Retraction and Correction Policy
1. Overview
1.1 · Purpose. XSci is committed to maintaining the integrity and accuracy of the scholarly record. This policy outlines procedures for handling corrections, expressions of concern, retractions, and the revocation of certifications.
1.2 · Deposit and identification. Depositing a manuscript on XSci is free and is not conditional on any purchase or on the outcome of any review. A deposit is dated and assigned a DOI when it is published, and every revision is deposited as a new version with its own DOI. Once assigned, DOIs remain resolvable, and a retracted or corrected record remains accessible with its status shown. Nothing in this policy makes a DOI conditional, and no action under it removes a DOI from the record.
1.3 · Two different objects. This policy governs action on the work — correction, expression of concern, retraction — and, separately, action on a certification attached to a version of that work (clause 2.4). They are distinct: a certification may be revoked without the work being retracted, and a work may be corrected without any effect on a certification.
1.4 · Crossref membership. XSci is a Crossref member and seeks to maintain relevant metadata and record integrity in line with applicable Crossref standards, platform workflows, and operational constraints.
1.5 · Guidance followed. This policy follows relevant guidance and standards, including:
(a) Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE); (b) International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE); (c) relevant Crossref metadata standards.
2. Types of post-publication changes
2.1 Correction
2.1.1 · When it applies. Minor errors that do not affect the main conclusions of the work may be handled by correction.
2.2 Expression of concern
2.2.1 · When it applies. Where serious concerns are raised and review or fact-finding is ongoing, XSci may issue an expression of concern.
2.2.2 · Restricting visibility is exceptional. Because deposit on XSci is free, dated and unembargoed, XSci does not restrict access to a deposited work merely because a concern has been raised. Access to a work may be suspended, restricted or otherwise limited only where that is necessary on legal, safety, or third-party rights grounds, or where a finding of serious misconduct has been made. An open enquiry is not, by itself, a ground for restricting access.
2.3 Retraction
2.3.1 · When it applies. Retraction may be used where published work is materially unreliable, involves serious misconduct, raises significant ethical or legal concerns, or otherwise warrants removal from normal publication status while preserving the scholarly record as appropriate.
2.4 Revocation or correction of a certification
2.4.1 · What a certification is. A certification is the mark XSci Peer-Certified Preprint attached to a named version of a manuscript, together with its public record. Action on a certification is separate from action on the work, and the grounds are narrower.
2.4.2 · The standards a revocation is decided against. A decision to revoke a certification, and any appeal against one, is taken in accordance with the guidance of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), which governs in the first instance, together with the recommendations of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) and the applicable Crossref metadata standards. The same standards govern the equivalent decision under the Peer Review Policy, so that one set of facts is judged the same way wherever it arises.
2.4.3 · The only ground. A certification is revoked only on a finding that its record was materially false — for example, that a reviewer held an interest that barred them and did not declare it, that the assessment recorded was not in fact carried out, or that the record misstates what was assessed.
2.4.4 · A certification is never revoked because:
(a) a reviewer has changed their mind; (b) later work, or a failure to replicate, disagrees with the manuscript; (c) the manuscript has become contested or controversial; or (d) a revision has since been deposited.
2.4.5 · A revoked certification is never deleted. The record remains publicly visible, marked as revoked, with the date and a reason.
2.4.6 · Correcting a record. A factual error on a certification record is corrected with the original retained alongside it. A judgement is never corrected: where a reviewer wishes to add or qualify something after delivery, it is recorded as a dated addition and the original stands.
2.4.7 · Retraction of the work. Where a work carrying a certification is retracted, the certification record is marked to show the retraction and states the version it named. Whether the certification is also revoked depends on the grounds in 2.4.3: a retraction for a reason the reviewer could not have detected does not make the certification record false.
3. Raising concerns
3.1 · Who may raise a concern. Authors, readers, researchers, reviewers, institutional officials, or XSci.
3.2 · How to report one. Contact editorial@xsci.com. Relevant information may include:
(a) article DOI or URL; (b) nature of the concern; (c) supporting evidence or documentation; (d) contact information for follow-up.
3.3 · Reviewers do not raise integrity concerns in their reports. A reviewer who encounters plagiarism, undisclosed duplicate publication, or signs that images or data have been manipulated refers the matter to XSci and stops, and does not write the allegation into a report that may be published. Such a referral enters this policy at clause 4.6.
4. Procedures
4.1 General approach
4.1.1 · What XSci may do. XSci may assess reported issues, invite responses from relevant parties, review available evidence, and determine the appropriate action under the circumstances. Interim measures affecting the visibility of a work are subject to the limits in clause 2.2.
4.2 Possible actions
4.2.1 · Depending on the nature and severity of the issue, XSci may:
(a) publish a correction notice; (b) publish an expression of concern; (c) suspend access to, restrict access to, or otherwise limit the visibility of the work or related content, subject to the limits in clause 2.2; (d) retract the work; (e) remove content where justified by legal, ethical, safety, integrity, or third-party rights concerns; (f) revoke or correct a certification, on the grounds in clause 2.4 and no others; (g) update metadata and related records; (h) take other appropriate action consistent with platform policies, legal constraints, and scholarly record considerations.
4.3 Correction handling
4.3.1 · Where a correction is made, XSci may:
(a) publish a correction notice; (b) update the relevant article record or related materials where appropriate; (c) update relevant metadata or related records where applicable; (d) notify relevant parties where appropriate.
4.3.2 · Timing. Where feasible, correction handling is typically completed within 1 week, but actual timing may vary depending on the circumstances.
4.4 Expression of concern handling
4.4.1 · When it is used. Expression of concern may be used in more serious cases while review or fact-finding is ongoing.
