This policy expands the journal’s published ethics principles for maintaining the scholarly record after publication, including articles published online before allocation to an issue. Its purpose is to make errors and reliability concerns visible and to explain proportionate editorial responses. The English version is the reference text; Uzbek and Russian versions express the same policy.

The principles below are informed by COPE guidance. VERIFY notes identify operational arrangements that the editorial office must confirm; they are not evidence that a particular notice workflow, DOI service, archive or automated metadata update is already implemented. No COPE membership or endorsement is claimed.

Contents

1. Minor Correction
2. Major Correction
3. Corrigendum
4. Erratum
5. Retraction
6. Expression of Concern
7. Grounds for Retraction
8. Notice Content and Links to the Original Article
9. DOI Preservation and Separate Notices
10. Metadata Updates
11. Editorial Assessment and Decision
12. Author Disagreement and Appeals
13. Requesting a Post-Publication Correction

1. Minor Correction

A minor correction addresses a typographical, formatting or other limited presentational error that does not change scientific meaning, attribution or the reliability of the findings. The effect of the error, rather than the number of characters changed, determines its significance: an incorrect unit, decimal point, author name or data label can require a substantive correction.

An authorised minor amendment should be documented with its date and description. A change affecting interpretation or credit must not be concealed as routine copy-editing. Whether a separate notice is needed should be assessed by the editor.

2. Major Correction

A major correction addresses a substantive but remediable error while the article’s principal findings remain sufficiently reliable. It may concern a method description, table, figure, calculation, attribution or disclosure. The notice should explain what was wrong, what has changed and whether the interpretation or conclusions are affected.

A correction is insufficient if the necessary changes leave the central findings unreliable or the publication fundamentally compromised. Such cases require consideration of retraction. A previously corrected article may need further action if new evidence emerges.

3. Corrigendum

Corrigendum is a commonly used label for a formal correction of an error originating with the authors. It should identify the affected passage or item and the corrected information. The label describes the origin of an error, not its scientific seriousness or whether misconduct occurred. Where responsibility is uncertain or shared, a neutral correction notice is preferable to unsupported attribution of blame.

4. Erratum

Erratum is commonly used for a correction of an error introduced during editorial preparation, typesetting or production. Examples include an incorrectly reproduced symbol or figure, where the author-supplied version was accurate. Both an erratum and a corrigendum should be clear, dated and connected to the article; terminology must not obscure the substance of the amendment.

VERIFY R1 — Confirm the journal’s operational distinction between correction, corrigendum and erratum, who authorises minor amendments, and how earlier files and amendment dates are retained. These definitions do not assert that dedicated OJS notice types or version-control procedures are already configured.

5. Retraction

A retraction alerts readers that an article should no longer be relied upon as part of the scientific record. It may follow serious error as well as misconduct; its purpose is to protect the literature, not to punish authors. The decision should explain why correction would not adequately resolve the problem.

Retraction ordinarily preserves the article’s record with a prominent retracted status and a linked notice. Deleting the article without explanation is not an acceptable substitute. Exceptional restriction or removal of full text requires a specific justification, for example a serious privacy, legal or safety concern, and an explanatory public record to the extent permissible.

6. Expression of Concern

An expression of concern is an editorial notice about credible, substantial doubts when the available evidence does not yet support a definitive correction or retraction. It may be appropriate while relevant information or an investigation is pending, delayed or unobtainable. It is not a finding of misconduct and should state both the concern and the limits of the evidence.

The notice should identify what remains unresolved. When a supported conclusion becomes available, publish an appropriate clarification, correction or retraction linked to the concern. If concerns are resolved, make that outcome visible rather than leaving readers with an unexplained warning. Preserve the notice history, including which later notice supersedes an earlier one.

VERIFY R2 — Confirm who monitors unresolved notices, how follow-up decisions are recorded and how outcomes are displayed. No fixed review interval, investigation deadline or existing case-tracking system is claimed.

7. Grounds for Retraction

Depending on the evidence and its effect on the publication, grounds can include seriously unreliable data or analysis; fabrication or falsification, including misleading image manipulation; substantial plagiarism; undisclosed redundant publication; unauthorised use of material; unethical research; manipulated peer review; or a material undisclosed competing interest that compromised assessment or interpretation. Serious misrepresentation of authorship or the publication process also requires an assessment of reliability and accountability.

Ordinary scientific disagreement, an authorship dispute that does not undermine reliability, or non-payment of a publication fee alone is not a sufficient reason to retract. An allegation, a similarity percentage or an automated detection score alone does not establish the grounds; the editor must consider the evidence and context.

