Retraction and Correction Policy

ARISTHA: Ar-Risalah Journal of Islamic Tourism and Hospitality

Publisher: Sekolah Tinggi Agama Islam (STAI) Ar-Risalah Sumatera Barat, Indonesia

1. Purpose and Scope

ARISTHA: Ar-Risalah Journal of Islamic Tourism and Hospitality is committed to maintaining the accuracy, reliability, transparency, and integrity of the scholarly record.

The journal recognizes that errors, ethical concerns, or questions regarding the reliability of published research may arise after publication. When such issues occur, ARISTHA seeks to address them through appropriate, fair, evidence-based, and transparent editorial procedures.

This policy establishes the principles and procedures governing corrections, expressions of concern, retractions, and related post-publication editorial actions.

It applies to all scholarly content published by ARISTHA, including empirical research articles, conceptual studies, literature reviews, legal analyses, and interdisciplinary research.

The policy is informed by internationally recognized publication ethics principles, including relevant guidance from the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). Reference to such guidance does not imply formal membership or endorsement.

2. Principles of Post-Publication Integrity

ARISTHA adopts the following principles when addressing concerns involving published articles:

Accuracy: Published information should reflect the research evidence and findings as reliably as possible.
Transparency: Significant editorial actions should be communicated clearly to readers.
Accountability: Authors and editors remain responsible for addressing substantive concerns about published work.
Fairness: Allegations and requests for correction should be assessed impartially and on the basis of relevant evidence.
Proportionality: Editorial action should correspond to the seriousness and consequences of the identified issue.
Preservation of the scholarly record: Published material and related notices should remain traceable to support academic transparency.
Editorial independence: Decisions must not be improperly influenced by personal, institutional, financial, or commercial interests.

The primary purpose of post-publication editorial action is to protect the scholarly record rather than to impose punishment.

3. Types of Post-Publication Editorial Actions

Depending on the nature and seriousness of the concern, ARISTHA may consider the following actions:

Correction: A formal notice addressing an error that does not invalidate the article's principal findings or conclusions.
Expression of Concern: A notice informing readers of substantial unresolved concerns regarding a published article.
Retraction: A formal notice indicating that an article should no longer be relied upon as valid scholarly evidence because of serious reliability or ethical concerns.
Editorial Clarification: An explanation addressing an issue that requires transparency but does not necessarily warrant a formal correction or retraction.

The appropriate action is determined through editorial assessment of the available evidence.

4. Correction Policy

A correction may be issued when a published article contains a significant error that can be remedied without invalidating its overall findings or conclusions.

Examples may include:

Errors in numerical values, tables, or figures that do not materially alter the principal conclusions.
Incorrect descriptions of methods or procedures requiring clarification.
Inaccurate author information or affiliations.
Incorrect funding acknowledgments or conflict-of-interest statements.
Citation or referencing errors that materially affect scholarly attribution.
Other factual or editorial errors requiring a transparent amendment.

The journal distinguishes substantive corrections from minor typographical adjustments that do not affect meaning or scholarly interpretation.

5. Procedures for Issuing Corrections

When a correction is considered necessary, the editorial team should:

Identify and verify the reported error.
Assess whether the error affects the article's findings, interpretation, or conclusions.
Consult the authors or relevant parties when appropriate.
Determine whether a correction is sufficient to resolve the concern.
Prepare a correction notice that identifies the affected article and explains the change.
Publish and link the correction notice to the original article.
Update relevant article information or files when technically feasible and appropriate, while preserving transparency about substantive changes.

A correction notice should allow readers to understand what was changed and why.

6. Expression of Concern Policy

An expression of concern may be issued when substantial questions about the reliability or ethical standing of a published article remain unresolved.

Such circumstances may include:

Credible allegations of research misconduct requiring further investigation.
Serious concerns about the authenticity of research data.
Unresolved questions regarding ethical approval or participant protection.
Conflicting or incomplete evidence concerning the reliability of findings.
An ongoing institutional investigation whose outcome may materially affect the article.

An expression of concern does not automatically establish misconduct.

Its purpose is to alert readers to unresolved issues while further assessment or investigation continues.

7. Procedures for Expressions of Concern

Before issuing an expression of concern, the editorial team should assess the available evidence and consider whether a public notice is justified.

Where appropriate, the journal should:

Document the substantive concern.
Seek clarification from the authors or relevant institutions.
Assess the potential implications for readers and the scholarly record.
Prepare a neutral, factual, and appropriately limited notice.
Link the notice to the affected article.
Review the status of the concern when significant new information becomes available.

An expression of concern may subsequently be withdrawn, replaced by a correction, or followed by a retraction, depending on the evidence and resolution of the matter.

8. Retraction Policy

Retraction is an editorial mechanism used to protect the scholarly record when a published article contains findings that are substantially unreliable or when serious publication ethics violations justify withdrawal of confidence in the work.

Retraction may be considered when:

Research findings are unreliable because of major errors, fabrication, falsification, or other serious problems.
Substantial plagiarism is established.
The article constitutes inappropriate duplicate or redundant publication.
The peer-review or editorial process was seriously manipulated.
The research involved serious ethical violations.
Essential research evidence was fabricated or materially misrepresented.
Other significant circumstances undermine the validity or ethical standing of the published work.

