01. Purpose and Scope

LOCUS Journal of Academic Literature Review (JALR) is committed to maintaining an accurate, transparent, and trustworthy scholarly record. This policy establishes how the journal addresses material errors, unresolved concerns, and unreliable or ethically compromised publications after an article has been published.

Actions are determined by the nature and seriousness of the concern, using fair, evidence-based editorial assessment. The purpose of a correction or retraction is to protect the scholarly record, not to punish authors. This policy applies to all content published by the journal, including articles available online before issue assignment.

02. Types of Post-publication Notices

Correction (Erratum or Corrigendum). A correction is issued when a specific error affects the accuracy or interpretation of part of an otherwise reliable article, without invalidating its main findings or conclusions. Examples may include material errors in figures, tables, author details, or reported values.

Expression of Concern. An expression of concern may be issued when credible and significant questions exist about the reliability or integrity of an article, but the evidence remains inconclusive or an investigation is likely to be prolonged. It is an interim notice, not a finding of misconduct.

Retraction. A retraction is issued when the editorial assessment establishes that the article, or its principal findings or conclusions, cannot be relied upon, or where serious publication-integrity concerns justify retraction. Honest error and misconduct are distinguished in the notice when evidence permits.

03. Grounds for Editorial Action

Each case is assessed individually. A correction, expression of concern, or retraction may be appropriate where evidence reveals material errors, unreliable analyses or conclusions, fabricated or falsified information, plagiarism, unjustified duplicate publication, unethical research, compromised peer review, inappropriate use of protected material, or serious undisclosed competing interests.

An authorship dispute, disagreement in interpretation, or minor typographical error does not automatically justify retraction. The editor considers whether the central scholarly conclusions remain reliable and whether a proportionate corrective action can adequately address the issue.

04. Receiving and Assessing Concerns

Concerns may be raised by authors, readers, reviewers, institutions, editors, or other parties through the journal’s official contact channel. Reports should identify the publication, describe the concern clearly, and provide any available supporting information. Good-faith concerns are assessed without prejudging the individuals involved.

• The Editor-in-Chief (or an independent editor where a conflict of interest exists) records and screens the concern.
• The journal examines relevant files, editorial records, reports, and publicly available evidence, and seeks expert advice when necessary.
• Authors are normally informed of substantive allegations and given a reasonable opportunity to respond, unless doing so would compromise a necessary inquiry.
• The journal may request clarification or an investigation from the authors’ institution or another appropriate body when the matter is outside the journal’s investigative capacity.
• The editor documents the reasons for the final decision and communicates the outcome as appropriate.

05. Corrections and Version Transparency

When a correction is warranted, the journal publishes a clearly labelled notice stating what has changed, why the change was necessary, and how it relates to the original article. The notice is dated, freely accessible, and linked to the original article. Material amendments must not be made silently.

Where technically feasible, the journal updates the online article and PDF with a visible link or statement identifying the correction, while preserving a traceable publication history. Minor production errors that do not affect the scholarly meaning may be fixed with an appropriate record of the change.

06. Expressions of Concern

An expression of concern may be published when credible concerns require readers to be alerted but the evidence does not yet justify a final determination. The notice identifies the article, explains the unresolved issues in neutral terms, and is linked to the publication.

The journal continues to review new information and, where relevant, follows the progress of institutional inquiries. An expression of concern may subsequently be followed by a correction, retraction, or a notice resolving the concern. The outcome and relationship between notices will be made clear.

07. Retractions and the Permanent Scholarly Record

A retraction notice must clearly identify the affected article, state who is retracting it, explain the reason and basis for the action, distinguish honest error from misconduct where established, and provide a direct link to the original publication. The notice is published promptly once the editorial decision is supported by adequate evidence and is freely accessible.

The retracted article normally remains available as part of the scholarly record, prominently labelled RETRACTED on its landing page and, where technically feasible, its full-text and PDF versions. Retraction does not mean deleting the publication or concealing its history. Removal of content is considered only in exceptional circumstances, such as serious legal, privacy, or safety risks, with an explanatory notice where appropriate.

The Editor-in-Chief has final editorial responsibility for retraction decisions, except where an independent editor must act because of a conflict. Authors’ disagreement does not in itself prevent a justified notice.

08. Metadata, DOI and Indexing Updates

LOCUS links each post-publication notice to its original article and maintains accurate titles, dates, article identifiers, and DOI information. Where supported by the journal’s technical infrastructure, the corresponding article metadata and external registration or indexing records are updated to indicate corrections, concerns, or retractions.

Public notices shall be discoverable, accessible without payment, and preserved with the journal’s publication record. The dates of notices and editorial actions must reflect actual events.

09. Confidentiality, Fairness and Appeals

The journal protects confidential correspondence and personal information while making necessary scholarly notices transparent. Statements are factual, proportionate, and avoid unsupported allegations. Reviewers or editors who have a conflict of interest must not adjudicate the relevant concern.

Authors and other affected parties may submit a reasoned appeal with relevant evidence through the journal’s official communication channel. The appeal is assessed by an independent editor where feasible. A request for reconsideration does not automatically suspend a notice or guarantee its reversal.

10. Policy Coordination and Implementation

This policy operates alongside the journal’s Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement, Plagiarism and Similarity Screening Policy, Authorship and Contribution Policy, Conflict of Interest Policy, Artificial Intelligence Policy, and Open Access Policy. Questions relating to scholarly integrity are addressed in accordance with the journal’s editorial responsibilities and relevant guidance from the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

LOCUS does not promise a fixed resolution time for complex investigations. The editorial team acts without unnecessary delay, prioritises reader safety and the reliability of the scholarly record, and retains authentic records of decisions and communications.