Corrections and Retractions | Health Nexus: Digital Health and Medical AI

Health Nexus: Digital Health and Medical AI is committed to preserving the accuracy, reliability, transparency, and completeness of the scholarly record. When a material error, omission, ethical concern, or reliability issue is identified after publication, the journal will take appropriate action through a correction, expression of concern, retraction, retraction with republication, or, in exceptional circumstances, article removal.

Post-publication notices are intended to inform readers and correct the scholarly record. They are not used primarily to punish authors or institutions. The form of action will be determined by the nature, seriousness, scope, evidentiary basis, and effect of the issue on the article’s findings, interpretation, ethical acceptability, and continued reliability.

The journal follows recognised principles established by the Committee on Publication Ethics and the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. Each case will be assessed individually, fairly, promptly, confidentially, and proportionately.

1. Scope of the Policy

This policy applies to all content published by the journal, including:

Original research articles;
Review articles and meta-analyses;
Clinical studies and clinical-trial reports;
Digital-health and medical-artificial-intelligence studies;
Protocols, methods, software, and technical articles;
Case studies and case reports;
Editorials, perspectives, commentaries, and letters;
Figures, tables, images, videos, audio, data, code, models, prompts, and supplementary materials;
Corrections, expressions of concern, retraction notices, and other post-publication records.

The journal may act on concerns identified before publication, immediately after publication, or at any later time. The passage of time does not prevent correction of a materially inaccurate or unreliable publication.

2. General Principles

Post-publication action will be guided by the following principles:

The scholarly record should be corrected promptly when a material error is confirmed.
The type of notice should correspond to the seriousness and effect of the problem.
Notices should identify the affected article clearly and explain the reason for the action.
The original article and the relevant notice should be linked in both directions.
Correction and retraction notices should be permanently accessible and appropriately indexed.
Earlier versions should not be altered or removed in a manner that conceals the publication history.
Retraction should be based on the reliability or integrity of the publication, not merely on author disagreement, reputation, or external pressure.
Legal, privacy, confidentiality, patient-safety, and due-process considerations will be respected.
Authors, institutions, funders, and other relevant parties should be given a reasonable opportunity to respond.
Failure by an author to respond does not prevent the journal from taking necessary action based on the available evidence.

3. Reporting an Error or Concern

Authors, readers, reviewers, editors, institutions, funders, research participants, data providers, and other parties may notify the journal of a possible error or integrity concern.

A report should include, where available:

The title, DOI, and bibliographic details of the affected article;
A clear description of the alleged error or concern;
The specific section, figure, table, dataset, code, reference, or statement affected;
An explanation of why the issue may affect accuracy, interpretation, ethics, safety, or reliability;
Supporting documentation, calculations, source materials, or other evidence;
The complainant’s name and contact information, unless anonymity is necessary.

The journal may consider anonymous reports when they contain sufficiently specific and credible information. Anonymous allegations will not be dismissed solely because the complainant’s identity is unknown.

Knowingly false, malicious, harassing, or defamatory allegations may themselves constitute misconduct.

4. Preliminary Assessment

Upon receiving a concern, the editorial office will conduct a preliminary assessment to determine:

Whether the matter concerns a factual error, scholarly disagreement, ethical issue, legal issue, or possible misconduct;
Whether the concern is supported by sufficiently specific information;
Whether the article’s principal results or conclusions may be affected;
Whether there is an immediate risk to patients, research participants, healthcare professionals, or the public;
Whether specialist statistical, clinical, technical, legal, or research-integrity advice is required;
Whether an institution, ethics committee, funder, repository, regulator, or other authority should be contacted;
Whether an interim expression of concern is necessary.

The journal may request:

An explanation from the authors;
Original or underlying data;
Statistical analysis files;
Source code or software records;
Original images, scans, signals, or laboratory records;
Model documentation, prompts, outputs, or audit trails;
Ethics approval and informed-consent records;
Trial-registration and protocol information;
Authorship or conflict-of-interest documentation;
Relevant institutional findings.

5. Matters That Normally Require a Correction

A correction is appropriate when a published error or omission is material but does not invalidate the article’s principal findings and conclusions.

