Post-Publication Discussions and Corrections

1. Policy Statement

Buletin Ilmiah Nagari Membangun is committed to maintaining the accuracy, integrity, transparency, and reliability of the scholarly record after publication.

The journal recognizes that scholarly knowledge continues to develop and that published articles may require clarification, correction, discussion, or retraction when new information or credible concerns arise.

The journal will consider post-publication matters fairly, independently, and proportionately, following relevant guidance from the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), including its Retraction Guidelines.

The purpose of post-publication corrective action is to protect readers and maintain the integrity of the scholarly record, not to punish authors.

This policy covers scholarly discussions, corrections, addenda, expressions of concern, retractions, article removal, and the management of publication records.

2. Scope of the Policy

This policy applies to all articles published in Buletin Ilmiah Nagari Membangun.

Post-publication concerns may relate to:

  1. Errors in text, tables, figures, or references.

  2. Incorrect or incomplete information about authorship, affiliations, funding, or conflicts of interest.

  3. Errors in methods, calculations, or data interpretation.

  4. Inaccurate reporting of community engagement activities or outcomes.

  5. Problems involving photographs, participant consent, or confidential information.

  6. Unreliable or fabricated data.

  7. Plagiarism or redundant publication.

  8. Undisclosed ethical concerns.

  9. Other issues affecting the reliability, interpretation, or lawful publication of an article.

The journal will distinguish between minor errors, substantial but correctable errors, unresolved concerns, and problems that fundamentally undermine the reliability or integrity of a publication.

3. Post-Publication Scholarly Discussion

The journal encourages constructive, evidence-based scholarly discussion of its published articles.

Authors, readers, researchers, practitioners, and community engagement stakeholders may raise questions or provide substantive comments concerning published methods, findings, interpretations, or conclusions.

Such discussion should:

  • Address specific scholarly issues.

  • Be supported by appropriate evidence or reasoning.

  • Use respectful and professional language.

  • Avoid defamatory statements or personal attacks.

  • Respect confidentiality and participant privacy.

  • Disclose relevant conflicts of interest.

Disagreement with an article's conclusions does not automatically establish that the article is erroneous or should be retracted.

4. Mechanisms for Post-Publication Discussion

Readers may submit relevant concerns or scholarly comments to the editorial office through the journal's official contact channels.

Depending on the nature of the submission and the journal's available publication formats, the editorial team may consider:

  1. A written response to the correspondent.

  2. A request for clarification from the article's authors.

  3. An editorially assessed commentary or letter.

  4. A formal correction or other publication notice.

  5. Referral to an appropriate institutional investigation when warranted.

The authors of the original article should ordinarily be given a reasonable opportunity to respond to substantive criticism before a formal editorial conclusion is reached.

The journal does not claim to operate an open online commenting platform unless that functionality has been implemented and verified.

5. Reporting Errors or Concerns

Authors, readers, reviewers, editors, institutions, or community partners who identify a possible error or concern in a published article are encouraged to contact the editorial office.

Reports should include, where possible:

  • The article title.

  • Author names.

  • DOI or article URL.

  • A description of the error or concern.

  • The relevant page, section, table, or figure.

  • Supporting evidence or references.

  • Contact information for follow-up communication, where available.

Editorial Office
Buletin Ilmiah Nagari Membangun
Lembaga Penelitian dan Pengabdian kepada Masyarakat (LPPM)
Universitas Andalas, Padang, Indonesia

Email: nagari.lppm@unand.ac.id
Alternative email: nagari.lppm.unand@gmail.com

Website: https://buletinnagari.lppm.unand.ac.id/index.php/bln

Anonymous reports may be considered when they contain specific and verifiable evidence.

6. Initial Editorial Assessment

Upon receiving a credible post-publication concern, the Editor-in-Chief or an appropriately designated editor will assess the available information.

The initial assessment will consider:

  1. The nature and seriousness of the concern.

  2. Whether the issue affects the reliability of the article.

  3. Whether additional information is required.

  4. Whether the authors should be contacted.

  5. Whether independent expert advice is necessary.

  6. Whether an institutional investigation is appropriate.

  7. Whether readers need to be alerted while the matter is being assessed.

Editors with relevant conflicts of interest must not be solely responsible for handling the matter.

Where necessary, the journal may preserve relevant correspondence, manuscript versions, submitted data, and other documentation.

7. Types of Post-Publication Actions

The journal may use the following mechanisms, depending on the circumstances.

