Retraction Policy

Transparent correction of fundamentally unreliable or seriously unethical published records

JPM follows the principles of the COPE Retraction Guidelines. Only published content is retracted. A manuscript that has not yet been published is handled under the Manuscript Withdrawal or Research Misconduct Handling Policy.

When Retraction May Be Appropriate

• There is clear evidence that central findings are unreliable because of major honest error, fabrication, falsification, inappropriate analysis, manipulated data or images, or another fundamental defect.
• The article constitutes substantial plagiarism, redundant or duplicate publication, unauthorized translation, or material copyright infringement that cannot be resolved by correction.
• The research was seriously unethical, lacked required consent or approval, exposed participants to material harm, or caused a serious privacy or confidentiality breach.
• The publication or peer-review process involved fabricated identities, manipulated review, fraudulent authorship, false approvals, undisclosed decisive conflicts, or another defect that undermines confidence in the article.
• A substantive correction cannot isolate and repair the unreliable or unethical material.

When Retraction Is Normally Not Appropriate

• A limited error can be transparently corrected without invalidating the central findings.
• An authorship or contributorship dispute exists but there is no reason to doubt the reliability of the research; verified changes are handled through a correction.
• There is only unresolved suspicion. An Expression of Concern may be considered when readers need an interim warning.
• Authors merely change their view, institution, or publication preference after the article has become the Version of Record.

Assessment and Decision

1. A concern may be raised by authors, readers, reviewers, editors, institutions, funders, or other identified sources through the official contact route.
2. JPM preserves evidence, performs an initial assessment, manages conflicts, and follows the Research Misconduct Handling Policy when misconduct is alleged.
3. Authors receive the material concern and a reasonable opportunity to respond. Institutions, ethics bodies, funders, or independent specialists may be consulted when relevant.
4. An unconflicted handling editor recommends the appropriate record action. The Editor-in-Chief makes the journal decision, or an independent editor/publisher authority does so when the Editor-in-Chief has a conflict.
5. JPM does not delay a necessary retraction solely because authors disagree, cannot be contacted, or an external process is unreasonably prolonged. A material factual or procedural error may be appealed under the Appeals and Complaints Policy.

Retraction Notice and Version of Record

• The notice is titled clearly as a retraction and identifies the article title, authors, complete citation, DOI, publication date, and the person or body issuing the notice.
• It states the reason with enough detail to distinguish honest error from misconduct, identifies the unreliable parts where possible, reports author agreement or disagreement, and avoids unsupported or defamatory statements.
• The notice is freely accessible, dated, assigned its own citable record or DOI where supported, included in the issue/table of contents, and linked bidirectionally with the original article.
• The HTML and PDF remain accessible and are prominently labelled or watermarked RETRACTED; citation and history are preserved. DOI, Crossref, indexing, repository, and preservation metadata are updated as applicable.
• If later evidence materially changes the basis, JPM publishes a linked amendment, correction, replacement notice, or other transparent update rather than silently changing the record.