Examples include:

An incorrect numerical value, percentage, confidence interval, or statistical result that does not change the overall conclusions;
A mislabeled figure, table, axis, variable, unit, or category;
An error in a formula, equation, code fragment, or methodological description that can be corrected without invalidating the work;
An omitted acknowledgement, funding source, conflict-of-interest disclosure, or contributor statement;
An incorrect author name, affiliation, ORCID identifier, or correspondence address;
An error in the Data Availability Statement or repository information;
An incorrect ethics approval number or trial-registration identifier where the underlying approval or registration remains valid;
A reference, DOI, quotation, or citation error affecting the accuracy of the record;
An error introduced during copyediting, typesetting, metadata preparation, or production;
A localised image, data, or analytical error that can be corrected transparently without altering the article’s central findings.

Extensive errors may still be corrected when the corrected analyses do not materially change the direction, interpretation, implications, or conclusions of the article.

6. Matters That Are Not Normally Treated as Corrections

A formal correction is not normally issued solely because:

Scientific knowledge or professional practice has developed after publication;
A later study reaches a different conclusion;
A reader disagrees with the authors’ interpretation;
The authors wish to rewrite or improve the style of the article;
The authors have changed their opinion after publication;
An additional analysis, dataset, or hypothesis becomes available later;
A minor typographical or formatting issue does not affect meaning, attribution, indexing, or interpretation.

Scientific debate, alternative interpretation, replication failure, and evolving evidence may be addressed through correspondence, commentary, a response, a replication article, or new research rather than through correction of the original publication.

7. Types of Correction Notices

Author Correction or Corrigendum

An Author Correction or Corrigendum may be issued where the error originated from the authors and the article remains substantially reliable.

Publisher Correction or Erratum

A Publisher Correction or Erratum may be issued where the error was introduced during editorial processing, copyediting, typesetting, metadata preparation, online publication, or another publisher-controlled stage.

General Correction

The journal may use the general title Correction where responsibility is shared, unclear, immaterial to the notice, or where a single terminology provides greater clarity for readers and indexing systems.

The terminology selected does not determine the seriousness of the correction. The notice itself will explain the nature and effect of the error.

8. Minor and Non-Substantive Changes

Minor changes that do not affect the article’s scientific meaning, interpretation, attribution, ethical status, or indexing may be corrected directly in the online record without a separate formal notice.

Examples may include:

Obvious spelling or punctuation errors;
Broken internal links;
Minor formatting inconsistencies;
Display problems caused by website or typesetting software;
Minor metadata corrections that do not alter authorship or scholarly attribution.

A substantive factual, analytical, ethical, authorship, disclosure, or interpretive change must not be made silently.

The journal retains discretion to issue a formal correction when a nominally minor error could affect discoverability, citation, author identification, rights, or reader understanding.

9. Content of a Correction Notice

A formal correction notice should normally:

Be labelled clearly as a Correction, Author Correction, Corrigendum, Publisher Correction, or Erratum;
Identify the title and authors of the original article;
Provide the complete citation and DOI of the original article;
Identify the location and nature of the error;
Provide the corrected information;
Explain whether the correction affects the results, interpretation, or conclusions;
State who initiated or approved the correction where relevant;
State the publication date of the correction;
Link to the corrected article.

The correction notice will normally be published as a separate, permanently accessible item and assigned its own DOI or other persistent identifier where technically available.

10. Version Control

When a formal correction changes the Version of Record, the journal will normally:

Publish a separate correction notice;
Update the HTML and PDF versions of the article where appropriate;
Identify the date on which the article was corrected;
Provide a summary of the changes or link to the correction notice;
Preserve the original DOI of the article;
Preserve earlier article versions in the journal’s archive;
Indicate on earlier versions that a newer corrected version exists;
Direct readers to cite the most recent Version of Record.

The journal will not replace a published article with a materially different version without disclosing that a change has occurred.

11. Corrections to Author Names and Identity Information

Requests to correct an incorrectly published author name, affiliation, ORCID identifier, or contact detail will be assessed promptly.

