CORRECTION AND RETRACTION POLICY

1. Policy Statement

The International Journal of Education and Learning Studies (IJELS), published by PT. Intelektiva Global Nusantara, is committed to maintaining the accuracy, reliability, transparency, and integrity of the scholarly record.

The journal recognizes that errors, ethical concerns, or questions about research reliability may be identified after publication. IJELS provides procedures for issuing corrections, expressions of concern, and retractions in accordance with internationally recognized publication ethics principles and relevant guidance from the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

Editorial action is intended to correct the scholarly literature and inform readers, not to punish authors or suppress legitimate scholarly debate.

2. Scope and General Principles

This policy applies to all scholarly content published by IJELS, including Original Research Articles, Review Articles, supplementary materials, and applicable editorial notices.

• Published errors and integrity concerns must be evaluated fairly and based on evidence.
• Editorial actions must be proportionate to the seriousness of the identified problem.
• Honest errors must be distinguished from deliberate misconduct.
• Authors should be given a reasonable opportunity to respond to substantive concerns.
• Conflicts of interest must be managed throughout the assessment process.
• The permanent scholarly record must remain transparent and traceable.

3. Types of Post-Publication Editorial Actions

4. Circumstances Requiring Correction

A correction may be appropriate when:

• Errors are identified in tables, figures, statistical values, or explanatory text.
• Author names, affiliations, acknowledgments, or funding details require verified amendments.
• Disclosure statements are missing or incomplete.
• References or supporting documentation contain material errors.
• Specific methods, data descriptions, or interpretations require clarification without undermining the article's main findings.

Corrections must clearly identify what has been changed and why, without concealing the original publication history.

5. Grounds for Retraction

Retraction may be considered when evidence demonstrates one or more of the following:

• Unreliable findings arising from substantial errors, fabrication, or falsification.
• Serious plagiarism or unauthorized appropriation of scholarly material.
• Substantial duplicate or redundant publication that compromises the scholarly record.
• Manipulation of the peer-review or publication process.
• Serious ethical violations affecting the validity or acceptability of the published work.
• Other circumstances in which the editor no longer has confidence in the reliability of the article.

Retraction may be warranted regardless of whether unreliability resulted from honest error or misconduct. Ordinary scholarly disagreement, a subsequent study reaching different conclusions, or an author's change of opinion is not, by itself, sufficient grounds for retraction.

6. Reporting Errors and Publication Concerns

Authors, readers, reviewers, institutions, and other relevant parties may report concerns through the journal's official editorial contact channel.

Reports should, where possible, identify the affected article, DOI or URL, nature of the concern, and relevant supporting evidence. Authors are responsible for informing the journal promptly when they discover significant errors in their published work.

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

7. Editorial Assessment and Investigation

1. Receipt and Documentation: The editorial office records the report and preserves relevant information.
2. Preliminary Evaluation: An unconflicted editor assesses the credibility, seriousness, and available evidence.
3. Author Notification: Authors are informed of substantive concerns, where appropriate, and invited to provide clarification.
4. Evidence Verification: The journal may request underlying data, supporting documents, independent assessment, or institutional findings.
5. Editorial Determination: The Editor-in-Chief or an authorized independent editor determines whether correction, expression of concern, retraction, or no action is appropriate.
6. Publication of Notice: A formal notice is prepared and published when an editorial action is required.
7. Record Updates: Relevant article metadata and links are updated where supported by the journal platform and indexing infrastructure.

Where formal investigation of researcher conduct is necessary, the journal may consult the appropriate research institution or competent authority. Institutional disciplinary processes are distinct from the editor's responsibility for the published record.

8. Retraction Notice and Article Identification

A formal retraction notice should:

• Be clearly labeled as a retraction.
• Identify the affected article through title, authors, journal details, and DOI or stable URL.
• State the reason for retraction accurately and clearly.
• Identify the party issuing the notice where appropriate.
• Be freely accessible and linked bidirectionally to the original article where technically supported.
• Remain part of the permanent publication record.

The original article will ordinarily remain accessible with clear retraction labeling. PDF files, landing pages, and bibliographic metadata should indicate the retracted status where technically feasible.

9. Corrections and Version of Record

Published articles constitute the journal's official Version of Record. Substantive changes must be documented transparently through a correction notice or another appropriate mechanism.

IJELS does not permit silent alterations that conceal significant errors or post-publication editorial decisions. Formal notices must describe the relevant changes and remain linked to the affected publication.

10. Author Rights, Appeals, and Editorial Independence

Authors will ordinarily be provided an opportunity to respond to significant allegations before a final decision is made. However, unanimous author agreement is not required for an evidence-based retraction decision.

Authors or complainants may request reconsideration when substantial new evidence or significant procedural errors are identified.

Editors with relevant conflicts of interest must not independently decide the outcome. Editorial decisions must remain free from inappropriate commercial, institutional, and personal influence.

11. Timeliness, Transparency, and Preservation

IJELS will address credible post-publication concerns without unnecessary delay, taking into account the complexity of the evidence and the need for fair assessment.

Where serious unresolved concerns persist, an expression of concern may be appropriate while investigations continue.

Corrections, expressions of concern, and retraction notices should remain accessible through the journal website and be preserved as part of the permanent scholarly record.

12. Policy References

• COPE Retraction Guidelines (Updated 2025)
• COPE Publication Ethics Guidance
• Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing