Post-publication editorial action is intended to ensure that readers can identify the status of published work and understand whether particular arguments, interpretations, evidence, or conclusions remain reliable. Such action must be proportionate to the nature and seriousness of the issue and must distinguish correctable errors from circumstances requiring a formal warning or retraction.

CPRT recognises that research in comparative philosophy and religious traditions encompasses philosophical argumentation, conceptual analysis, historical interpretation, textual scholarship, translation studies, and empirical or interdisciplinary investigation. The reliability of a publication must therefore be assessed with reference to its actual research methods, principal evidence, and central scholarly claims.

This policy is informed by the principles set out in the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) Retraction Guidelines and should be read alongside CPRT's Publication Ethics Policy, Author Ethical Requirements, and related editorial policies.

Grounds for Retraction

Retraction is an editorial mechanism for identifying published work whose principal evidence, arguments, findings, or conclusions can no longer be considered sufficiently reliable, or whose publication involved another serious issue warranting retraction. Its primary purpose is to correct the scholarly record and alert readers to material problems affecting the publication.

CPRT may consider retracting an article when there is sufficient evidence of one or more of the following circumstances:

• Fabrication or falsification: The publication contains fabricated research data, invented quotations, falsified historical evidence, manipulated research materials, or other misrepresentations that materially compromise its reliability.
• Major errors: Significant errors in reasoning, analysis, translation, textual attribution, source identification, or research procedures invalidate the central arguments, findings, or conclusions of the article.
• Plagiarism: Substantial plagiarism or misappropriation of intellectual contributions is established and cannot be adequately resolved through a proportionate correction.
• Redundant or unauthorised publication: The work substantially duplicates earlier publication without appropriate attribution, disclosure, permission, or justification.
• Serious ethical violations: Research was conducted or published in a manner involving serious violations of applicable ethical requirements, including relevant participant protections or conditions governing the use of research materials.
• Compromised peer review: The article was accepted through a materially manipulated, fraudulent, or otherwise compromised editorial or peer-review process that undermines confidence in the legitimacy of its scholarly assessment.
• Undisclosed competing interests: A significant undisclosed interest materially compromised the integrity of the publication or the independence of its evaluation.
• Unauthorised use of protected materials: Serious copyright, confidentiality, consent, or other legal or ethical concerns make continued reliance on the publication inappropriate.

Serious Error and Research Misconduct

Retraction does not necessarily establish that an author engaged in intentional research misconduct. A publication may become unreliable because of an honest error, a mistaken translation, an incorrect identification of a primary source, a serious analytical mistake, or another problem discovered after publication.

In philosophical and textual scholarship, the assessment must consider whether the identified problem undermines the article's essential argument or interpretive foundation. Disagreement over philosophical conclusions, legitimate alternative readings, or differences in theoretical orientation do not, by themselves, justify retraction.

A limited error, an isolated citation problem, or an authorship dispute that does not compromise the reliability of the published work may be more appropriately addressed through a correction or another proportionate editorial measure.

Corrections (Errata)

CPRT may issue a formal correction when an error or omission in a published article requires clarification or amendment but does not render the article's central findings, arguments, or conclusions unreliable.

Corrections may address substantive inaccuracies that can be resolved without retracting the entire publication. The appropriateness of a correction depends on the nature of the error, its effect on the interpretation of the article, and the extent to which the corrected material permits the principal scholarly contribution to remain reliable.

Examples of matters that may warrant a correction include:

• An incorrect citation, bibliographic reference, page number, or source attribution that requires formal clarification.
• A translation or transcription error affecting a limited passage without invalidating the article's central interpretation.
• An error in a table, figure, textual example, or supplementary material that does not substantially alter the principal conclusions.
• An omission or inaccuracy concerning funding, acknowledgements, competing interests, or another required publication declaration.
• An error in author information or authorship attribution where a correction is justified by appropriate documentation.
• A production or editorial error affecting the accuracy or interpretation of published content.

Types of Correction

Depending on the origin and nature of the error, the journal may publish:

• Correction (Erratum): A notice describing an error requiring formal correction, including an error introduced during editorial or production processing.
• Author Correction: A notice addressing an error or omission originating in the author's submitted or approved work.

The precise designation of a correction may depend on the journal's publication workflow. Regardless of terminology, each formal notice should identify the affected article, describe the correction, and explain its relevance where necessary.

Publication and Documentation of Corrections

Formal corrections are published as identifiable editorial notices and linked to the affected articles. Where the published files are amended, the correction history should remain traceable, and readers should be able to distinguish the corrected version from the earlier publication record.

Minor typographical or formatting errors that do not materially affect the interpretation, attribution, or reliability of the work may be handled through appropriate production maintenance. Corrections affecting scholarly content, publication responsibility, or bibliographic integrity should be documented transparently rather than silently replacing the relevant record.

Expression of Concern

CPRT may publish an Expression of Concern when credible and substantial questions arise concerning the reliability, integrity, or ethical status of a published article, but the available evidence does not yet justify a definitive correction or retraction.

