Corrections and Retractions | Food Systems, Safety & Sustainability

Food Systems, Safety & Sustainability (FSSS) is committed to maintaining an accurate, transparent, complete, and trustworthy scholarly record.

Where a published article contains an error, omission, ethical concern, authorship problem, unreliable finding, or other issue affecting the scholarly record, the journal will consider an appropriate post-publication response. Depending on the nature and seriousness of the matter, this may include a minor update, formal correction, addendum, expression of concern, retraction, retraction with republication, or, in exceptional circumstances, removal of content.

Post-publication action is intended primarily to correct and protect the scholarly record. It is not intended to punish authors. An honest error may require correction or retraction even where no misconduct occurred, while evidence of misconduct may require investigation even where the published findings appear unaffected.

Minor error: May be corrected directly where it does not affect meaning, interpretation, attribution, indexing, or the scholarly record.

Material but limited error: Normally requires a formal correction linked to the original article.

Unresolved serious concern: May require an expression of concern while further assessment is conducted.

Unreliable article: May require retraction where the findings, conclusions, ethical basis, or publication process cannot be relied upon.

Preservation: Retracted articles normally remain accessible and are marked clearly as retracted rather than being deleted.

1. Scope

This policy applies to:

research articles;
review articles and evidence syntheses;
methods and data papers;
short communications;
case studies and policy analyses;
editorials, commentaries, perspectives, and correspondence;
supplementary files;
datasets, code, protocols, and other materials published by or linked formally to the journal;
articles published in regular issues, special issues, and guest-edited collections;
early online and final Versions of Record;
correction, retraction, and other post-publication notices; and
other scholarly content published by FSSS.

2. General Principles

FSSS follows these principles when considering a post-publication update:

the scholarly record should be corrected promptly when a material problem is established;
the type of notice should be proportionate to the nature and seriousness of the problem;
the distinction between honest error and misconduct should be maintained;
corrections and retractions should identify the affected content clearly;
notices should explain the reason for the action in sufficient detail;
the journal should avoid defamatory, speculative, or unsupported statements;
affected individuals should normally receive an opportunity to respond;
editorial action should not be delayed unnecessarily by an unresolved authorship disagreement or an author’s refusal to cooperate;
the journal may act without the agreement of all authors where the evidence justifies action;
published notices should be freely accessible;
the original article and the relevant notice should be linked in both directions;
metadata should reflect the current status of the article;
earlier versions should be preserved where technically and legally possible; and
readers should be able to identify the current and authoritative version.

3. Version of Record

The Version of Record is the final article formally published by the journal. Once the Version of Record has been published, material changes should not ordinarily be made silently.

Where a published article requires an editorially significant change, FSSS will normally:

publish a separate correction, retraction, or other update notice;
identify the article affected by the notice;
link the notice to the article and the article to the notice;
state the date and nature of the update;
update the article file or landing page where appropriate;
preserve an appropriate record of previous versions;
update DOI and indexing metadata where applicable; and
ensure that the most recent status is visible to readers.

4. Categories of Post-Publication Action

Depending on the circumstances, the journal may use one or more of the following:

minor or technical update;
formal correction;
author correction;
publisher correction;
addendum;
clarification;
expression of concern;
retraction;
retraction and republication;
withdrawal before formal publication;
removal or restricted access in exceptional circumstances; or
another clearly labelled update appropriate to the scholarly record.

5. Minor and Technical Updates

A minor error may be corrected directly without a separate formal notice where the change does not affect:

the scientific meaning of the article;
the interpretation of results;
the conclusions;
the identity, contribution, or credit of an author;
the accuracy of data, tables, or figures;
ethical or competing-interest declarations;
funding information;
the article title, abstract, or keywords in a material way;
citation or indexing information;
copyright or licensing terms; or
another element relevant to the reliability or use of the article.

Examples may include:

minor spelling or punctuation errors;
non-substantive formatting inconsistencies;
broken hyperlinks where the intended destination is clear;
typographical errors that do not change meaning;
minor layout defects; and
technical accessibility improvements that do not alter content.

The journal may maintain an internal record of such changes. A formal notice will be used where a seemingly minor error could affect interpretation, attribution, discoverability, or trust in the article.

6. Formal Corrections

A formal correction is appropriate where an error or omission affects part of an otherwise reliable publication but does not invalidate the article as a whole.