8. Notice Content and Links to the Original Article

A formal notice should state its type, publication date, the original article’s title and authors, citation and DOI where assigned, the reason for action and who is issuing it. State relevant author agreement or disagreement accurately. Notices should be freely accessible, factual and understandable without requiring readers to obtain private correspondence.

Provide links in both directions between the article landing page and the notice. The status should be evident in the article’s online presentation and downloadable versions, as technically applicable. Do not silently substitute an unmarked file. Retain links to previous notices when a later decision changes the article’s status.

9. DOI Preservation and Separate Notices

An article’s registered DOI remains its identifier after a correction, expression of concern or retraction. It must not be deleted, reassigned to another work or replaced merely to conceal the article’s history. Its resolution should continue to lead to a maintained record displaying the current status and relevant notices.

A substantive notice should be separately citable. If a DOI is registered for that notice, it must be distinct from the article’s DOI and identify the notice itself. Linking a notice does not cancel the original DOI. Separate republication or a genuinely new version requires an explicit versioning decision and must not erase the earlier record.

VERIFY R3 — Confirm the journal’s practical arrangements for separate notice records and DOIs, reciprocal links, PDF status labels and retention of earlier files. No universal notice-DOI assignment, Crossmark participation or tested preservation mechanism is asserted.

10. Metadata Updates

Once a notice is published, the responsible publishing staff should check that the article’s status, notice citation, links, dates and any corrected bibliographic fields agree across the OJS landing page, article files and the publisher-controlled metadata records. A DOI deposit should identify the relationship between a notice and the affected article using the registration agency’s supported update mechanism.

An edit on the journal website does not by itself prove that a DOI registry or indexing service has received the change. Check the deposit result and the public record, and arrange corrections or notifications through the channels actually available. Third-party propagation cannot be guaranteed to be immediate.

VERIFY R4 — Confirm the responsible person, registration agency and submission channel, supported update fields, acceptance checks and indexing-service notification arrangements. No automatic OJS-to-registry synchronisation or confirmed update to external services is claimed by publishing this policy.

11. Editorial Assessment and Decision

The editor should assess the specific concern, supporting information, author response and any relevant expert or institutional findings. Distinguish established facts from unresolved allegations, consider the effect on the scientific record and select a proportionate response. The reason for the decision should be documented and communicated to the affected authors.

An editor with a relevant conflict should not decide the case. The publisher should support the integrity process without substituting commercial interests for editorial judgement. A finding of institutional misconduct can inform a decision, but a justified correction or retraction need not depend on such a finding. Act without avoidable delay while allowing a fair opportunity to respond.

VERIFY R5 — Confirm who has final decision authority, the route when that person is conflicted, the available independent review or appeal arrangement, and communication responsibilities. No named panel, guaranteed response deadline or standing investigation procedure has been verified.

12. Author Disagreement and Appeals

Authors should be informed of the concern and given a reasonable opportunity to explain the evidence and comment on proposed wording. Seek accurate communication rather than compelled agreement. Record whether authors agree, disagree or have not responded; silence must not be described as consent.

Author disagreement or non-response does not veto an evidence-based editorial action needed to protect readers. An appeal should identify a factual error, new evidence or a procedural concern. It does not automatically remove a public notice. See the journal’s Complaints and Appeals Policy, including their operational verification limitations.

13. Requesting a Post-Publication Correction

Authors and readers may report a concern using the journal’s published contact channels. Identify the article by title, URL or DOI; specify the affected page, figure, table or passage; explain the problem; and provide relevant evidence and a proposed correction where possible. Avoid unnecessary personal data and distinguish observations from allegations.

Authorship changes also require the information and consent described in the Authorship and Contributorship Policy. A request alone does not authorise alteration of a published article. This page establishes policy principles; it is not a correction, retraction or expression of concern concerning any particular article.

Contact and Related Policies

Use the Contact page or Ethical Complaints Contact. The existing ethics statement identifies the public editorial contact and marks unconfirmed monitoring and escalation arrangements. No new address or responsible person is invented here.

COPE and DOI Guidance

This policy applies the principles of an accurate, transparent and traceable scholarly record to the journal’s existing ethics statement. External guidance is a reference for decisions, not evidence that every recommended operational feature is already in use.

• Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement
• COPE — Retraction Guidelines
• COPE — Expressions of Concern
• Crossref — Registering Updates
• Crossref — Updating Your Metadata