An Expression of Concern may be appropriate where:

• Significant concerns about the article's evidence, arguments, or publication process remain unresolved.
• A relevant institutional or editorial investigation is ongoing and a final determination is not expected promptly.
• Important information necessary to assess the reliability of the publication is unavailable or cannot be obtained within a reasonable period.
• An investigation has proved inconclusive, but credible concerns remain sufficiently substantial to warrant informing readers.

An Expression of Concern is an informational notice and does not itself establish that research misconduct occurred. It should not be used as a substitute for a warranted retraction or as a mechanism for penalising authors before the relevant circumstances have been appropriately assessed.

Content and Subsequent Review

An Expression of Concern should:

• Clearly identify the affected publication.
• Describe the nature of the concern without presenting unresolved allegations as established findings.
• Explain the relevant uncertainty or the status of the enquiry to the extent appropriate.
• Remain accessible and linked to the original article.
• Be reviewed when material new information or a relevant investigation outcome becomes available.

Following further assessment, the journal may publish a correction, issue a retraction, provide a subsequent editorial update, or explain that the concerns have been resolved. The appropriate outcome depends upon the evidence obtained.

Where the available evidence remains inconclusive, the Expression of Concern may continue to form part of the publication record, accompanied by any clarification that the journal can responsibly provide.

Investigation Procedure

Concerns regarding the reliability or ethical status of published articles may be raised by authors, readers, reviewers, editors, institutions, or other relevant parties. CPRT considers such concerns according to their substance, evidential basis, and potential significance for the scholarly record.

The editorial team is responsible for determining whether a concern warrants formal consideration and what action is appropriate. Investigations should be conducted fairly, confidentially where necessary, and without unwarranted delay.

Stages of Editorial Assessment

1. Receipt and preliminary assessment. The editorial office records the concern, identifies the affected publication, and conducts an initial evaluation of the information and supporting materials available.
2. Assessment of seriousness and reliability. The responsible editor considers whether the issue is limited and correctable, raises unresolved concerns, or may fundamentally affect the reliability or legitimacy of the publication.
3. Communication with the authors. The authors are ordinarily contacted, informed of the material concerns, and provided with a reasonable opportunity to respond or submit relevant evidence and explanations.
4. Independent consultation where necessary. The journal may seek advice from qualified specialists, relevant institutions, research ethics bodies, or other appropriate parties where the circumstances require expertise or investigation beyond routine editorial assessment.
5. Evaluation of the evidence. The responsible editor considers the authors' responses, available source materials, expert assessments, relevant institutional findings, and the likely consequences for the publication's reliability.
6. Editorial determination. The Editor-in-Chief or an appropriately authorised independent editor determines whether a correction, Expression of Concern, retraction, or other response is warranted.
7. Publication and documentation. Where a formal notice is required, the journal prepares an accurate public statement, links it to the affected publication, and maintains appropriate records of the editorial action.

Fairness, Confidentiality, and Institutional Involvement

The journal should distinguish substantiated misconduct from honest error, disputed interpretation, and allegations that remain unproven. The existence of a complaint does not itself establish wrongdoing.

Relevant institutions may be contacted where a concern requires access to information or investigative authority beyond the journal's ordinary editorial capacity. Institutional notification is not an automatic response to every correction request or allegation.

The editorial team is responsible for determining the reliability and publication status of articles within its journal. A formal determination of individual research misconduct may fall within the responsibilities of a research institution or another appropriately authorised body.

The journal should protect confidential information, avoid unnecessary disclosure of personal allegations, and communicate factual findings accurately. Serious editorial action should be supported by an adequate record of the relevant evidence and decision-making process.

Retraction Notice

When retraction is determined to be necessary, CPRT publishes a formal Retraction Notice that clearly identifies the affected article and explains the basis of the editorial action. The notice must be sufficiently informative to enable readers to understand why the article should no longer be relied upon.

A Retraction Notice should:

• Be clearly and prominently identified as a Retraction Notice.
• Identify the original article by title, author information, and relevant bibliographic details.
• Provide the article's DOI or other persistent identifier where available.
• State the reason for the retraction accurately and describe the affected aspects of the publication.
• Identify the party issuing or requesting the retraction, as appropriate to the case.
• Distinguish established findings from unresolved allegations and avoid unsupported personal accusations.
• Be freely accessible through the journal's website.
• Be linked to the original article, with a corresponding link or prominent notice provided from the article record.

Status of the Retracted Article

The original article will ordinarily remain accessible as part of the scholarly record but must be clearly identified as Retracted. The journal should ensure that readers accessing the article page, abstract, and available full-text files are appropriately informed of the retraction status.

Where technically feasible, the retraction status should be reflected consistently in relevant publication files and bibliographic metadata. If the article has a registered DOI, any available mechanism for recording or communicating the retraction relationship should be used in accordance with the relevant registration service's requirements.

The Retraction Notice itself should remain independently identifiable and permanently linked to the affected publication. A retraction should not be implemented merely by deleting the article or replacing its content without a public explanation.