4.4.2 · Where an expression of concern is issued, XSci may:
(a) publish an expression of concern notice; (b) indicate the relevant status in the article record or related materials where appropriate; (c) update relevant metadata or related records where applicable.
4.5 Retraction handling
4.5.1 · Where a retraction is made, XSci may:
(a) keep the original work accessible at its original DOI or record location where appropriate; (b) update the article record, status information, or related materials to reflect that a retraction has occurred; (c) publish a retraction notice on XSci; (d) link related notices and records; (e) update relevant metadata or related records; (f) notify relevant parties where appropriate.
4.5.2 · Who decides. Retraction decisions may involve editorial review or other appropriate internal review arrangements, depending on the circumstances and XSci's operational structure at the time.
4.6 Integrity matters arising during an assessment
4.6.0 · When this clause applies. Where an integrity matter is referred by a reviewer during an assessment, or otherwise arises before an assessment has concluded, 4.6.1 to 4.6.5 apply.
4.6.1 · The assessment is shown as in progress, with no public reason given. No public notice, flag, or status change identifies the manuscript as the subject of an enquiry while the matter is open. A suspicion is not made public before anyone has made a finding, and this is a protection for the authors.
4.6.2 · The reviewer takes no part in deciding the matter, and the allegation does not appear in any report that may be published.
4.6.3 · The authors may respond as often as the inquiry requires. They are given an opportunity to respond before any finding is made, and the limit of one author response per assessment, in the Peer Review Policy, does not apply to an integrity inquiry and is not consumed by it. An author who has already responded to a reviewer's report keeps the full right to make representations here, and may make as many as are appropriate to the conclusion of the inquiry — including in answer to new material, to a revised allegation, or to a provisional finding. A response to an integrity inquiry is not a response to peer review, and the two are never counted together.
4.6.4 · Where the matter is not made out, the assessment resumes and concludes normally, and no record of the enquiry appears on the public record.
4.6.5 · Where it is made out, XSci acts under clause 4.2, and the assessment is closed. Because no report is delivered, the assessment fee is refunded in full. A closed assessment is a case of non-delivery under the Peer Review Policy, and not a separate refund ground; the author need not request the refund and no time limit applies to it, since the closure is XSci's act and not theirs. This holds whether or not the integrity finding went against the author: the refund reflects the fact that the service was not supplied, and it is neither a penalty nor a concession on the merits of the finding. Mechanics are governed by the Refund Policy.
4.7 Certification revocation handling
4.7.1 · Where a certification is revoked under clause 2.4, XSci will:
(a) mark the certification record as revoked, retaining it in public view, with the date and a reason; (b) state which version the certification named; (c) notify the authors and, where relevant, the reviewer; (d) update relevant metadata and related records.
4.7.2 · Revocation does not affect the deposited work, which remains available at its DOI, dated as before. Revoking a certification is not a retraction and is not a finding against the work unless XSci separately makes one under this policy.
5. Author-initiated requests
5.1 · Authors may request correction or retraction of their own work, including where they identify major errors, misconduct, or other serious issues. XSci will review such requests under the applicable policy and evidence available.
5.2 · Withdrawing a deposit does not remove its record. Where an author asks to withdraw a deposited version, the DOI remains resolvable and the record remains, with its status shown, so that anything already cited stays findable.
5.3 · Authors may not have a certification removed at will. A certification stands on the record unless it is revoked on the grounds in clause 2.4. Where an author no longer wishes to display the mark, that is a display question under the Peer Review Policy, not a request under this policy.
6. Disputes and appeals
6.1 · Disagreements about a correction or retraction decision. XSci may review additional evidence and determine the appropriate outcome under the circumstances. Where appropriate, XSci may use independent editorial review or another suitable review arrangement.
6.2 · This clause does not govern appeals against certification decisions. An appeal against a decision to certify or not to certify lies under the Peer Review Policy, on the four grounds stated there, with no fee, decided by a person who took no part in the assessment, and with a refund of the assessment fee as the whole of the remedy. An appeal against a decision to revoke a certification also lies under that policy, but is decided differently: not on those four grounds but against the COPE, ICMJE and Crossref standards named in clause 2.4, by a person who took no part in the revocation, with no fee and no refund — the remedy is that the revocation is set aside and the certification restored, or that it stands. Disagreement with a reviewer's judgement is not a ground under either policy, and this clause may not be used to re-argue an assessment.
7. Special cases
7.1 · Special cases generally. XSci may address special cases, such as overlap with later journal publication, partial unreliability, or related record-linking issues, in a manner appropriate to the platform workflow and scholarly record.
7.2 · Later journal publication is an ordinary outcome, not a special problem. A certified preprint subsequently published in a journal remains on the record with its certification intact, and XSci links the two records where it can. Publication elsewhere is never a ground for revoking a certification or retracting a deposit.
8. Transparency and record-keeping
8.1 · Records kept. XSci may maintain both public notices and internal records relating to post-publication issues, investigations, communications, and decisions, as appropriate.
8.2 · Nothing is published about an individual reviewer, under this policy or any other, including where an assessment record has been corrected or a certification revoked.
9. Prevention
9.1 · Channels used. XSci may use assessment and post-publication reporting channels to reduce the risk of issues that later require correction or retraction.
9.2 · Depositing is not peer review, decides nothing about quality, and is not a review outcome of any kind. Concerns about a deposited manuscript are dealt with after publication, under this policy, against a record that already carries a DOI.
10. Contact information
10.1 · For reporting concerns or questions about this policy: editorial@xsci.com
11. Policy updates
11.1 · Versioning. XSci may update this policy from time to time to reflect evolving best practices, platform workflows, legal requirements, and metadata standards. Each version carries the date it was uploaded, in the header above.