Publication Ethics

Complaints, Appeals, Corrections, and Retraction Policy.

This policy explains how alleged breaches of OAPA publishing and editorial ethics policies are raised, assessed, escalated, and resolved.

Policy position

Concerns should be handled first by journals, with structured escalation where required.

This policy applies where a person believes there has been a breach of the OAPA Authorship and Editorial Ethics Policy by an OAPA-owned journal or an OAPA-published journal that subscribes to that policy.

It also applies where a person believes there has been a breach of the OAPA Publishing Policy by any OAPA-published journal.

2. What This Policy Covers

  • 2.1 This policy applies to concerns about possible breaches relating to authorship, contributorship, conflicts of interest, research ethics, consent, privacy, data integrity, intellectual property, plagiarism, redundant publication, peer review ethics, editorial conduct, editorial impartiality, special issues, invited content, corrections, retractions, article removal, or other publication ethics matters.
  • 2.2 This policy also applies to concerns that an OAPA-published journal has not complied with the OAPA Publishing Policy, including requirements relating to diamond open access, peer review, editorial transparency, ethical publishing, and author rights.
  • 2.3 This policy does not normally apply to disagreement with an editorial decision where the journal’s published process and relevant OAPA policies have been followed.

3. Raising a Concern

  • 3.1 Concerns should ordinarily be raised first with the journal’s Editor-in-Chief or Lead Editor.
  • 3.2 A concern should identify the manuscript, article, journal, policy provision, alleged breach, relevant evidence, and outcome sought.
  • 3.3 Anonymous concerns may be considered where sufficient evidence is provided.
  • 3.4 Concerns that are abusive, vexatious, unsupported by evidence, repeated without new information, or outside the scope of this policy may be declined.

4. Tier 1: Journal Complaints Process

  • 4.1 The journal’s Editor-in-Chief or Lead Editor is responsible for managing the Tier 1 Journal Complaints Process unless they are conflicted.
  • 4.2 Where the Editor-in-Chief or Lead Editor is conflicted, the matter must be handled by an uninvolved senior editor, editorial board member, journal owner representative, or other appropriate independent person.
  • 4.3 The journal must acknowledge the concern within 10 working days.
  • 4.4 The journal may request further information from the complainant, author, reviewer, editor, institution, funder, ethics committee, journal owner, OAPA, or another relevant party.
  • 4.5 The journal may pause review, production, publication, correction, or retraction activity while the concern is assessed.
  • 4.6 The person or party whose conduct or work is the subject of the concern should normally be given a reasonable opportunity to respond.
  • 4.7 The journal must provide a formal response or outcome within 20 working days after the final information required for assessment has been received.
  • 4.8 The journal must report the outcome of the Tier 1 process to OAPA, including the concern raised, the process followed, the decision reached, and any action taken.

5. Tier 2: Publisher Appeals Process

  • 5.1 If the complainant is not satisfied with the Tier 1 outcome, they may request a Tier 2 Publisher Appeals Process by writing formally to both president@open-publishing.org and partnerships@open-publishing.org.
  • 5.2 A Tier 2 appeal must explain why the Tier 1 outcome was inadequate and must identify one or more of the following grounds: a material procedural error; an unmanaged conflict of interest; material evidence that was not considered; a decision that was not reasonably open on the evidence; a failure to apply the relevant OAPA policy; or a failure to provide a clear outcome.
  • 5.3 A Tier 2 appeal is not a second opportunity to argue the scholarly merits of a manuscript.
  • 5.4 The Tier 2 Publisher Appeals Process will be conducted by a panel comprising the OAPA Editor-at-Large and two other appointees, typically Editors-in-Chief or senior editors from other OAPA-supported journals.
  • 5.5 The Tier 2 panel must acknowledge the appeal within 15 working days.
  • 5.6 The Tier 2 panel may request documents, correspondence, reviewer reports, editorial records, author responses, data evidence, institutional information, or other relevant material.
  • 5.7 The Tier 2 panel must provide a formal outcome within 30 working days after the final information required for assessment has been received.
  • 5.8 The Tier 2 panel may uphold the Tier 1 decision, vary the decision, return the matter to the journal with directions, require a new handling editor or review process, recommend a correction, expression of concern, retraction, article removal, apology, policy clarification, or other action.