Purpose of a Retraction

A Retraction Notice is a mechanism for correcting the scholarly record and informing readers of significant reliability or publication-integrity problems. It is not intended as a disciplinary punishment. The notice should describe the circumstances fairly, identify the status of the work, and avoid attributing individual misconduct without an adequate evidential basis.

Author-Initiated Retraction

Authors have an ongoing responsibility to notify CPRT when they discover significant errors or concerns affecting the reliability, ethical status, or publication integrity of their published work.

Authors may request retraction when they reasonably conclude that the article's central arguments, findings, interpretations, or evidential basis can no longer be defended. Such requests should be submitted promptly to the editorial office and should explain the nature and significance of the identified problem.

A request should normally include:

• The article title and identifying publication information.
• A clear description of the error, ethical concern, or other basis for the request.
• An explanation of how the issue affects the article's principal evidence, arguments, or conclusions.
• Supporting documents or relevant evidence where available.
• Information concerning the positions of the co-authors, where known.

The editorial team evaluates an author-initiated request according to the same principles applied to other post-publication concerns. A request for retraction does not automatically require withdrawal of the article where a correction or another response would adequately address the issue.

Where co-authors disagree concerning a proposed retraction, CPRT may request additional explanations and supporting information. The absence of unanimous author agreement does not necessarily prevent the journal from taking necessary action to maintain the integrity of the scholarly record.

Authors may also request correction of significant but limited errors without seeking retraction. The editorial office determines the appropriate form of publication notice according to the reliability of the article and the evidence provided.

Transparency and Permanence

CPRT is committed to maintaining a transparent and traceable record of post-publication editorial action. Corrections, Expressions of Concern, and Retraction Notices should remain identifiable, accessible, and appropriately connected to the affected publications.

The journal seeks to maintain the following practices:

• Identifiable notices: Each formal post-publication action should be distinguishable from the original article and other types of editorial communication.
• Clear relationships: Notices and affected publications should be linked so that readers can navigate between them.
• Bibliographic accuracy: Publication records should reflect the relevant correction or retraction status, with associated metadata updated where the applicable technical arrangements permit.
• Public accessibility: Formal notices should be available without subscription or reader access charges.
• Historical traceability: The relationship between the original publication and subsequent editorial actions should be preserved.
• Prompt communication: Readers should be informed of significant reliability concerns or necessary corrections without avoidable delay.

Exceptional Removal of Published Content

Retraction does not ordinarily involve the deletion of an article from the journal website. Retained access, together with clear retraction labelling, allows readers to identify the affected work and understand its publication history.

In exceptional circumstances, CPRT may restrict access to or remove particular published content where continued availability would conflict with a legal obligation, expose protected personal information, present a serious safety concern, or create another compelling legal or ethical risk.

Any such decision should be limited to what is necessary to address the identified concern. Where lawful and appropriate, the journal should retain a publicly accessible bibliographic record and an explanatory notice indicating that material has been removed or access restricted.

The journal distinguishes public access to published content from independent long-term digital preservation. Any statement concerning third-party archival deposit or preservation-programme participation must reflect the journal's actual arrangements. Further information is provided in the Archiving & Digital Preservation Policy.

Editorial Independence

Decisions concerning corrections, Expressions of Concern, and retractions must be made independently of the journal's commercial interests, Article Processing Charges, institutional relationships, or other inappropriate external influences.

Editorial action must be based on the reliability of the published work, the nature of the concern, the available evidence, and the journal's responsibility to maintain an accurate scholarly record.

The following principles apply:

• Independent editorial authority: The Editor-in-Chief or another duly authorised independent editor is responsible for determining appropriate post-publication action.
• Management of competing interests: An editor directly involved in a material conflict should not control the relevant investigation or final decision.
• Separation from financial matters: Previously paid publication charges, outstanding fees, and waiver arrangements must not determine whether a publication requires correction or retraction.
• Fair consideration: Authors and other relevant parties should be given an appropriate opportunity to respond to material concerns.
• Proportionate action: The journal should select the editorial measure that most accurately reflects the seriousness and established consequences of the problem.
• Accurate public communication: Formal notices must be factual, sufficiently informative, and free from unsupported allegations.

Reconsideration and Editorial Review

Authors who believe that a post-publication editorial decision rests on a material factual error, incomplete evidence, or procedural irregularity may submit a reasoned request for reconsideration to the editorial office.

Such requests should identify the relevant publication and decision, explain the grounds for reconsideration, and provide supporting documentation where available. Where appropriate, an editor not responsible for the original decision may be asked to assess the request.

Reconsideration does not automatically suspend a necessary public notice or require its withdrawal. If subsequent evidence demonstrates that an earlier notice was inaccurate or incomplete, the journal should publish an appropriate clarification or update while preserving the traceability of the editorial record.

CPRT's post-publication responsibilities are guided by its commitment to accurate scholarship, editorial independence, procedural fairness, and the continued trustworthiness of the academic record.