Where an author requests a name change because of marriage, divorce, gender identity, religion, personal safety, privacy, or another sensitive circumstance, the journal may update the article and metadata discreetly without publishing the reason for the change.

The journal will seek to:

Respect the author’s privacy and personal safety;
Avoid unnecessary disclosure of a former name;
Update the HTML, PDF, metadata, and indexing records where technically possible;
Preserve accurate authorship and citation linkage;
Avoid implying that a scholarly error occurred where the request concerns identity rather than research content.

12. Authorship Corrections after Publication

Requests to add, remove, reorder, or replace an author after publication require careful assessment.

The journal will normally request:

A detailed explanation for the proposed change;
An updated contributor statement;
Written agreement from all listed and proposed authors;
Confirmation from the corresponding author;
Relevant institutional documentation where a dispute exists.

An authorship correction does not necessarily imply misconduct. However, suspected guest, gift, ghost, purchased, fabricated, or misappropriated authorship may require institutional investigation and additional editorial action.

Where authors cannot agree, the journal may refer the matter to the relevant institution rather than adjudicating the underlying contribution dispute independently.

13. Expression of Concern

An Expression of Concern is an interim or cautionary notice informing readers that serious questions have arisen concerning a published article but that the available evidence is not yet sufficient to determine whether correction or retraction is required.

An Expression of Concern may be considered when:

Credible evidence suggests that the findings may be unreliable, but an investigation is incomplete;
An institutional, regulatory, legal, or funder investigation is ongoing and is expected to take substantial time;
The authors or institution have not provided sufficient information to resolve a serious concern;
There are serious concerns about ethics approval, consent, data integrity, image integrity, peer review, authorship, or reporting;
The journal has evidence of a potentially serious problem but cannot obtain a reliable or timely institutional investigation;
Immediate notice is necessary to protect patients, healthcare professionals, research participants, or readers;
An investigation appears procedurally inadequate or inconclusive.

An Expression of Concern is not a finding of misconduct and does not predetermine the final outcome.

14. Content and Status of an Expression of Concern

An Expression of Concern will normally:

Be labelled prominently as an Expression of Concern;
Identify and cite the affected article;
Describe the nature of the concern without making unsupported allegations;
Explain why the matter has not yet been resolved;
Identify any investigation or review in progress where disclosure is appropriate;
Advise readers to interpret or use the findings with appropriate caution;
Be linked bidirectionally with the original article;
Be indexed and assigned a persistent identifier where technically available.

When the matter is resolved, the journal may publish:

A correction;
A retraction;
A notice explaining that the concern has been resolved;
An updated Expression of Concern where the status has changed.

15. Grounds for Retraction

A published article may be retracted where there is clear evidence that its findings, evidence, ethical basis, or publication process cannot be relied upon.

Grounds may include:

Fabrication or falsification of data, participants, records, quotations, results, images, or other evidence;
A major honest error that invalidates the principal results or conclusions;
Serious analytical, coding, statistical, or methodological errors that make the findings unreliable;
Plagiarism or substantial misappropriation;
Redundant, duplicate, or unauthorised publication;
Research conducted without necessary ethics approval, consent, or lawful authority;
Serious breaches of participant privacy or confidentiality;
Manipulated or fabricated images, signals, data, code, models, or AI-generated content;
Use of data, material, software, or intellectual property without required permission where the issue cannot be corrected adequately;
Compromised or manipulated peer review;
Fabricated reviewer identities or editorial records;
Paper-mill involvement or purchased manuscript content;
Authorship manipulation materially connected to unreliable or fraudulent work;
Undisclosed conflicts of interest that materially undermine the reliability or independence of the publication;
Unsafe or misleading clinical claims that cannot be corrected adequately;
Another serious defect that invalidates the publication as a reliable contribution to the scholarly record.

Retraction may be necessary whether the unreliability results from misconduct or an honest error.

16. Retraction Is Not Determined Solely by Misconduct

The purpose of retraction is to identify literature that cannot be relied upon. A formal institutional finding of misconduct is not always necessary before a journal retracts an unreliable article.

Conversely, the existence of an ethical or administrative breach does not automatically require retraction where:

The findings remain reliable;
The problem can be corrected adequately;
Readers can be informed through a correction or other notice;
The breach does not invalidate the article’s evidence or conclusions.

Authorship disputes, incomplete disclosures, or administrative errors will ordinarily be corrected rather than retracted unless they are connected to a more fundamental integrity or reliability problem.

17. Whole-Article and Partial Retraction

Retraction normally applies to the complete article because partial retraction may create uncertainty concerning which findings remain reliable.

Where an error is confined to a clearly identifiable component and the remainder of the article remains reliable, the journal will normally consider a detailed correction rather than a partial retraction.

A complete retraction may be required where:

The affected component supports the principal conclusion;
Reliable and unreliable content cannot be separated clearly;
The article contains multiple interconnected errors;
The publication process was fundamentally compromised.

18. Retraction Notice

A retraction notice will normally:

Be labelled clearly as a Retraction;
Include the title of the retracted article in its heading;
Identify the article’s authors, citation, and DOI;
State who is retracting the article;
Explain the reason for retraction in sufficient detail;
Identify which findings, data, images, or sections are affected where relevant;
Distinguish confirmed misconduct from honest error where possible;
Identify whether the authors agree, disagree, or did not respond;
Avoid defamatory, speculative, or unsupported statements;
Be published promptly once the basis for retraction is sufficiently established;
Be freely and permanently accessible;
Be linked bidirectionally with the original article;
Receive a DOI or other persistent identifier where technically available.

Legal, privacy, confidentiality, or investigative restrictions may limit the detail that can be included, but the notice should explain the basis for the action as clearly as reasonably possible.

19. Status of a Retracted Article

A retracted article will normally remain accessible as part of the permanent scholarly record.

The journal will seek to ensure that:

The article landing page is marked clearly as retracted;
The abstract and full-text HTML display the retracted status;
Each page of the PDF is watermarked or otherwise marked prominently as retracted;
The retraction notice and original article link to each other;
Metadata transmitted to DOI, indexing, repository, and preservation services identifies the retraction;
The original publication date, DOI, and bibliographic identity remain visible;
The article is not silently deleted or replaced.

Continued access does not indicate that the journal considers the findings reliable. The article is retained to preserve the history and transparency of the scholarly record.

20. Who May Initiate or Author a Retraction

A retraction may be initiated by:

All or some of the authors;
The Editor-in-Chief or handling editor;
The journal;
The publisher;
An institution or another responsible authority, subject to editorial assessment.

Ideally, authors will cooperate in preparing an accurate retraction notice. However, author agreement is not required where the journal has sufficient evidence that retraction is necessary.

Where authors are unwilling, unable, or unavailable to issue the notice, the editor or journal may issue the retraction independently.

21. Author Agreement and Disagreement

Before publication of a retraction notice, the journal will normally provide the authors with:

A summary of the concerns and supporting basis;
A reasonable opportunity to respond;
A draft or substantive description of the proposed notice where appropriate;
An opportunity to identify factual inaccuracies.

The journal may record in the notice that:

All authors agreed;
Some authors agreed and others disagreed;
The authors did not respond;
The authors could not be contacted.

Disagreement among authors does not prevent correction of the scholarly record.

22. Retraction with Republication

Retraction with republication may be considered when:

A major honest error substantially changes the results, interpretation, or conclusions;
The underlying research remains scientifically and ethically valid;
The corrected article can be evaluated as a coherent and reliable publication;
The revised work undergoes appropriate editorial and peer review;
Full transparency can be provided concerning the original error and resulting changes.

In such cases:

The original article will be retracted and marked accordingly;
A separate retraction notice will explain the reason;
The revised article will be treated as a new Version of Record;
The revised article will normally receive a new DOI;
The retracted and republished articles will be linked clearly;
The extent of the changes should be documented in the article, appendix, or supplementary material.

Retraction with republication is not appropriate when the underlying research is unethical, fabricated, fundamentally unreliable, or incapable of valid reconstruction.

23. Article Removal

Complete removal of a published article is reserved for exceptional circumstances. Retraction is the normal mechanism for addressing unreliable scholarly work.

