Retraction and Correction Policy

AKSEN Journal of Islam and Humanities (AJIH) Published by AKSEN (Akademika Semesta Nusantara)

AJIH is committed to maintaining the integrity of the scholarly record. This policy outlines the circumstances under which published articles may be corrected or retracted, and the procedures followed in each case. This policy operates alongside, and should be read together with, the journal's Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement.

1. Types of Post-Publication Amendment

AJIH recognizes several categories of post-publication amendment, distinguished by severity and intent:

  • Correction (Erratum/Corrigendum) — used for minor errors that do not undermine the overall validity or integrity of the article
  • Retraction — used for serious flaws or misconduct that invalidate the article's findings, conclusions, or integrity
  • Expression of Concern — used when there is credible reason to believe misconduct may have occurred, but the investigation is ongoing and not yet conclusive
  • Removal — used only in exceptional, legally compelled circumstances (see Section 5)

2. Grounds for Correction

A correction (erratum, if the error originated with the journal/publisher; corrigendum, if the error originated with the author) may be issued when:

  • A factual error, typographical error, or data-entry error is identified that does not affect the article's overall conclusions
  • An author's name, affiliation, or funding acknowledgment was omitted or incorrectly stated
  • A citation or reference contains an identifiable, correctable error

Procedure:

  1. The error is reported to the editorial office by the author(s), a reader, or identified internally.
  2. The handling editor verifies the nature and extent of the error.
  3. A correction notice is published, linked bidirectionally to the original article, clearly stating what was corrected and why.
  4. The original article remains accessible, with the correction notice appended or linked, rather than being removed.

3. Grounds for Retraction

An article may be retracted when:

  • There is clear evidence that the findings are unreliable due to research misconduct (e.g., data fabrication or falsification) or honest error (e.g., a miscalculation or experimental flaw that invalidates the main conclusions)
  • The findings have previously been published elsewhere without proper attribution, cross-referencing, permission, or justification (redundant/duplicate publication)
  • The work constitutes plagiarism or is otherwise found to infringe an existing copyright, or raises a serious, substantiated legal concern
  • The article reports unethical research (e.g., research conducted without appropriate ethical approval or informed consent, where such approval was required)
  • Authorship was fraudulently attributed, or a substantial dispute over authorship cannot be resolved and calls the work's integrity into question

Procedure:

  1. A concern is raised (by a reader, reviewer, editor, author, or third party) and formally logged by the editorial office.
  2. The Editor-in-Chief conducts an initial assessment to determine whether the concern warrants formal investigation.
  3. The author(s) are formally notified of the concern and given a fair and reasonable opportunity to respond before any decision is made.
  4. Where appropriate, the author's institution may be contacted to assist with investigation, particularly in cases involving alleged data fabrication, falsification, or research misconduct.
  5. The Editor-in-Chief, in consultation with the editorial board (and, where relevant, an independent expert), makes a final determination.
  6. If retraction is warranted, a retraction notice is published:
    • Clearly linked to the original article (bidirectionally, where the platform allows)
    • Clearly labeled as a retraction in both the notice and, where technically feasible, on the original article itself
    • Stating the reason(s) for retraction and who is issuing it (e.g., the editors, the authors, or both)
    • Written in a factual, non-punitive tone, describing what occurred without unnecessary personal characterization
  7. The original article's content is not deleted from the journal's records or archive (except under the exceptional circumstances described in Section 5); it remains accessible, watermarked or annotated as "RETRACTED," to preserve the scholarly record.

4. Expressions of Concern

Where credible evidence of a serious problem exists but investigation is not yet complete (e.g., because it depends on an institutional inquiry that is still underway), the editorial board may publish a formal Expression of Concern, notifying readers of the issue while investigation continues. This notice will be updated or replaced with a final correction, retraction, or resolution notice once the investigation concludes.

5. Removal of Content

Complete removal of an article from the journal's online platform is considered only in narrowly defined, exceptional circumstances, such as:

  • A legally binding court order
  • Content that could pose a serious and immediate risk to public health or safety if it remains accessible
  • Defamatory or clearly unlawful content that must be removed to comply with applicable law

Even in removal cases, a clear notice explaining that the article has been removed, and the general reason, will be retained at the original article's location wherever legally possible, to maintain transparency in the scholarly record.

6. Who May Initiate the Process

A correction, retraction, or expression of concern may be initiated by:

  • The author(s) themselves, upon discovering an error or issue in their own published work
  • The Editor-in-Chief or editorial board, upon becoming aware of a concern
  • A reader, reviewer, or third party, who should direct concerns in writing to the editorial office

All concerns are treated confidentially during investigation and are addressed through the process outlined above, consistent with the Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement.

7. Timeliness

The editorial board aims to act on credible concerns promptly. While timelines vary depending on the complexity of the investigation (particularly where institutional involvement is required), the editorial office will keep the reporting party and, where appropriate, the author(s) informed of the process's status at reasonable intervals.

8. Alignment with Recognized Standards

This policy is broadly modeled on widely recognized conventions in scholarly publishing for handling corrections and retractions, including the general approach reflected in guidance from the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). As with the journal's Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement, the editorial board is encouraged to consult COPE's current official retraction guidelines directly (cope.org) when formalizing internal procedures, rather than relying solely on this summary.

Notes for the editorial board:

  • This policy should be read alongside the Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement, which it complements — consider merging cross-references so authors and readers are directed consistently between the two.
  • No specific timelines are set in Section 7, since investigation length is inherently variable; the board may wish to set an internal (non-public) target for initial assessment, e.g., acknowledging a concern within a set number of business days.
  • Confirm your journal management/hosting platform's technical capability for bidirectional linking and "RETRACTED" watermarking before publishing this commitment, as implementation depends on your specific OJS setup or website design.