A correction may be required where:

a factual statement is materially inaccurate;
a numerical value, unit, percentage, or calculation is incorrect;
a table, figure, image, legend, or equation contains an error;
data were transcribed, labelled, or presented incorrectly;
a methodological detail necessary for interpretation was omitted or misstated;
a statistical or computational error affects some results but not the overall conclusions;
a reference or quotation materially misrepresents the cited source;
funding or competing-interest information is incomplete;
an ethics, consent, registration, or data-availability statement requires correction;
an author’s name, affiliation, contribution, or contact information is incorrect;
material supplementary information is missing or inaccurate;
the article contains an error introduced during production; or
another limited defect requires a permanent public amendment.

7. When a Correction Is Sufficient

A correction is normally sufficient where:

the principal data remain reliable;
the central analysis remains valid;
the direction and significance of the main findings are not materially altered;
the conclusions remain supported after correction;
the affected material can be identified and corrected clearly;
the correction does not require replacement of most of the article;
the article does not involve a fundamental ethical or legal defect; and
readers can continue to use the article reliably when read together with the correction.

Extensive errors may still be corrected where they arise from an identifiable problem, such as a coding or calculation error, and where the corrected analysis does not materially change the overall interpretation or conclusions.

8. Author and Publisher Corrections

FSSS may distinguish between:

Author correction: a correction addressing an error, omission, or inaccuracy originating from the authors or research process; and
Publisher correction: a correction addressing an error introduced during editing, typesetting, production, metadata preparation, or publication.

The label assigned to a notice does not alter the journal’s responsibility to correct the scholarly record.

The journal may use the general title “Correction” where a more specific distinction would not improve clarity.

9. Content of a Correction Notice

A formal correction notice should normally:

have a clear title identifying it as a correction;
identify the original article title;
identify the authors of the original article;
provide the article citation and DOI;
identify the specific error or omission;
state the corrected information;
explain whether results, interpretation, or conclusions are affected;
identify whether the error originated with the authors or publisher where relevant;
state the date of correction;
link electronically to the original article;
be linked from the article landing page and files;
receive its own bibliographic record and DOI where appropriate; and
be freely accessible.

Where practicable, the corrected article should contain a visible notice explaining that it has been updated and linking to the correction notice.

10. Updating the Article after a Correction

Where the article file is corrected, FSSS will normally:

identify the article as an updated version;
state the date of the update;
link to the formal correction notice;
preserve or record the prior version where appropriate;
ensure that earlier electronic versions indicate that a more recent version exists;
update HTML, PDF, supplementary files, and metadata consistently where possible; and
avoid obscuring the nature or extent of the correction.

11. Authorship Corrections

Changes to the author list, author order, corresponding-author designation, or contribution statement require formal editorial assessment.

A request should normally include:

the reason for the requested change;
an updated author-contribution statement;
written agreement from all affected authors;
confirmation from any author being added or removed;
updated competing-interest information;
updated affiliations and correspondence details; and
institutional documentation where an authorship dispute has occurred.

A post-publication authorship change will normally be recorded through a formal correction. Where agreement cannot be reached, the journal may refer the matter to the authors’ institutions and may publish an expression of concern while the issue is investigated.

Requests involving a personal name change may be handled with appropriate sensitivity and confidentiality. The journal may update the article and metadata without publicly disclosing the reason for the name change where this is necessary to protect the author’s privacy or safety.

12. Addenda

An addendum may be published where important information becomes available after publication and supplements the article without correcting an error or invalidating the original work.

An addendum may be appropriate where:

additional information materially assists interpretation;
a relevant methodological clarification is needed;
important follow-up information becomes available;
supporting documentation could not reasonably be included in the original article; or
another limited addition improves the completeness of the scholarly record.

An addendum must not be used to:

bypass peer review;
add substantial new results that require a separate article;
conceal an error requiring correction;
avoid retraction where the original article is unreliable; or
introduce claims that have not received appropriate editorial assessment.

An addendum may be peer reviewed where the added material is substantive.

13. Clarifications

A clarification may be issued where the original article is technically accurate but wording, presentation, or contextual information has created a material risk of misunderstanding.

A clarification should not be used to change the authors’ conclusions retrospectively or to resolve an ordinary scholarly disagreement.

