Corrections, Retractions and Postpublication Discussion

JGTSS maintains the scholarly record after publication. Publishing an article is not a declaration that its findings are beyond criticism, and a later correction is not in itself evidence of misconduct. The response to an identified problem is chosen according to its effect on accuracy, ethical integrity and readers’ ability to rely on the work.

Discussion and reporting errors

Readers may submit a reasoned comment, letter or concern to jgtsseditorialoffice@jandoopress.com, identifying the article and supporting the point with evidence. The journal welcomes substantive disagreement about interpretation, policy implications, methods or sources. Contributions must address the work rather than attack the author. A critical comment is assessed independently of the author’s institutional position, partnership or willingness to pay.

The original authors are normally invited to respond to a substantive published critique, with reasonable deadlines and editorial assessment of both contributions. The editor may obtain external review when new research or a difficult technical claim is involved. Moderation of abusive or irrelevant material must not suppress a credible integrity concern. Authors who discover an important error should notify the journal promptly and assist in establishing its scope.

Choosing the notice

A correction addresses a material error when the central work remains reliable, including an important error in analysis, attribution, an author declaration or bibliographic information. The notice explains what changed and the implications. A minor typographical repair that does not affect meaning may be documented through normal version control; a substantive change must not be hidden by replacing a file without explanation.

A retraction is used when findings are unreliable or the publication is seriously compromised by an ethical or publication failure, such as fabricated evidence, major plagiarism, redundant publication or manipulated review. Retraction protects the record and need not determine whether an author acted intentionally. An expression of concern alerts readers to a significant unresolved issue when the available evidence or an ongoing investigation does not yet support a final conclusion.

Preserving access and exceptional removal

Notices are clearly titled, dated, freely accessible and linked in both directions with the affected article. They identify who is taking the action, the reasons and relevant author agreement or disagreement without unsupported allegations. The original article normally remains available with a conspicuous status label or watermark. DOI and other metadata records are updated, and repositories or preservation services are informed where the journal has a submission relationship.

Complete or partial removal is exceptional and is considered only for compelling grounds such as a legal obligation, serious privacy violation or immediate safety risk that cannot be adequately addressed by a notice. The minimum necessary material is removed; a bibliographic record and explanation remain where legally possible. Embarrassment, disagreement with criticism or a wish to republish elsewhere does not justify deleting the record.

An author may challenge a notice through independent review of the evidence or process, but a necessary reader-protection notice is not indefinitely delayed while agreement is sought. Subsequent findings are reflected in an updated notice or follow-up statement. Historic versions and the decision record are retained securely.

Screening findings after publication

Refer a published JGTSS article’s similarity or AI report above 30 percent to jgtssintegrity@jandoopress.com. The investigator must check whether the tool is suitable, remove misleading self-matches and consider the original sources and authors’ explanation. Retraction requires a substantiated ground, such as plagiarism, unreliable evidence, prohibited or materially undisclosed AI content, compromised review or a serious ethics failure. The notice describes that ground and preserves independent review; it does not present a percentage as proof. APCs are not refunded for substantiated author misconduct or an author-attributable serious originality or AI violation, subject to mandatory legal rights.

Last updated: 27 April 2026