CORRECTION AND RETRACTION POLICY

1. Policy Statement

Jurnal Inovasi dan Riset Pendidikan Dasar (JIRPD), published by PT. Intelektiva Global Nusantara, is committed to ensuring the accuracy, reliability, ethical quality, and integrity of its published scholarly content.

The journal recognizes the need for transparent correction and retraction procedures when material errors, research misconduct, or publication integrity concerns are identified after publication.

JIRPD considers relevant guidance from the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) when evaluating corrections, expressions of concern, and retractions. The purpose of these actions is to correct the scholarly record and protect readers, not to punish authors.

2. Scope and General Principles

This policy applies to Original Research Articles, Review Articles, supplementary publications, and relevant editorial notices issued by JIRPD.

• Published articles must accurately represent research methods, data, analyses, findings, and scholarly conclusions.
• All credible reports of significant errors or misconduct must receive fair editorial assessment.
• Honest errors and deliberate misconduct must be distinguished.
• Authors should have an appropriate opportunity to respond to substantive concerns.
• Editorial actions must be proportional to the evidence and seriousness of the matter.
• Published notices must preserve transparency and traceability of the scholarly record.

3. Types of Post-Publication Editorial Actions

4. Circumstances Requiring Correction

Corrections may be considered for:

• Incorrect statistical values, descriptive data, tables, figures, or labels.
• Errors in educational assessment results or reported research procedures that do not invalidate the main conclusions.
• Verified mistakes in author details, affiliations, acknowledgments, or funding declarations.
• Missing or inaccurate references or relevant disclosures.
• Inaccuracies requiring clarification of instruments, methods, analyses, or findings.

A correction notice must identify the original article, explain the amended information, and remain linked to the published record.

5. Grounds for Retraction

Retraction may be warranted when evidence indicates:

• Unreliable research findings arising from substantial errors, fabricated student data, falsified assessments, or manipulated analyses.
• Serious plagiarism or intellectual property misappropriation.
• Substantial duplicate or redundant publication.
• Manipulation of peer review or other serious publication processes.
• Serious violations of research ethics, including applicable protections for children or other participants.
• Other circumstances in which the editor no longer has confidence in the reliability of the article.

Retraction decisions are based on the reliability and integrity of the scholarly record, whether the underlying problem resulted from misconduct or serious honest error.

Legitimate academic disagreement or subsequent research yielding different results does not by itself justify retraction.

6. Reporting Errors and Publication Concerns

Authors, reviewers, researchers, teachers, readers, institutions, and other relevant parties may report suspected errors or integrity concerns through the journal's official editorial contact channel.

Reports should identify the article title, DOI or article URL, nature of the concern, and available supporting evidence.

Authors must notify the editorial office when they identify significant errors in their published research.

Anonymous reports may be assessed if they contain sufficiently specific and verifiable information.

7. Editorial Assessment and Investigation Procedure

1. Receipt and Registration: The journal records the report and relevant article information.
2. Preliminary Review: An independent and unconflicted editor assesses the evidence and seriousness of the concern.
3. Author Clarification: Relevant authors are informed of substantive concerns where appropriate and invited to provide an explanation.
4. Verification: The editorial office may request anonymized data, research records, instruments, analyses, ethics documentation, or independent expert advice.
5. Institutional Consultation: Issues requiring investigation of researcher conduct may be referred to the relevant institution or authority.
6. Editorial Decision: The Editor-in-Chief or authorized independent editor determines the appropriate action.
7. Public Notice: A correction, expression of concern, or retraction notice is issued when required.
8. Record Maintenance: The notice is linked to the article and relevant metadata updated where technically feasible.

8. Retraction Notices and Permanent Article Records

A retraction notice must:

• Clearly identify itself as a retraction.
• Include sufficient bibliographic information to identify the affected article.
• Explain the reasons for retraction accurately.
• Identify who issued the notice when appropriate.
• Remain freely accessible and linked to the original article.
• Be retained as part of the journal's permanent scholarly record.

Retracted articles ordinarily remain publicly available with a prominent retraction notice or watermark where technically possible, rather than being deleted without explanation.

9. Corrections and Version of Record

The officially published article on the JIRPD website represents the Version of Record.

Significant changes made after publication must be transparently identified through a correction notice or other appropriate publication update.

The journal does not permit undisclosed changes that conceal errors, substantially alter findings without explanation, or remove evidence of prior editorial actions.

10. Author Responses, Appeals, and Editorial Independence

Authors should ordinarily be provided with an opportunity to respond to major allegations before a final determination is made. Unanimous author consent is not required for an evidence-based correction or retraction decision.

Authors or complainants may request reconsideration when material new evidence or a significant procedural error is identified.

Editors involved in an actual or relevant perceived conflict of interest must not determine the outcome of the affected case. Editorial judgments must remain independent of institutional, commercial, and personal pressures.

11. Timeliness, Transparency, and Preservation

JIRPD addresses substantiated concerns without unnecessary delay while allowing a fair assessment of evidence and responses.

Where a serious concern cannot be resolved promptly, an expression of concern may be issued when appropriate to alert readers.

Formal notices will remain accessible and linked to the article as part of the permanent publication history. Available metadata and indexing records should be updated where supported.

12. Policy References

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