14. Matters of Scientific Debate

A difference of interpretation, new scientific development, failure to replicate, or reasonable methodological disagreement does not automatically constitute an error requiring correction or retraction.

Such matters may be addressed through:

letters to the editor;
author responses;
commentaries;
replication studies;
new systematic reviews;
post-publication peer review; or
subsequent research articles.

Editorial action may nevertheless be required where debate reveals that the article contains material factual errors, unsupported claims, undisclosed limitations, or unreliable findings.

15. Expressions of Concern

An expression of concern is a public notice informing readers that substantial questions have arisen concerning an article but that the available information does not yet justify a correction or retraction, or that an investigation remains incomplete.

An expression of concern may be issued where:

there is credible evidence that the article may be unreliable;
an investigation is underway but is likely to require substantial time;
the relevant institution has not investigated or has not reported an outcome;
evidence concerning possible misconduct is inconclusive;
authors have not provided data or documentation necessary to resolve a serious concern;
there are substantial questions about ethical approval, consent, authorship, data integrity, image integrity, or peer review;
legal or procedural restrictions prevent the journal from completing an immediate assessment;
the investigation appears procedurally inadequate or compromised;
the article may present a risk to people, animals, food systems, public health, or the environment; or
readers require an interim warning while further evidence is obtained.

16. Nature of an Expression of Concern

An expression of concern:

is not necessarily a final finding of misconduct or unreliability;
should describe the nature of the concern accurately;
should distinguish allegations from established facts;
should identify any investigation currently underway;
should be linked prominently to the affected article;
should be freely accessible;
may be updated as new information becomes available; and
may later be followed by a correction, retraction, exonerating notice, or another final outcome.

In some cases, an expression of concern may remain the final notice where the available evidence is insufficient to justify another action but the unresolved concern remains relevant to readers.

17. Content of an Expression of Concern

An expression of concern should normally:

identify the affected article;
state the general nature of the concern;
identify which matters remain unresolved;
state whether an institution or another authority is investigating;
avoid implying that misconduct has been established where it has not;
state whether readers should exercise caution when relying on particular findings;
provide the date of publication;
link to the original article;
receive a separate bibliographic record and DOI where appropriate; and
be updated or replaced when the matter is resolved.

18. Retractions

Retraction may be appropriate where the journal concludes that an article, or its principal findings and conclusions, can no longer be relied upon.

An article may be retracted where there is clear evidence of one or more of the following:

fabrication or falsification of data;
serious errors that invalidate the results or conclusions;
unreliable findings resulting from experimental, analytical, computational, or methodological error;
manipulated, duplicated, substituted, or fabricated images;
plagiarism or substantial unattributed appropriation;
duplicate or redundant publication without legitimate justification;
publication without the required authorisation, licence, or permission;
unethical research;
absence or fabrication of required ethical approval;
invalid or missing informed consent where this materially affects the publication;
serious violation of participant privacy or confidentiality;
serious animal-welfare, biosafety, environmental, or public-safety violations;
fraudulent authorship or identity;
sale, purchase, or manipulation of authorship where the article’s integrity is compromised;
peer-review manipulation;
fabricated reviewer identities or reports;
undisclosed paper-mill or third-party manuscript production;
copyright infringement or another serious legal defect;
defamatory or unlawfully published material;
failure to provide essential supporting evidence where reliability cannot otherwise be established;
seriously compromised sponsor or commercial control;
AI-assisted fabrication, falsification, plagiarism, or deceptive content generation;
substantial undisclosed conflicts that materially compromise the article; or
another defect that makes continued unqualified publication misleading.

19. Retraction Based on Honest Error

Retraction does not necessarily imply misconduct.

An article may require retraction because of an honest error where:

the error invalidates the principal results or conclusions;
the affected findings cannot be corrected through a limited amendment;
a data-processing or coding error changes the overall interpretation materially;
a sample, reagent, dataset, model, or analytical assumption is discovered to be invalid;
essential data have been lost and the findings cannot be verified;
an unintentional methodological error undermines the work; or
another non-deliberate problem makes the article unreliable.

The retraction notice should state clearly where the evidence indicates that the problem resulted from honest error rather than misconduct.