Action Purpose
Correction To rectify a significant but limited error when the article remains substantially reliable.
Addendum To provide important additional information without concealing or replacing the original publication.
Expression of Concern To alert readers to serious unresolved concerns about a published article.
Retraction To identify a publication whose findings or content can no longer be relied upon, or for which other serious grounds justify retraction.
Removal To restrict or remove access to content in exceptional circumstances involving compelling legal, privacy, or safety considerations.

The journal will choose the action most appropriate to the available evidence and the integrity of the scholarly record.

8. Corrections: Errata and Corrigenda

A correction may be issued when a published article contains an error or omission that should be corrected but does not fundamentally invalidate the work.

Examples include:

  • Incorrect numerical values that do not change the principal conclusions.

  • Errors in tables, figures, or captions.

  • Misidentified affiliations or funding information.

  • Missing or inaccurate acknowledgments.

  • Errors in methodological descriptions that can be clarified.

  • Incorrect conflict-of-interest disclosures.

  • Authorship errors that can be resolved through appropriate verification.

  • Production errors introduced during editing or typesetting.

The terms Erratum and Corrigendum may be used to distinguish journal-originated and author-originated errors, respectively.

The journal may also use the general designation Correction to ensure clarity and consistency.

8.1 Correction Procedure

When a potentially significant error is identified, the editorial office will:

  1. Review the reported error.

  2. Contact the authors where appropriate.

  3. Examine relevant supporting evidence.

  4. Determine whether the article remains substantially reliable.

  5. Prepare an appropriate correction notice when warranted.

  6. Link the notice to the original article.

8.2 Content of a Correction Notice

A correction notice should:

  • Be clearly identified as a correction.

  • Identify the original article.

  • Explain the error and the corrected information.

  • State any relevant effect on the interpretation or conclusions.

  • Identify the responsible editorial or author parties as appropriate.

  • Be dated and accessible.

  • Be linked to the original publication.

The original article should display a clear indication that a correction has been published.

Any replacement or updated article file should be identifiable so that the publication history remains transparent.

9. Addenda and Additional Information

An addendum may be considered when important information becomes available after publication and helps readers understand the original work without correcting an error.

Examples may include:

  • Additional methodological clarification.

  • Relevant supplementary documentation.

  • Information concerning implementation procedures.

  • Additional context necessary to interpret the reported community engagement activities.

An addendum must not be used to conceal substantial errors or replace findings that are fundamentally unreliable.

The editorial team will assess whether the proposed information should be published as an addendum, a correction, a separate article, or another appropriate form.

Accepted addenda should be clearly identified and linked to the original article.

10. Expressions of Concern

An Expression of Concern may be published when serious questions arise about the reliability or integrity of an article but the available information does not yet justify a definitive corrective action.

An Expression of Concern may be appropriate when:

  1. Credible evidence raises substantial concerns about the findings.

  2. An investigation is ongoing and may take considerable time.

  3. Available evidence is inconclusive.

  4. Relevant institutions are unable or unwilling to provide information necessary to resolve the concern.

  5. Readers should be informed of a potentially serious problem while further assessment continues.

An Expression of Concern is not a finding that misconduct has occurred.

10.1 Content of an Expression of Concern

The notice should:

  • Be clearly titled Expression of Concern.

  • Identify the article concerned.

  • Describe the substantive concern accurately.

  • Explain the status of any relevant assessment or investigation where appropriate.

  • Avoid unsupported allegations or premature findings of guilt.

  • Be linked to the original article.

  • Be dated and accessible to readers.

10.2 Follow-Up

The journal should reassess an Expression of Concern when relevant new information becomes available.

Possible outcomes include:

  • A correction.

  • A retraction.

  • An updated notice explaining the resolution.

  • Another appropriate editorial action.

The journal should not leave a concern unresolved without reasonable consideration of available evidence.

11. Retraction Policy

A retraction is a formal mechanism for informing readers that a published article contains seriously unreliable or otherwise fundamentally problematic content.

The primary purpose of retraction is to correct the scholarly record and prevent continued reliance on findings that cannot be trusted.

Retraction is not intended as a punishment.

The journal follows the principles of the COPE Retraction Guidelines, including the 2025 revision.

12. Grounds for Retraction

The journal may consider retracting an article when there is sufficient evidence that:

  1. The findings or conclusions are seriously unreliable because of major errors, fabrication, falsification, or other fundamental problems.

  2. The article contains substantial plagiarism.

  3. The work constitutes inappropriate redundant or duplicate publication.

  4. The publication involves serious ethical violations that justify retraction.

  5. Peer-review or publication processes were manipulated in ways that undermine the legitimacy of the publication.

  6. The article contains other serious defects that make continued reliance on it inappropriate.

For community engagement publications, relevant examples may include fabricated activity records, invented participant evaluations, falsified intervention outcomes, or serious misrepresentation of community participation.

The journal will consider the nature and significance of the evidence in each case.

Retraction should not be used automatically for minor errors, legitimate scholarly disagreement, or an unsubstantiated allegation.

13. Retraction Investigation and Decision

When a concern may warrant retraction, the journal will follow an appropriate assessment process.

Step 1: Identification

The concern may originate from authors, readers, reviewers, editors, institutions, or other parties.

Step 2: Preliminary Assessment

The editor evaluates the credibility, specificity, and potential seriousness of the concern.

Step 3: Author Communication

The authors should ordinarily be informed of the substantive concerns and given a reasonable opportunity to respond.

Step 4: Evidence Assessment

The journal may examine original data, relevant records, previous publications, institutional findings, or expert assessments.

Step 5: Institutional Cooperation

Where appropriate, the journal may contact a relevant institution or ethics committee to investigate matters beyond the journal's authority.

Step 6: Editorial Decision

The responsible, non-conflicted editor determines whether retraction or another action is justified.

The publisher may provide operational, legal, and administrative support, but financial or institutional interests must not improperly influence the editorial decision.

The journal may issue a retraction when the evidence justifies it even if one or more authors disagree or do not respond.

14. Retraction Notices

When a retraction is warranted, the journal will publish a formal notice.

A retraction notice should:

  1. Be clearly titled Retraction: [Original Article Title].

  2. Identify the original article, including bibliographic details and DOI where available.

  3. State who is retracting the article.

  4. Explain the reasons for retraction clearly and accurately.

  5. Distinguish honest error from misconduct when supported by the evidence.

  6. Avoid defamatory language and unsupported conclusions.

  7. State relevant author agreement or disagreement when appropriate.

  8. Be dated and made freely accessible.

  9. Be permanently linked to the original article.

  10. Be reflected in the article's online publication record and associated metadata.

Where an Expression of Concern was previously issued concerning the same matter, the retraction notice should explain that the retraction supersedes the earlier notice.

The notice should provide sufficient information for readers to understand why the article should no longer be relied upon.

15. Treatment of Retracted Articles

A retracted article should ordinarily remain accessible as part of the scholarly record.

The journal should clearly identify its retracted status on:

  • The article landing page.

  • The article PDF, where technically feasible.

  • The article's associated publication information.

  • Relevant metadata and indexing records.

The original article should be linked to its retraction notice.

Readers must be able to distinguish the retracted article from an article that remains valid and current.

The journal should not silently delete or replace a retracted article.

Any changes to published files must preserve an appropriately transparent record of the action taken.

16. Author-Initiated Retractions

Authors who discover a serious error or integrity concern in their published article should inform the journal promptly.

An author request for retraction will be assessed according to the seriousness of the issue and its implications for the scholarly record.

The journal may request an explanation, supporting evidence, and relevant author statements.

Author agreement is desirable, but the journal retains responsibility for deciding the appropriate editorial action.

A request to retract a published article is different from withdrawal of an unpublished manuscript.

Post-publication retraction decisions must be governed by publication ethics and the integrity of the scholarly record, not by manuscript withdrawal fees.

17. Partial Corrections and Reliability of the Article

When a problem affects only a limited portion of an article, the journal will consider whether a correction is sufficient.

The editorial assessment should determine whether the unaffected content remains reliable and whether the conclusions can still be supported.

A correction should not be used when the underlying evidence or principal conclusions are fundamentally unreliable.

The journal should avoid ambiguous corrective notices that leave readers uncertain about the status of the publication.

18. Article Removal in Exceptional Circumstances

Article removal is distinct from retraction.

A retraction normally preserves access to the original article while clearly identifying its status.

Removal or restriction of access may be considered only in exceptional circumstances, such as:

  • A compelling legal requirement.

  • Serious privacy violations involving identifiable individuals.

  • A significant and immediate safety risk.

  • Other circumstances in which continued public access would cause serious harm that cannot reasonably be addressed through a correction or retraction notice.

Where removal is necessary and legally permissible, the journal should preserve an appropriate bibliographic record and publish a notice explaining the action without reproducing harmful or restricted information.

The journal should not remove an article merely to conceal an error, criticism, or publication ethics concern.

