1. Grounds for Retraction

An article may be retracted when reliable evidence demonstrates that its principal findings, supporting evidence, ethical basis, or publication process are seriously compromised and that continued reliance on the article would be inappropriate.

Grounds that may justify retraction include:

• Data Fabrication or Falsification: Evidence that research observations, clinical information, measurements, datasets, or reported results were fabricated, falsified, or materially misrepresented.
• Unreliable Findings: Major methodological, analytical, computational, statistical, experimental, or interpretive errors that invalidate the article's findings or conclusions.
• Serious Plagiarism: Substantial unauthorized appropriation of text, ideas, data, images, or other scholarly material that fundamentally compromises the publication.
• Redundant or Duplicate Publication: Substantial publication overlap without adequate disclosure, authorization, or legitimate scholarly justification.
• Unethical Research: Serious deficiencies in required ethics approval, informed consent, patient protection, or research conduct that render the publication ethically unacceptable.
• Manipulated Images or Research Evidence: Misleading manipulation, duplication, substitution, or artificial generation of scientific images, clinical records, or other research materials that undermines the findings.
• Compromised Peer Review: Fabricated reviewer identities, manipulated review reports, undisclosed interference, or other serious irregularities that invalidate confidence in the publication process.
• Material Undisclosed Competing Interests: Undisclosed relationships or interests that fundamentally undermine the independence, reliability, or integrity of the published research.
• Misrepresented AI-Generated Evidence: Synthetic data, fabricated references, generated clinical observations, or AI-modified materials presented misleadingly as genuine scientific evidence.
• Other Fundamental Integrity Problems: A serious defect that makes the article unreliable or otherwise unsuitable for continued presentation as a valid scholarly publication.

1.1 Assessment of Seriousness

The presence of an error, ethical concern, authorship dispute, or incomplete disclosure does not automatically require retraction. The journal considers the nature and extent of the problem, its effect on the reliability of the article, the possibility of adequate correction, and the consequences for readers and research users.

1.2 Honest Error and Research Misconduct

A retraction may be necessary even where a serious error was unintentional. Conversely, an administrative or ethical deficiency that can be resolved without compromising the article's reliability may be addressed through a correction or another appropriate editorial measure.

1.3 Scope of Retraction

Retraction normally applies to the complete article. Where an error affects only an identifiable component and the remaining conclusions are reliable, a sufficiently detailed correction will generally be considered rather than a partial retraction.

2. Retraction Initiation

A retraction assessment may be initiated when a credible concern is raised about the reliability, integrity, or ethical acceptability of a published article.

Concerns may be raised by:

• One or more authors of the published article.
• The Editor-in-Chief, Handling Editor, or Editorial Board.
• The publisher, Panorama Scholarly Group (PSG).
• Reviewers, readers, independent researchers, or other concerned individuals.
• Research institutions and research integrity offices.
• Research ethics committees, funders, regulators, or other competent bodies.
• Other publishers, repositories, or scholarly organizations presenting relevant evidence.

2.1 Reporting a Concern

A report should, where possible, include:

• The title, authors, publication details, and DOI or URL of the article.
• A clear description of the concern and the affected content.
• Relevant data, images, references, calculations, or other supporting evidence.
• Any known related institutional or editorial investigation.
• Contact information for further clarification, where the complainant is willing to provide it.

2.2 Confidential and Anonymous Concerns

Reports may be treated confidentially where reasonably possible. Anonymous or pseudonymous concerns may also be considered when they contain sufficiently specific and verifiable information.

The journal seeks to protect individuals who raise concerns in good faith. However, absolute confidentiality cannot be guaranteed where disclosure is necessary for procedural fairness, prevention of serious harm, or compliance with applicable legal obligations.

3. Investigation Process

Health Nexus examines potential grounds for retraction through a structured and proportionate process. The journal seeks to distinguish scientific errors, publication irregularities, ethical concerns, and potential misconduct while maintaining the independence and fairness of its editorial decisions.

3.1 Preliminary Assessment

The Editorial Office may:

1. Register and assess the reported concern.
2. Identify the affected publication and relevant evidence.
3. Determine whether the issue may be resolved through clarification or correction.
4. Identify potential conflicts of interest affecting those responsible for assessment.
5. Determine whether specialist or institutional investigation is necessary.
6. Consider whether an interim notice or other urgent measure is required to protect readers or patients.

3.2 Author Explanation and Supporting Evidence

Authors should normally be informed of material concerns and given a reasonable opportunity to respond. The journal may request original data, images, protocols, analytical code, ethics documentation, correspondence, or other relevant records.