20. Retraction Is Not Normally Appropriate Solely Because

Retraction is not normally justified solely because:

the authors and journal disagree scientifically;
new research reaches a different conclusion;
a study cannot be replicated without evidence that the original article is unreliable;
the findings become unpopular, controversial, or politically sensitive;
the article receives criticism on social media;
the authors change their opinion after publication;
an author requests removal for reputational or career reasons;
an institution wishes to avoid adverse publicity;
the article receives few citations;
the journal changes its editorial scope;
the research becomes outdated;
an authorship dispute can be resolved through a correction; or
a limited error can be corrected without invalidating the article.

21. Retraction of Part of an Article

The journal will normally prefer a clearly defined correction where a limited section of an article is unreliable but the remainder remains valid.

A notice described as a partial retraction may be considered only where:

the unreliable component can be separated clearly;
readers will not be misled about which findings remain valid;
the principal conclusions continue to be supported;
the notice is more informative than a conventional correction; and
the scholarly record can be updated unambiguously.

Where unreliable and reliable findings cannot be separated clearly, retraction of the complete article may be required.

22. Retraction and Republication

Retraction with republication may be considered where an honest and identifiable error materially changes the results, interpretation, or conclusions, but the underlying research remains scientifically and ethically sound after correction.

This procedure may be used only where:

the error was not the result of fabrication, falsification, or deceptive conduct;
the corrected work can be assessed reliably;
the corrected article undergoes renewed editorial and, where appropriate, peer review;
the extent of the changes is disclosed transparently;
the original article is retracted and retained as part of the record;
the retraction notice links to the republished article;
the republished article links to the original and the retraction notice;
the republication is identified clearly as a corrected version;
all relevant metadata and DOI relationships are registered; and
readers can compare or understand the principal changes.

The republished article will normally receive a new publication record and DOI.

23. Retraction Procedure

When a possible ground for retraction is identified, the journal may:

conduct a preliminary assessment of the allegation and available evidence;
preserve relevant files, correspondence, metadata, and system records;
notify the corresponding author and, where appropriate, all authors;
request an explanation and supporting evidence;
request raw data, code, images, protocols, approvals, consent documentation, or other records;
obtain independent subject, statistical, methodological, ethical, image-forensic, legal, or technical advice;
contact an institution, funder, ethics committee, regulator, repository, or another journal where necessary;
publish an expression of concern while the assessment is pending;
evaluate whether correction, retraction, or another action is proportionate;
provide affected parties with a reasonable opportunity to comment on material evidence;
make an editorial decision based on the totality of the evidence; and
publish and register the appropriate notice.

24. Institutional Investigations

Institutions normally have primary responsibility for investigating alleged research misconduct involving their staff or researchers. The journal remains responsible for the accuracy and status of the published scholarly record.

FSSS may:

request that an institution investigate a concern;
provide relevant evidence to the institution;
request an investigation outcome or summary;
assess whether the investigation was sufficiently independent and complete;
seek additional information where an institutional report does not address the publication issue;
act before an institutional investigation is complete where readers or the public require protection; and
reach an editorial conclusion different from an institution where the responsibilities and evidentiary standards differ.

The absence of an institutional finding does not prevent editorial action where the published article is demonstrably unreliable.

25. Author Agreement Is Not Required

Authors will normally be informed and invited to respond before a retraction is published.

However, a retraction may proceed without the agreement of some or all authors where:

the evidence establishes that the article is unreliable;
the authors do not respond within a reasonable period;
the authors disagree with the journal’s evidence-based conclusion;
authors cannot be located;
an urgent risk requires prompt action;
a competent institution or authority has provided sufficient findings; or
continued delay would mislead readers or damage the scholarly record.

The notice should state whether the authors agreed, disagreed, or did not respond where that information is relevant and reliably established.

26. Content of a Retraction Notice

A retraction notice should normally:

be titled clearly as a retraction;
identify the retracted article and its DOI;
identify the party initiating the retraction;
state the principal reason for retraction;
identify which findings, data, images, or conclusions are affected where relevant;
distinguish honest error from suspected or established misconduct where possible;
avoid defamatory, speculative, or unsupported language;
identify the institution or authority involved where appropriate;
state whether all authors agreed to the retraction where relevant;
state the publication date of the notice;
link to the retracted article;
receive a separate bibliographic record and DOI;
be freely accessible; and
contain sufficient information to explain why the article should not be relied upon.