Removal may be considered where continued public availability would:

Violate a binding legal order or legal requirement;
Expose unlawful, confidential, or highly sensitive personal information;
Create an immediate and serious risk to patient or public safety;
Contain defamatory or infringing material that cannot be addressed through redaction or retraction;
Expose security-sensitive information whose continued availability would cause serious harm;
Cause another exceptional harm that cannot be mitigated adequately by a correction, warning, redaction, or retraction.

Where an article is removed:

The DOI and article landing page will normally remain active;
A removal notice will explain the general reason, subject to legal and privacy constraints;
The bibliographic record will be preserved;
The original content will be retained in a secure internal archive where legally permitted;
Relevant indexing and preservation services will be notified.

24. Redaction of Specific Content

Where only a limited item creates a serious legal, privacy, confidentiality, or safety problem, the journal may redact that item instead of removing the entire article.

Possible examples include:

An inadvertently published patient identifier;
A confidential personal address or contact detail;
A legally protected image or document;
Security credentials or dangerous technical information;
Third-party material published without lawful authority.

A redaction will be documented transparently unless doing so would recreate the harm that the redaction is intended to prevent.

25. Withdrawal before Formal Publication

The term withdrawal normally applies to a manuscript that has not yet been formally published as the Version of Record.

Authors may request withdrawal before acceptance by providing a written explanation and confirming that all authors have been informed.

After acceptance, withdrawal may require additional assessment because editorial, production, DOI, metadata, or publication processes may already have begun.

The journal may withdraw an accepted but unpublished article where:

The authors identify a serious error;
An ethics or integrity concern arises;
The article was accepted or posted accidentally;
Duplicate publication is identified;
Copyright, privacy, consent, or legal requirements cannot be satisfied;
The authors do not complete essential publication requirements.

Once the Version of Record has been formally published, withdrawal is no longer appropriate; the journal will use correction, expression of concern, retraction, or removal as applicable.

26. Articles Published Online Ahead of Issue Assignment

An article published online with a DOI and identified as a Version of Record is considered published even if it has not yet been assigned to a volume, issue, or final pagination.

Such articles are subject to the same correction and retraction requirements as issue-assigned articles.

An accepted manuscript, advance manuscript, or early-view item that is not yet the Version of Record may be replaced or withdrawn according to its publication status, provided that the journal does not conceal a publicly established scholarly record.

27. Institutional and External Investigations

Research institutions ordinarily have primary responsibility for investigating the conduct of their researchers. The journal is responsible for evaluating and protecting the published record.

The journal may contact:

The authors’ institutions;
Research-integrity offices;
Ethics committees or institutional review boards;
Clinical-trial registries;
Funders or sponsors;
Data repositories or custodians;
Regulatory or professional authorities;
Other journals or publishers affected by the same concern.

The journal may consider an institutional finding but is not bound automatically by it. Editorial action will be based on the implications of the available evidence for the reliability and integrity of the publication.

Where an investigation is delayed substantially, the journal may publish an Expression of Concern rather than leaving readers uninformed.

28. Immediate Clinical or Public-Safety Concerns

Where a publication may create an immediate risk to patients, clinicians, research participants, or the public, the journal may take interim action before completion of a full investigation.

Interim action may include:

Publishing an urgent editorial notice;
Publishing an Expression of Concern;
Temporarily restricting access to unsafe supplementary material;
Notifying relevant institutions, regulators, or authorities;
Correcting a dangerous dosage, clinical instruction, algorithmic output, or safety statement promptly;
Adding a prominent warning to the article.

Urgent action does not eliminate the need for a fair subsequent investigation.

29. Data, Code, Models, and Supplementary Materials

A correction or retraction may extend to data, code, models, prompts, software, protocols, images, videos, or supplementary files associated with the article.

The journal may:

Replace a supplementary file with a corrected version;
Archive and label superseded versions;
Correct repository links and identifiers;
Request correction or withdrawal of an external repository record;
Notify readers that a linked dataset or model has been corrected, restricted, or withdrawn;
Retract an article where the supporting data or code demonstrate that its findings are unreliable.

Changes made only in an external repository do not automatically correct the journal article. Authors must notify the journal when an external change affects the published work.