Where sensitive clinical data or legally restricted records are involved, appropriate alternative verification arrangements may be considered. Authors are not required to disclose protected patient information unlawfully.

3.3 Independent and Institutional Assessment

The journal may consult independent subject experts, statisticians, research integrity specialists, ethics committees, institutions, or other competent organizations when their expertise or authority is necessary.

Research institutions ordinarily have primary responsibility for investigating the conduct of their researchers. The journal remains responsible for evaluating the reliability and integrity of its published scholarly record.

A formal institutional finding of misconduct is not always necessary before an unreliable article can be retracted. Equally, the journal should not describe an author as having committed misconduct without an adequate evidentiary basis.

3.4 Interim Action and Urgent Concerns

Where a credible unresolved issue could materially affect patient safety, clinical practice, or public health, the journal may publish an Expression of Concern or another appropriate notice before an investigation has concluded.

Interim action may also include clarification of unsafe clinical claims, temporary restriction of harmful supplementary material, or appropriate communication with competent authorities where justified.

3.5 Determination and Documentation

The final determination must be based on relevant evidence, the effect of the problem on the article, and the availability of appropriate corrective measures. Editorial records should document the grounds for the decision and the principal procedural steps, subject to confidentiality and legal requirements.

4. Retraction Notice

When a retraction is formally determined, Health Nexus publishes a clear, freely accessible, and independently identifiable Retraction Notice.

4.1 Required Content of the Notice

A Retraction Notice should:

• Be prominently and unambiguously labelled as a Retraction.
• Identify the retracted article by title, author information, bibliographic details, and DOI where available.
• State who is issuing the retraction, such as the authors, Editor-in-Chief, journal, or another responsible party.
• Explain the principal reasons for retraction in sufficient detail to inform readers.
• Identify the nature and extent of the reliability or integrity problem where appropriate.
• Distinguish confirmed misconduct from honest error or unresolved questions where the evidence permits.
• Describe relevant author agreement, disagreement, or non-response where appropriate.
• Identify the date of the retraction and the affected article.
• Provide a permanent link to the original publication.

4.2 Original Article and Public Labelling

4.3 Publication and Persistent Identification

The Retraction Notice should be included in the journal's official publication record and assigned a separate DOI or suitable persistent identifier where technically available.

The notice must not be treated merely as private editorial correspondence or an unindexed change to the article webpage.

Relevant DOI registration metadata, bibliographic records, and available update relationships should be maintained in accordance with the capabilities and requirements of the journal's identifier registration services.

5. Transparency and Integrity

Retraction is a corrective mechanism intended to protect the scholarly literature. The journal seeks to maintain transparency while respecting the procedural rights, confidentiality, and legitimate interests of affected individuals.

5.1 Retraction Is Not a Punishment

Retraction indicates that the publication can no longer be relied upon in the relevant respects. It does not necessarily establish that an author intentionally committed research misconduct.

When the evidence indicates an honest error, the journal should describe the issue accurately without implying intentional wrongdoing.

5.2 Author Agreement and Disagreement

Authors should normally be invited to provide comments on the substantive basis and factual accuracy of a proposed Retraction Notice.

Where sufficient evidence supports retraction, unanimous author agreement is not required. Disagreement, non-response, or inability to contact one or more authors does not prevent the journal from taking necessary action to correct the published record.

5.3 Permanent and Traceable Publication History

A Retraction Notice and the associated article record should remain traceable. The journal must not silently delete, replace, or materially alter published research in a manner that conceals its publication history.

Any necessary exceptions to continued public access must be justified by serious legal, privacy, safety, or comparable considerations.

5.4 Fees and Time Limits

Necessary retractions, formal corrections, expressions of concern, and research integrity investigations are not subject to optional administrative service fees. The journal's general administrative change period does not restrict the reporting or correction of material errors and research integrity concerns after publication.

6. Corrections and Expressions of Concern

Retraction is not the appropriate response to every publication error or ethical concern. Health Nexus selects the corrective action according to the seriousness of the issue, the reliability of the remaining research, and the information readers need.

6.1 Corrections

A formal Correction may be appropriate when an error affects the accuracy, interpretation, attribution, or completeness of a published article but does not invalidate its principal findings or overall conclusions.

Corrections are not restricted to trivial typographical mistakes. Some substantial computational, analytical, or reporting errors may be addressed through a sufficiently detailed correction when the central results and interpretation remain reliable.

6.2 Expressions of Concern

An Expression of Concern may be issued when credible doubts about a publication remain unresolved, an investigation is incomplete, or reliable conclusions cannot yet be reached but readers should be informed of a significant potential problem.

