Advances in Healthcare Research recognize the importance of the integrity and completeness of the scholarly record to researchers and librarians and attach the highest importance to maintaining trust in the authority of its electronic archive.

It is a general principle of scholarly communication that the editor of a learned journal is solely and independently responsible for deciding which articles submitted to the journal shall be published. In making this decision, the editor is guided by the policies of the journal's editorial board and constrained by such legal requirements in force regarding libel, copyright infringement, and plagiarism. An outcome of this principle is the importance of the scholarly archive as a permanent, historic record of the transactions of scholarship. Articles that have been published shall remain extant, exact, and unaltered as far as is possible. However, occasionally, circumstances may arise where an article is published that must later be retracted or removed. Such actions must not be undertaken lightly and can only occur under exceptional circumstances. In all cases, our official archives will retain all article versions, including retracted or removed articles.

We designed this policy to address these concerns and to take into account current best practices in the scholarly and library communities. As standards evolve and change, we will revisit this issue and welcome the input of scholarly and library communities. We believe these issues require international standards, and we will actively lobby various information bodies to establish international standards and best practices that the publishing and information industries can adopt. 

Retraction and/or Corrections

Authors are discouraged from withdrawing submitted manuscripts after they are in the publication process (review, copyedit, layout, etc.). During the time, Advances in Healthcare Research had spent valuable resources besides time spent in the process.

Editors shall consider retracting a publication if:

1. They have clear evidence that the findings are unreliable, either as a result of a major error (eg, miscalculation or experimental error) or as a result of fabrication (eg, of data) or falsification (eg, image manipulation);
2. It constitutes plagiarism;
3. The findings have previously been published elsewhere without proper attribution to previous sources or disclosure to the editor, permission to republish, or justification (ie, cases of redundant publication);
4. It contains material or data without authorisation for use;
5. Copyright has been infringed or there is some other serious legal issue (eg, libel, privacy);
6. It reports unethical research;
7. It has been published solely based on a compromised or manipulated peer review process;
8. The author(s) failed to disclose a major competing interest (a.k.a. conflict of interest) that, in the view of the editor, would have unduly affected interpretations of the work or recommendations by editors and peer reviewers.

Notices of retraction would:

1. Be linked to the retracted article wherever possible (ie, in all online versions);
2. Clearly identify the retracted article (eg, by including the title and authors in the retraction heading or citing the retracted article);
3. Be clearly identified as a retraction (ie, distinct from other types of correction or comment);
4. Be published promptly to minimise the harmful effects;
5. Be freely available to all readers (ie, not behind access barriers or available only to subscribers);
6. State who is retracting the article;
7. State the reason(s) for retraction;
8. Be objective, factual, and avoid inflammatory language.

Retractions are not usually appropriate if:

1. The authorship is disputed but there is no reason to doubt the validity of the findings;
2. The main findings of the work are still reliable and correction could sufficiently address errors or concerns;
3. An editor has inconclusive evidence to support retraction or is awaiting additional information, such as from an institutional investigation;
4. Author conflicts of interest have been reported to the journal after publication, but in the editor’s view, these are not likely to have influenced interpretations or recommendations or the conclusions of the article.

Editors shall consider issuing an expression of concern if:

1. they receive inconclusive evidence of research or publication misconduct by the authors;
2. there is evidence that the findings are unreliable but the authors’ institution will not investigate the case.
3. they believe that an investigation into alleged misconduct related to the publication either has not been or would not be fair and impartial or conclusive;
4. an investigation is underway but a judgment will not be available for a considerable time

Editors shall consider issuing a correction if:

1. a small portion of an otherwise reliable publication proves to be misleading (especially because of honest error);
2. the author/contributor list is incorrect (i.e. a deserving author has been omitted or somebody who does not meet authorship criteria has been included);
3. The mechanism follows the guidelines from the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).