A vague statement such as “the article has been retracted at the authors’ request” is normally insufficient where a more informative explanation can be provided responsibly.

27. Presentation of a Retracted Article

A retracted article will normally remain available to preserve the scholarly record.

The journal will seek to:

display a prominent retraction notice on the article landing page;
mark the HTML and PDF clearly as retracted;
apply a visible “Retracted” watermark or equivalent notice to each page of the PDF where technically possible;
link the article directly to the retraction notice;
link the retraction notice to the article;
replace or annotate the abstract where appropriate;
update the article title or metadata to indicate its retracted status where required;
notify relevant indexing and abstracting services;
register the retraction relationship in DOI metadata; and
ensure that the retraction notice remains permanently accessible.

The article should not be presented in a manner that allows a reader to overlook its retracted status.

28. Citation of Retracted Articles

Authors submitting to FSSS must not cite a retracted article as reliable evidence without identifying its retracted status.

A retracted publication may be cited where:

the retraction itself is being discussed;
the article is relevant to research on publication ethics or research integrity;
the historical record requires citation;
the article’s influence before retraction is being analysed; or
another legitimate scholarly reason exists.

The citation and surrounding text must make clear that the article has been retracted.

29. Withdrawal before Formal Publication

Authors may request withdrawal of a manuscript before formal publication by providing a written explanation approved by all authors.

The journal may retain submission files and editorial records for legitimate administrative, legal, security, auditing, and research-integrity purposes.

Withdrawal does not prevent the journal from:

investigating suspected misconduct;
contacting an institution or another journal;
retaining evidence of duplicate submission or peer-review manipulation;
recording the reason for administrative closure; or
taking other action required to protect the publication process.

Once a Version of Record has been published, the appropriate process is normally correction or retraction rather than author withdrawal.

30. Accepted Articles Published in Error

Where an article is made publicly available accidentally before editorial or production procedures are complete, the journal may withdraw the premature version and publish an explanatory notice.

The record should explain:

that the version was released in error;
whether the article had been formally accepted;
whether a final Version of Record will be published;
whether the premature version should be cited; and
how readers can locate the current status.

31. Removal of Published Content

Complete removal of published content is exceptional. Retraction normally preserves the article while warning readers that it is unreliable.

Removal or restricted access may be necessary where:

a court or competent authority requires removal;
the content is defamatory or otherwise unlawful;
the article contains personal or confidential information published without valid authority;
continued publication creates an immediate and serious risk to health or safety;
the article contains information creating a substantial food-security, biosecurity, or national-security risk;
the content seriously infringes copyright or another legal right;
the article contains unlawful images or materials;
the publication creates an unacceptable risk of participant identification; or
another exceptional legal or public-interest ground applies.

Where content is removed, the journal will normally retain a landing page containing:

the article title and bibliographic information;
an explanation that the content has been removed or restricted;
the general reason for removal, unless disclosure is prohibited;
the date of removal; and
the DOI and publication history.

32. Supplementary Materials, Data, and Code

Where a problem affects only supplementary material, data, code, or another associated resource, the journal will assess whether:

the article remains reliable without the affected material;
the material can be corrected or replaced transparently;
a formal correction is sufficient;
the affected resource should be withdrawn or restricted;
the main article requires an expression of concern; or
the problem invalidates the article and requires retraction.

Deposited data or code must not be altered silently. Corrected resources should be versioned and linked to the article and relevant notice.

33. Preprints

Where an article has an associated preprint, the authors should update the preprint record after a correction, expression of concern, or retraction of the Version of Record.

The journal may notify the preprint server where:

the preprint contains the same unreliable findings;
the preprint continues to direct readers to a retracted article without warning;
serious ethical or legal concerns affect both versions; or
coordination is necessary to protect the scholarly record.

The journal does not control the independent policies of the preprint server.

34. Special Issues and Guest-Edited Content

Articles published in special issues or guest-edited collections are subject to the same correction and retraction standards as regular articles.

A Guest Editor must not make the final decision concerning:

their own article;
an article authored by a close collaborator;
a concern in which the Guest Editor has a relevant conflict of interest; or
an investigation concerning the Guest Editor’s own editorial conduct.