Such notices should identify the article, describe the concern without unsupported allegations, and explain the unresolved status as far as appropriate. The notice should be updated or followed by a further editorial statement when new findings justify action.

6.3 Retraction with Republication

In exceptional circumstances, retraction with republication may be considered when a major honest error changes the results or conclusions, but the underlying research remains scientifically and ethically valid and a fully corrected article can pass appropriate editorial and peer review.

The original article and the corrected republication must be distinguishable and appropriately linked. A new publication identifier should be assigned where appropriate, and the reasons for the change must be disclosed transparently.

6.4 Exceptional Article Removal

Complete removal of a published article is reserved for exceptional circumstances, such as a binding legal requirement, serious patient privacy violation, unlawful disclosure of confidential information, or a substantial safety risk that cannot be adequately addressed through warning, redaction, correction, or retraction.

Where removal is necessary, the journal should ordinarily retain an accessible bibliographic record and an appropriately worded removal notice, subject to applicable law and privacy restrictions.

6.5 Accepted but Unpublished Manuscripts

Withdrawal of an accepted but unpublished manuscript is distinct from retraction of an already published Version of Record. Once an article has been formally published, the appropriate post-publication mechanism should be used rather than silently withdrawing the article.

More detailed requirements concerning formal corrections are available in the journal's Corrections Policy.

7. Author Cooperation

Authors are expected to cooperate responsibly with legitimate editorial inquiries concerning the reliability, accuracy, and ethical integrity of their published work.

Authors should:

• Promptly notify the Editorial Office when a material error or concern is identified.
• Respond to relevant editorial inquiries within a reasonable timeframe.
• Provide accurate explanations and appropriate supporting documentation.
• Cooperate in the verification of data, images, analytical procedures, or ethical records where reasonably necessary.
• Identify relevant institutional, contractual, privacy, or legal restrictions affecting access to supporting materials.
• Inform relevant coauthors and coordinate responses where appropriate.
• Review proposed public notices for factual accuracy when invited to do so.
• Avoid obstructing necessary measures to protect readers and maintain the integrity of the published record.

7.1 Restricted Research Data

Cooperation does not require authors to disclose identifiable patient data, confidential institutional records, or third-party materials unlawfully. Alternative verification through the responsible data custodian, institutional oversight process, or other authorized procedure may be considered.

7.2 Non-Response and Inadequate Cooperation

A failure to respond does not automatically establish misconduct. However, where material reliability concerns remain unresolved and necessary evidence is unavailable, the journal may reach a decision on the basis of the information reasonably obtainable.

Author disagreement or lack of cooperation does not prevent the publication of a justified Retraction Notice when adequate evidence supports the decision.

8. Post-Retraction Actions

Following a formal retraction, the journal seeks to ensure that readers, indexing services, repositories, and relevant scholarly information systems can identify the retracted status of the publication.

8.1 Article and Metadata Updates

The journal will seek to:

• Clearly label the article record and relevant published formats as Retracted.
• Maintain public access to the formal Retraction Notice.
• Create reciprocal links between the retracted article and the notice.
• Preserve the original article's bibliographic identity and publication history.
• Register or update appropriate DOI and publication metadata, where supported.
• Identify the retraction status in available metadata export and discovery mechanisms.
• Ensure that the notice remains identifiable independently of the original article.

8.2 Notification of External Services

Where applicable, the journal may notify DOI registration services, indexing databases, scholarly repositories, library discovery systems, and other relevant services of the retraction or updated publication status.

External services maintain their own update schedules and technical procedures. The journal cannot guarantee the immediate appearance of retraction information in every external database.

8.3 Institutions and Research Integrity Bodies

Relevant institutions, research ethics committees, funders, regulators, or other responsible parties may be informed where justified by the nature of the concern, applicable procedures, or potential implications for research participants and the public.

8.4 Data, Code, and Supplementary Materials

Where a retraction affects associated datasets, software, analytical code, clinical images, supplementary files, or AI models, the journal may request appropriate correction, restriction, withdrawal, or status labelling of the affected materials.

Authors remain responsible for informing the relevant external repository or data custodian when necessary. Changes to externally hosted materials do not automatically update the status of the published journal article.

9. Editorial Responsibility

The Editorial Office, Editor-in-Chief, and authorized editors are responsible for ensuring that post-publication concerns are assessed independently, fairly, and in accordance with the journal's published procedures.