19. Article Replacement and Versioning

Published articles should not be silently replaced with materially different versions.

Where an updated version is necessary, the journal should provide an appropriate explanation of the changes and preserve a traceable publication history.

Minor technical corrections that do not affect the scholarly content may be handled through normal production procedures, provided that readers are not misled.

Substantial changes affecting methods, findings, authorship, or conclusions require appropriate editorial assessment and a transparent notice.

If an article has been retracted because its findings were fundamentally unreliable, a substantially revised and scientifically valid work should ordinarily undergo a new editorial assessment rather than simply replacing the retracted publication without explanation.

20. Editorial Independence and Conflicts of Interest

Post-publication decisions must be made impartially.

Editors involved in a material conflict of interest must not be solely responsible for deciding the outcome of a case.

Where the Editor-in-Chief is conflicted, the matter should be handled by an appropriately independent editor or editorial representative.

Decisions must not be influenced by:

  • The author's academic status or institutional position.

  • Publication fees.

  • Personal relationships.

  • Sponsorship arrangements.

  • Reputational pressure.

  • Concerns about journal performance indicators.

The integrity of the published record must remain the principal consideration.

21. Cooperation with Institutions and Other Journals

The journal may cooperate with relevant institutions, research ethics committees, publishers, or other journals when a post-publication concern requires additional investigation.

Such cooperation may be necessary when a case involves:

  1. Research misconduct.

  2. Data fabrication or falsification.

  3. Authorship disputes.

  4. Ethical approval or consent violations.

  5. Duplicate publication across journals.

  6. Systematic manipulation of the publication process.

The journal will respect confidentiality and applicable legal requirements.

Institutional findings may inform editorial decisions, but the journal remains responsible for determining the appropriate status of its published content.

22. Metadata, DOI, and Indexing Updates

The journal should take reasonable steps to ensure that post-publication notices are discoverable and linked to the affected articles.

Where relevant and technically supported, the editorial office should:

  • Link corrections, expressions of concern, and retractions to the original article.

  • Update article landing pages.

  • Update PDF or HTML notices.

  • Maintain accurate publication metadata.

  • Register or update relevant DOI relationships.

  • Communicate article status changes to relevant indexing or preservation services through available mechanisms.

The journal should not assume that updating a PDF automatically updates Crossref, indexing databases, or repository copies.

Metadata corrections and external notifications should be verified as part of the implementation process.

23. Timeliness and Communication

The journal will seek to address credible post-publication concerns without unnecessary delay.

The time required for assessment may vary according to the complexity of the issue, the availability of evidence, author responses, and institutional investigations.

When the journal has sufficient confidence that a published article is seriously unreliable or otherwise meets the grounds for retraction, a retraction notice should be issued promptly.

Where serious concerns remain unresolved and a final decision is delayed, an Expression of Concern may be appropriate.

The journal does not establish a fixed investigation deadline through this policy unless such a deadline has been formally adopted and can be consistently implemented.

24. Recordkeeping

The journal should maintain appropriate internal records of post-publication concerns and editorial actions.

Records may include:

  • Reports or complaints received.

  • Supporting evidence.

  • Correspondence with authors and institutions.

  • Editorial assessments.

  • Decisions and their justification.

  • Published notices.

  • Relevant metadata updates.

Records must be handled in accordance with applicable privacy, confidentiality, and institutional requirements.

25. Responsibilities of Authors

Authors are expected to:

  1. Report significant errors discovered after publication.

  2. Respond appropriately to credible questions about their published work.

  3. Provide relevant supporting information when reasonably requested.

  4. Cooperate with necessary corrections or investigations.

  5. Avoid concealing material errors or integrity concerns.

  6. Respect the journal's editorial independence.

  7. Inform relevant co-authors about significant post-publication matters.

Authors should not attempt to resolve a serious publication error through an undisclosed replacement of files or an informal change to published content.

26. Policy Review

The journal should review this policy periodically to maintain consistency with relevant COPE guidance, developments in scholarly publishing, and the journal's technical capabilities.

The journal is committed to ensuring that published corrections, expressions of concern, and retractions are transparent, accessible, and appropriately connected to the scholarly record.

27. Related Policies and References

This policy should be read alongside the journal's:

  • Allegations of Misconduct

  • Authorship and Contributorship

  • Complaints and Appeals

  • Conflicts of Interest

  • Data and Reproducibility

  • Ethical Oversight

  • Intellectual Property

  • Journal Management

  • Plagiarism Policy

  • Archiving Policy

  • Repository Policy

References