Final responsibility for post-publication action remains with the journal’s authorised editorial leadership and publisher.

35. Articles by Editors or Editorial Board Members

Where the affected article was authored by an editor, Editorial Board member, Guest Editor, or publisher representative:

the individual must not control the assessment;
the concern must be handled by an independent editor;
external advice may be obtained;
the individual’s journal role should be disclosed where relevant; and
the same evidentiary and procedural standards must apply as for any other author.

36. Anonymous and Third-Party Concerns

FSSS will consider substantiated concerns regardless of the identity, institutional status, or publication history of the person reporting them.

Anonymous reports may be investigated where they contain:

a specific allegation;
identification of the affected article or content;
verifiable evidence;
relevant source material; or
sufficient information for an independent assessment.

An anonymous or publicly posted allegation is not proof of misconduct. Editorial action will be based on evidence rather than the identity or visibility of the complainant.

37. Author Self-Reporting

Authors who discover a significant error should contact the Editorial Office promptly.

Good-faith self-reporting will be considered when determining the wording and proportionality of editorial action. However, self-reporting does not remove the need to correct or retract unreliable work.

The authors should provide:

the article title and DOI;
a description of the error;
the affected data, analyses, figures, or conclusions;
the cause of the error;
corrected materials where available;
an assessment of the effect on the conclusions;
confirmation from all authors where possible; and
relevant supporting documentation.

38. Post-Publication Comments and Criticism

The journal welcomes evidence-based post-publication discussion.

Criticism may lead to:

no further action;
an author response;
a letter or commentary;
additional editorial or peer review;
a correction;
an expression of concern;
a retraction; or
another appropriate update.

Public controversy alone is not sufficient grounds for editorial action. The journal will assess the underlying evidence and its effect on the reliability, ethics, or legality of the publication.

39. Appeals

Authors and other directly affected parties may appeal a correction, expression of concern, retraction, or removal decision where they believe that:

a material factual error affected the decision;
relevant evidence was overlooked;
the published policy was applied incorrectly;
the investigation was procedurally unfair;
an undisclosed conflict of interest affected the assessment;
the notice contains inaccurate or unsupported statements; or
the action was disproportionate to the evidence.

An appeal should:

identify the article and decision concerned;
state the specific grounds for appeal;
provide relevant evidence;
address the reasons given by the journal;
avoid personal attacks or unsupported allegations; and
be submitted through the official Editorial Office channel.

Where reasonably possible, the appeal will be assessed by an editor or adviser who was not primarily responsible for the original decision.

An appeal does not automatically suspend an urgent correction, expression of concern, retraction, or safety-related action.

40. Complaints

Complaints concerning editorial conduct, delay, confidentiality, conflicts of interest, investigation procedures, or the wording of a notice should be submitted under the journal’s Complaints and Appeals Policy.

Disagreement with an evidence-based editorial conclusion does not by itself establish misconduct by the journal.

41. Metadata and Indexing

For formal post-publication updates, the journal will seek to:

assign a separate DOI to the update notice where appropriate;
register the relationship between the notice and the affected article;
update article metadata to reflect its current status;
notify relevant indexing, abstracting, archiving, and discovery services;
identify retracted content clearly in the title or metadata where required;
update Crossmark information where Crossmark is implemented;
maintain reciprocal links between related records; and
correct inconsistencies across HTML, PDF, XML, and repository records where reasonably possible.

Updates made by external databases may not appear immediately. The journal will provide accurate metadata but cannot guarantee the timing or presentation used by every third-party service.

42. DOI and Article History

The DOI assigned to the original Version of Record should normally remain associated with that publication even after correction or retraction.

A separate formal notice should normally receive its own DOI and should identify the DOI of the article it updates.

The article history may display:

the original publication date;
the date of correction;
the date of an expression of concern;
the date of retraction;
the date of republication; and
links to all relevant notices and versions.

43. Preservation and Archiving

Corrections, expressions of concern, retractions, and other notices form part of the permanent scholarly record.

The journal will seek to preserve:

the original Version of Record;
updated versions;
formal notices;
relevant metadata and DOI relationships;
publication-history information; and
archived copies supplied to preservation services.

Where access to particular content must be removed for legal, privacy, or safety reasons, the journal will preserve an appropriate bibliographic and administrative record to the extent permitted.

