Introduction 

Virtus International Journal of Research (VIJR) addresses errors and research integrity concerns in published content through corrections, expressions of concern, and retractions. These measures help maintain an accurate scholarly record and allow readers to assess the reliability and status of published research.

This policy applies to articles and associated supplementary materials published by VIJR across its multidisciplinary scope, including Engineering, Technology, and Applied Sciences. Editorial action is determined by the evidence, the significance of the problem, and its effect on the publication.

1. Reporting Errors and Concerns

Authors should notify the journal when they discover a material error or integrity concern affecting their published work. Readers, reviewers, editors, and other relevant parties may also report concerns.

Reports should identify:

• The article title and available publication details.
• The specific error or concern.
• The affected passages, figures, tables, datasets, code, or supplementary files.
• Supporting evidence or relevant source material.
• Any proposed correction, where appropriate.

Correspondence should be directed through the journal’s official communication channel available on the VIJR website.

An allegation does not, by itself, establish misconduct or justify retraction. Reports should be assessed objectively against the available evidence.

2. Corrections

A correction is appropriate when a substantive error requires amendment but the article’s overall findings and conclusions remain reliable.

Examples include:

• Incorrect author names, affiliations, or publication contact details.
• Errors in text, references, acknowledgements, or funding information.
• Incorrect figure labels, table entries, or supplementary files that do not invalidate the principal conclusions.
• Limited analytical or reporting errors whose correction preserves the main findings.
• Errors introduced during editing, production, or publication.

A correction must describe the error and provide the accurate information. Where relevant, it should explain whether the amendment affects any interpretation or conclusion.

Authorship changes require appropriate verification and should not be treated as routine typographical corrections where contribution or consent is disputed.

Corrigendum and Erratum

For this policy:

• Corrigendum refers to a correction of an error originating in the authors’ submitted work.
• Erratum refers to a correction of an error introduced during the journal’s editing, production, or publication process.

The purpose of either notice is to communicate the amendment clearly. The label does not determine the seriousness of the error.

Corrections are published as identifiable notices and linked to the original article. Where article files are amended, the change should be documented so that readers can understand what was corrected.

3. Expressions of Concern

An expression of concern alerts readers to a significant unresolved question about an article’s reliability or ethical acceptability.

It may be appropriate where:

• Credible evidence raises serious concerns but remains insufficient for a final decision.
• An institutional or other relevant investigation is ongoing.
• Necessary evidence cannot yet be obtained.
• A substantial delay in resolving the concern would leave readers unaware of a potentially important problem.

An expression of concern must distinguish established facts from unresolved allegations. It does not constitute a finding of misconduct.

The notice should identify the article, explain the concern to the extent appropriate, and remain linked to the publication. Once the matter is resolved, a further notice should communicate the outcome, whether that involves correction, retraction, or resolution without either action. The earlier notice should remain traceable as part of the publication history.

4. Retractions

Retraction is appropriate where a serious problem compromises the article’s reliability, originality, ethical acceptability, or publication integrity.

Grounds may include:

• Major methodological, computational, or analytical errors that invalidate the findings.
• Fabricated or falsified data, results, or images.
• Substantial plagiarism or misappropriation of research.
• Redundant publication without appropriate disclosure, attribution, or justification.
• Serious ethical breaches in the conduct or reporting of research.
• Manipulation of peer review that materially compromises the publication process.
• Undisclosed competing interests that seriously undermine confidence in the work.
• Unauthorized use of material where the circumstances warrant retraction.

The presence of an error, overlap, or disclosure omission does not automatically require retraction. Its extent and consequences must be assessed.

Retraction may be necessary because of honest error as well as misconduct. Its purpose is to correct the literature and protect the scholarly record, rather than punish authors. COPE’s retraction guidance describes these principles and the circumstances in which retraction should be considered. doi.org

5. Assessment and Decision-Making

Concerns should receive timely, impartial assessment. Depending on the case, this may involve:

1. Examining the report and supporting evidence.
2. Requesting explanations, original records, or other relevant documentation from the authors.
3. Seeking independent subject or research integrity advice.
4. Consulting relevant institutions, ethics committees, funders, or other journals where necessary.
5. Determining the publication response supported by the evidence.

Authors should have a reasonable opportunity to respond before a final adverse decision. Their agreement is desirable but is not a prerequisite for a necessary correction or retraction. Failure to respond does not prevent an evidence-based editorial decision.

Individuals with relevant conflicts of interest must not direct the assessment or determine its outcome. Responsibility rests with the editor authorized to decide the case, with independent handling where required.

A journal’s decision about the status of an article is distinct from an institution’s determination of individual misconduct. Editorial action may be necessary to protect readers even where responsibility for the underlying problem remains unresolved.

6. Public Notices and Article Status

Correction, expression-of-concern, and retraction notices should:

• Clearly identify the affected article and the type of notice.
• Explain the reason for the action using accurate, proportionate language.
• Distinguish confirmed findings from unresolved concerns.
• Identify who is issuing the notice.
• Be dated, publicly accessible, and linked to the affected article.
• Provide enough information for readers to understand the publication’s status.

A retraction notice should state whether the authors agree with the action where that information is available and relevant.

Retracted articles remain accessible and are clearly marked as retracted. The article page and available article files should direct readers to the retraction notice. Retraction must not silently erase the publication or obscure its history.

Exceptional restrictions on access may be necessary where compelling legal, privacy, or safety grounds apply. Any such restriction should preserve an explanatory public record to the extent permitted.

7. Confidentiality and Necessary Disclosure

Evidence, correspondence, and personal information obtained during an assessment should be handled confidentially and shared only as necessary.

Relevant information may be communicated to institutions, funders, ethics bodies, or affected journals when justified by the concern. Such communications should distinguish allegations from established findings.

Confidentiality does not prevent publication of the information necessary to explain a correction, expression of concern, or retraction. Public notices should avoid unnecessary personal details and unsupported statements about individuals.

8. Ethical Guidance

Relevant resources from the Committee on Publication Ethics, including the COPE Retraction Guidelines, may inform the assessment of published-content concerns.

Reference to these resources does not imply COPE membership, certification, or endorsement. The editorial response must address the circumstances of the individual case and the need for an accurate, transparent scholarly record.