6. Tier 3: Publisher Final Appeal

  • 6.1 A Tier 3 Publisher Final Appeal is exceptional.
  • 6.2 A Tier 3 appeal may only be requested where the complainant believes the Tier 2 process involved a serious procedural failure, unmanaged conflict of interest, or decision that could materially affect the integrity of the scholarly record or OAPA’s publishing responsibilities.
  • 6.3 A Tier 3 appeal must be submitted in writing to president@open-publishing.org and partnerships@open-publishing.org.
  • 6.4 OAPA may decline a Tier 3 appeal where it does not raise a serious procedural, governance, legal, ethical, or scholarly-record issue.
  • 6.5 Where accepted, a Tier 3 appeal will be considered by the full OAPA Board of Directors, excluding any conflicted members.
  • 6.6 The Board will normally consider Tier 3 appeals according to its ordinary meeting cycle.
  • 6.7 OAPA will aim to provide a final outcome within three months of accepting the Tier 3 appeal.
  • 6.8 The Tier 3 decision is final within OAPA.

7. Decision Outcomes

  • 7.1 Where a concern relates to a manuscript under consideration, outcomes may include manuscript revision, rejection, withdrawal from consideration, correction of metadata, further peer review, or reassignment of the handling editor or reviewer.
  • 7.2 Where a concern relates to published content, outcomes may include a correction, editorial note, expression of concern, retraction, article removal or restriction, author response, or no further action.
  • 7.3 Where a concern relates to editor, reviewer, or journal conduct, outcomes may include explanation, apology, process correction, editorial recusal, additional peer review, policy clarification, training or guidance, removal from a role, resignation, or notification to an institution, funder, ethics committee, publisher, journal owner, or other relevant body.
  • 7.4 Where a concern relates to an OAPA publishing arrangement, outcomes may include amendment, suspension, or termination of the journal publishing arrangement.
  • 7.5 Outcomes must be proportionate to the breach, evidence, risk to the scholarly record, and role of the journal or OAPA.

8. Corrections

  • 8.1 A correction may be issued where a published article contains an error that affects understanding, attribution, metadata, interpretation, transparency, or the scholarly record, but does not invalidate the article as a whole.
  • 8.2 Corrections should identify the article, explain the correction, and be linked to the article.
  • 8.3 Minor typographical, formatting, or production errors that do not affect meaning may be corrected without a formal notice.

9. Expressions of Concern

  • 9.1 An expression of concern may be issued where serious concerns exist but the evidence is incomplete, an investigation is ongoing, or an institution or third party has not reached a conclusion.
  • 9.2 An expression of concern should identify the article, explain the concern, and be linked to the article.
  • 9.3 An expression of concern may later be replaced by a correction, retraction, editorial note, or no further action.

10. Retractions and Article Removal

  • 10.1 A retraction may be issued where the findings or content are unreliable, unethical, fraudulent, plagiarised, unlawfully published, substantially duplicated, seriously misleading, or affected by major error.
  • 10.2 A retraction may also be issued where authorship, consent, peer review, conflicts of interest, data integrity, or editorial process has been seriously compromised.
  • 10.3 A Retraction Notice is expected to be published by the Editor-in-Chief or Editor-at-Large and should explain the process followed, the article affected, and the reason for retraction.
  • 10.4 The retracted manuscript should be republished or retained with a [RETRACTION] tag, visible watermark on article pages, and classification as a Retraction.
  • 10.5 Retracted articles should remain accessible where legally and ethically possible, clearly marked as retracted.
  • 10.6 The journal may remove or restrict access to content where required by law, court order, serious privacy risk, defamation risk, copyright infringement, safety risk, or another compelling reason.
  • 10.7 Where possible, a removal notice should remain available.

11. Institutional or Third-Party Involvement

  • 11.1 The journal, Tier 2 panel, or OAPA Board may contact an author’s institution, funder, ethics committee, publisher, research integrity office, journal owner, or other relevant body where concerns cannot be resolved by editorial assessment alone.
  • 11.2 OAPA may wait for an institutional or third-party outcome where the matter depends on evidence outside OAPA’s access.
  • 11.3 OAPA may act before an external investigation concludes where necessary to protect the scholarly record, journal integrity, or OAPA’s publishing responsibilities.

12. Records and Confidentiality

  • 12.1 Journals must keep records of complaints, appeals, concerns, evidence considered, correspondence, decisions, and actions taken.
  • 12.2 OAPA may request records from journals where a matter is escalated or where a breach of OAPA policy is alleged.
  • 12.3 Records must be handled confidentially and retained only as needed for editorial, legal, ethical, governance, or operational purposes.
  • 12.4 Confidentiality may be limited where disclosure is needed to investigate the concern, correct the scholarly record, obtain advice, comply with law, or notify relevant institutions or parties.

13. Version History

13.1 Version 1.0 — Draft policy prepared for OAPA-supported journals and publications.

This policy supplements the OAPA Publishing Policy and applies to alleged breaches of OAPA publishing and editorial ethics policies.
“`