chief and, where warranted, by an independent reviewer or adviser not involved in the original decision. The appeal outcome may result in:

Confirmation of the retraction
Modification of the retraction notice (e.g., revised wording or scope)
Reversal of the retraction (in exceptional cases where new evidence demonstrates that the original findings are reliable)

The final decision on appeals rests with the Editor-in-Chief and is considered conclusive. For general complaints and appeals procedures, see the Complaints & Appeals Policy.

10) Transparency, Permanence, and Indexing

All post-publication notices will be:

Publicly accessible and permanently available
Clearly labeled (Correction / Expression of Concern / Retraction / Removal)
Dated and issued by the journal
Assigned their own DOI
Bidirectionally linked to the original article

Metadata and indexing updates: When a post-publication notice is issued, PedPer will update the relevant metadata in Crossref (e.g., marking the article as retracted, registering the notice DOI) to ensure that indexing databases, citation services, and discovery platforms reflect the current status of the article.

Retracted articles remain accessible as part of the scholarly record; they are not deleted. The retraction notice and the original article are permanently linked.

11) Relationship Between Honest Error and Misconduct

PedPer distinguishes between honest error and misconduct when determining the appropriate post-publication action:

Honest error (e.g., a genuine mistake in data analysis, an inadvertent omission) — typically addressed through a Correction or, if the error invalidates the findings, a Retraction. The notice will state that the retraction is due to error, not misconduct.
Misconduct (e.g., fabrication, plagiarism, manipulation) — addressed through a Retraction. The notice will describe the nature of the misconduct at an appropriate level of detail. Institutions and/or funders may be notified.

This distinction is important because it affects how the retraction is perceived and recorded, and ensures that authors who report their own errors in good faith are treated fairly.

11) Related Policies