30. Metadata, DOI, Indexing, and Preservation

For formal corrections, expressions of concern, retractions, and removal notices, the journal will seek to:

Publish a permanent notice with complete bibliographic information;
Assign a DOI or persistent identifier where technically available;
Create bidirectional links between the article and notice;
Update DOI metadata and article status;
Notify relevant indexing, abstracting, repository, library, and preservation services;
Preserve the original publication history;
Ensure that notices are included in the journal’s table of contents or equivalent publication record;
Maintain public access to the notice.

Delays by external databases in updating their records do not alter the journal’s official determination.

31. Citation and Reuse of Corrected or Retracted Articles

Readers should cite the most recent corrected version of an article.

A retracted article should not be cited as reliable evidence unless the purpose of the citation is to discuss:

The retraction itself;
Research-integrity or publication-ethics issues;
The historical development of a disputed finding;
A methodological or educational analysis of the retracted work.

Where a retracted article is cited for such a purpose, its retracted status must be stated clearly.

Translations, reproductions, repositories, and third-party copies should preserve correction, concern, or retraction information and should not present a superseded or retracted version as current and reliable.

32. Appeals

Authors or other directly affected parties may appeal a correction, expression of concern, retraction, or removal decision where they believe that a material factual, procedural, methodological, ethical, or technical error occurred.

An appeal should:

Identify the article and decision;
State the specific basis of the appeal;
Identify the alleged error in the journal’s assessment;
Provide supporting evidence or documentation;
Address the journal’s stated concerns directly and professionally.

General disagreement, reputational harm, loss of citations, or opposition to the journal’s conclusion does not by itself establish grounds for appeal.

Where practicable, the appeal will be considered by an editor or adviser who was not primarily responsible for the original decision. The journal may seek additional independent expert advice.

One formal appeal is normally permitted. The outcome of the appeal is final within the journal’s internal procedure.

33. Corrections or Retractions Involving Editors

Where the affected article was authored, reviewed, or handled by an editor, editorial board member, guest editor, journal staff member, or relevant publisher employee, the matter will be managed independently.

The conflicted individual must not:

Control the investigation;
Select the reviewing experts;
Determine the form of corrective action;
Participate in the final decision;
Access confidential information beyond what is necessary as an author or affected party.

An independent editor, external adviser, or research-integrity specialist may be appointed.

34. Relationship to Article Processing Charges

Article Processing Charges, waivers, discounts, sponsorship, advertising, or institutional payment arrangements do not affect decisions concerning corrections, expressions of concern, retractions, or removal.

Payment of an Article Processing Charge does not:

Prevent correction or retraction;
Create ownership of the editorial decision;
Guarantee continued publication of unreliable content;
Limit the journal’s responsibility to correct the scholarly record.

Refund questions are governed by the journal’s APC and Waiver Policy. Retraction does not automatically create an entitlement to an APC refund.

35. Confidentiality and Fair Process

Investigations will be handled as confidentially as reasonably possible while allowing the journal to assess the concern, consult relevant parties, and correct the record.

The journal will seek to:

Avoid public allegations before sufficient evidence is available;
Provide affected parties with a reasonable opportunity to respond;
Distinguish established findings from unresolved allegations;
Avoid unnecessary disclosure of personal, medical, legally privileged, or confidential information;
Protect complainants from retaliation where possible;
Act without unreasonable delay.

Complete confidentiality cannot be guaranteed where disclosure is required by law, necessary for fair investigation, or required to prevent serious harm.

36. External Standards

The journal’s procedures are informed by recognised international guidance on corrections, version control, expressions of concern, retractions, research misconduct, and preservation of the scholarly record.

37. Policy Review

This policy may be revised to reflect developments in:

COPE and ICMJE guidance;
Biomedical and clinical publishing;
Artificial intelligence and digital-health research;
Data, code, image, and model integrity;
Privacy, copyright, and applicable law;
DOI, indexing, versioning, and preservation standards;
Research-integrity and institutional-investigation procedures.

Authors, editors, reviewers, and readers should consult the current version of this policy when reporting or responding to a post-publication concern.