44. Charges

FSSS does not charge authors an Article Processing Charge or separate publication fee for a correction, expression of concern, retraction, or other notice required to maintain the accuracy of the scholarly record.

This does not prevent the publisher from recovering costs arising from unlawful conduct through a separate legal process where applicable, but payment must not determine whether a necessary correction or retraction is published.

45. Editorial Independence

Post-publication decisions must remain independent of:

Article Processing Charges;
waiver or discount arrangements;
the author’s institutional prestige;
commercial or sponsor pressure;
advertising relationships;
anticipated publicity or citation impact;
personal relationships;
political pressure;
threats of reputational harm; and
another consideration unrelated to the accuracy and integrity of the record.

46. Confidentiality and Fairness

Investigations will be handled as confidentially and fairly as reasonably possible.

The journal will seek to:

distinguish allegations from established findings;
preserve relevant evidence;
avoid premature public accusations;
manage editorial conflicts of interest;
give affected individuals a reasonable opportunity to respond;
limit disclosure to individuals with a legitimate need to know;
protect participants, communities, whistleblowers, and other affected parties where possible;
document significant decisions; and
avoid unnecessary delay.

Confidentiality cannot be guaranteed where disclosure is required for institutional investigation, legal compliance, public safety, or correction of the scholarly record.

47. Timing

FSSS seeks to publish necessary corrections and other notices as promptly as reasonably possible.

The time required may depend on:

the seriousness and complexity of the concern;
the availability of data and supporting evidence;
the number of authors, institutions, or publications involved;
the need for independent expert assessment;
institutional or regulatory investigation timelines;
legal, privacy, or confidentiality restrictions;
response times of affected parties; and
whether urgent action is required to protect readers or the public.

An expression of concern may be published where a lengthy investigation creates a material risk that readers will continue to rely on potentially unreliable work without warning.

48. Recommended Request for Correction

Authors requesting a correction should provide:

Request for Correction: We request correction of the article “[article title]” ([DOI]). The published article currently states or displays [identify the error]. The correct information is [provide correction]. The error affects [identify sections, tables, figures, data, or declarations]. In our assessment, the correction [does / does not] affect the principal results, interpretation, or conclusions. All authors have been informed of this request.

49. Recommended Error Assessment

Where a significant analytical error is identified, authors should submit:

the original analysis;
the corrected analysis;
the relevant data and code;
a description of the cause of the error;
a comparison of original and corrected results;
an explanation of the effect on every affected table and figure;
an assessment of the conclusions;
a proposed correction or retraction statement; and
confirmation of whether related publications are affected.

50. Standards Informing This Policy

This policy is informed by internationally recognised guidance concerning post-publication updates and maintenance of the scholarly record, including:

Reference to an external organisation means that its guidance informs the journal’s policy. It does not imply membership, certification, endorsement, or formal affiliation unless separately stated and independently verifiable.

51. Final Post-Publication Assessment Checklist

When assessing a published concern, the journal will consider:

whether the identified problem is factual, methodological, ethical, legal, or presentational;
whether the problem affects a limited part or the whole article;
whether the data remain reliable;
whether the results can be reproduced after correction;
whether the principal conclusions remain supported;
whether participants, communities, animals, or the public were exposed to harm;
whether informed consent and ethical approval were valid;
whether authorship and peer review were legitimate;
whether the concern resulted from honest error, negligence, reckless conduct, or deliberate misconduct;
whether independent institutional findings are available;
whether a formal correction is sufficient;
whether readers require an interim expression of concern;
whether the publication is sufficiently unreliable to require retraction;
whether retraction with republication is appropriate;
whether exceptional legal or safety grounds require removal;
whether related articles, data, code, or preprints are affected;
whether metadata and indexing services must be updated;
whether the proposed notice explains the action clearly;
whether affected parties received a reasonable opportunity to respond; and
whether the action is proportionate and protects the scholarly record.

52. Contact

Requests and concerns relating to published articles should be directed to the FSSS Editorial Office through the official contact information provided on the journal website.

Correspondence should include, where available:

the article title;
the authors’ names;
the DOI or complete citation;
a clear description of the error or concern;
the affected text, table, figure, data, or supplementary material;
supporting evidence;
the proposed correction or action, where applicable;
information concerning related publications; and
the sender’s contact details.