9.1 Editorial Duties

Editorial responsibilities include:

• Receiving and assessing credible concerns concerning published articles.
• Determining the need for additional evidence, explanation, or independent expertise.
• Ensuring that relevant authors have an appropriate opportunity to respond.
• Managing editorial conflicts of interest.
• Distinguishing errors requiring correction from problems requiring retraction.
• Selecting an appropriate, proportionate, and timely corrective action.
• Approving the accuracy and adequacy of formal notices.
• Maintaining appropriate confidential records of the assessment and decision.

9.2 Final Decision Authority

Formal retraction decisions are made by the Editor-in-Chief or an editor formally authorized to exercise delegated decision-making authority, subject to applicable legal responsibilities and appropriate management of competing interests.

An editor with a material conflict must not control the assessment or outcome. Where the Editor-in-Chief is directly implicated, an appropriate independent editor or other unconflicted responsible person should oversee the case.

9.3 Appeals and Reconsideration

Authors or other affected parties may request reconsideration where they identify a material factual error, relevant new evidence, a significant procedural irregularity, or an unmanaged conflict of interest.

Appeals do not automatically suspend a necessary notice or restore a retracted publication to active scholarly status. Any change to the journal's determination must be documented and communicated transparently.

The applicable procedures are set out in the Complaints & Appeals Policy.

10. Publisher Role

Panorama Scholarly Group (PSG), as the publisher of Health Nexus, supports the journal in implementing appropriate retraction decisions, maintaining reliable publication infrastructure, and preserving the transparency of the scholarly record.

10.1 Administrative and Technical Responsibilities

Publisher responsibilities include:

• Supporting the implementation of formal editorial decisions.
• Providing appropriate technical assistance for publication of retraction notices.
• Maintaining relevant article status labels and publication links.
• Supporting correction and updating of applicable bibliographic metadata.
• Maintaining the security and confidentiality of relevant administrative records.
• Supporting communication with external services and responsible institutions where appropriate.
• Maintaining the continued accessibility and integrity of the journal's publication records.

10.2 Digital Preservation

Health Nexus participates in LOCKSS, CLOCKSS, and the PKP Preservation Network (PKP PN) as part of its digital preservation framework.

The publisher seeks to maintain the integrity and traceability of corrected and retracted publication records through its journal platform and applicable preservation arrangements. Actual archival coverage of specific articles and notices depends on the relevant services, deposits, and preservation records.

Preserved copies should not be presented as valid current research without the accompanying correction or retraction information. Where technically possible, relevant preservation systems should be supplied with updated records or notices.

10.3 Editorial Independence and Financial Neutrality

The publisher must respect the independent scholarly assessment of retraction concerns while fulfilling legitimate publishing, legal, technical, and research integrity responsibilities.

Decisions concerning necessary corrections, retractions, and other scholarly record maintenance actions must not depend on Article Processing Charge payments, waiver status, or optional administrative service fees.

11. Compliance with Standards

This policy is informed by internationally recognized guidance concerning the responsible correction of the scholarly record, research integrity, ethical editorial practice, transparency, and persistent publication records.

Relevant guidance includes:

• Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE): COPE Retraction Guidelines, updated in August 2025, addressing grounds for retraction, appropriate notices, editorial responsibility, the handling of inconclusive evidence, and the protection of the scholarly record. COPE Retraction Guidelines
• International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE): Recommendations concerning scientific misconduct, expressions of concern, retractions, corrections, and version control in medical publishing. ICMJE Recommendations
• Crossref: Best practices relating to persistent identifiers, corrections, retractions, metadata updates, and publication version relationships. Version Control, Corrections, and Retractions
• Applicable Legal and Institutional Requirements: Relevant research integrity procedures, privacy and patient protection rules, copyright obligations, and other requirements affecting published scholarly records.

11.1 Relationship to Other Journal Policies

This policy should be read together with the journal's Publication Ethics Policy, Corrections Policy, Data Policy, AI & Research Integrity Policy, Complaints & Appeals Policy, and Archiving & Preservation Policy.

The requirements concerning corrections, retractions, and other necessary scholarly record maintenance actions take precedence over general arrangements for optional administrative changes.

11.2 International Guidance and Institutional Status

References to COPE, ICMJE, Crossref, or other organizations indicate the guidance informing the journal's procedures. They do not independently establish formal membership, certification, endorsement, or indexing status.

11.3 Policy Review

Health Nexus may periodically revise this policy to reflect developments in research integrity, publication ethics, correction and retraction practices, clinical safety, artificial intelligence, digital preservation, and scholarly metadata standards. Material amendments should be coordinated with related journal policies and communicated transparently.