Retraction may be appropriate regardless of whether the underlying problem arose from deliberate misconduct or an honest but serious error.

9. Retraction Assessment and Decision-Making

The Editor-in-Chief or an appropriately designated editor is responsible for coordinating the assessment of potential retractions.

The assessment may involve:

Reviewing the article and relevant supporting materials.
Examining the evidence underlying the concern.
Requesting explanations or documentation from the authors.
Consulting independent experts when appropriate.
Seeking information from research institutions or other competent bodies when necessary.
Evaluating whether a correction or another editorial action would adequately protect the scholarly record.
Determining whether retraction is justified by the available evidence.

Authors should ordinarily be given a reasonable opportunity to respond to substantive concerns.

A retraction decision should not depend solely on whether the authors agree with the editorial assessment.

10. Retraction Notices

When an article is retracted, ARISTHA should publish a clear and accessible retraction notice.

The notice should:

Identify the retracted article accurately.
State that the article has been retracted.
Explain the principal reason for the retraction.
Identify the party issuing the retraction when appropriate.
Distinguish established findings from unresolved allegations.
Avoid unnecessarily defamatory or unsupported statements.
Be linked to the original publication.

Retraction notices should provide sufficient information for readers to understand why the article should no longer be relied upon.

11. Preservation of Retracted Articles

Retraction does not ordinarily mean deleting the original article from the scholarly record.

Where technically feasible, the journal should retain the original article with a prominent indication of its retracted status.

The article landing page, PDF, and associated metadata should be updated appropriately to reflect the retraction.

The retraction notice should remain publicly accessible and linked to the affected article.

Complete removal of published content should be considered only in exceptional circumstances, such as serious legal requirements, significant privacy risks, or other compelling grounds that cannot reasonably be addressed through ordinary retraction procedures.

12. Author-Initiated Corrections and Retractions

Authors who discover significant errors or ethical concerns in their published work must inform the editorial office promptly.

An author-initiated request should include:

Identification of the relevant article.
A clear description of the error or concern.
An explanation of its implications for the findings or conclusions.
Supporting documentation when available.
A proposed correction or other appropriate response, where relevant.

The journal will evaluate the request and determine the suitable editorial action.

A request from an author does not automatically result in retraction; the journal must assess whether the relevant criteria are met.

13. Concerns Raised by Readers and Third Parties

Readers, reviewers, researchers, institutions, and other stakeholders may notify the journal of suspected errors or integrity concerns.

Reports should provide sufficient information to identify the article and explain the concern.

Where available, supporting evidence should accompany the report.

The editorial team should assess credible concerns fairly and may seek clarification from authors or other relevant parties.

Anonymous reports may be considered when they provide sufficiently specific and verifiable information.

14. Relationship with Research Misconduct Investigations

ARISTHA recognizes that certain concerns may require formal investigation by research institutions, ethics committees, funding organizations, or other competent authorities.

The journal may seek information from such bodies when appropriate.

However, the journal retains responsibility for decisions concerning corrections, expressions of concern, and retractions of its published articles.

Editorial action may be necessary to protect readers and the scholarly record even when an institutional investigation is ongoing or has not reached a definitive conclusion.

15. Confidentiality and Procedural Fairness

The journal should handle post-publication concerns with appropriate confidentiality during assessment.

Information should be shared only when reasonably necessary for investigation, editorial decision-making, or compliance with applicable obligations.

Affected authors should ordinarily be given an opportunity to respond to substantive concerns.

Editors with relevant conflicts of interest should not oversee decisions in which their impartiality may reasonably be questioned.

Public notices should be accurate, proportionate, and respectful of the distinction between established findings and unresolved allegations.

16. Appeals and Reconsideration

Authors or other affected parties may request reconsideration of a correction, expression of concern, or retraction decision when they identify:

A material factual error.
A significant procedural concern.
New evidence that could reasonably affect the editorial assessment.

An appeal should include a clear explanation and supporting information.

Where practicable, an appeal should be reviewed by an appropriately independent editor.

An appeal does not automatically suspend or reverse a published editorial notice.

17. Digital Records, Metadata, and Indexing

When a post-publication action is taken, ARISTHA should seek to maintain consistency between the article's public status and its digital records.

Where technically supported and applicable, this may involve updating:

The article landing page.
Downloadable article files.
Publication metadata.
Links between the article and the editorial notice.
Relevant DOI or indexing records, if such identifiers or services are in use.

The journal should not claim that external indexing or metadata updates have been completed unless those updates have actually occurred.

18. Responsibilities of Authors, Editors, and Publisher

Authors are responsible for reporting significant errors, responding to credible concerns, and cooperating with reasonable requests for clarification.

Editors are responsible for assessing the evidence, managing conflicts of interest, and determining appropriate editorial actions.

The publisher, Sekolah Tinggi Agama Islam (STAI) Ar-Risalah Sumatera Barat, Indonesia, supports responsible editorial governance and the preservation of the scholarly record.

Post-publication decisions must remain independent from inappropriate institutional, commercial, or personal influence.

19. Relationship with Other Editorial Policies

This policy should be read together with the journal's:

Editorial Decision Policy.
Publication Ethics.
Allegation of Misconduct.
Peer Review Process.
Generative AI (GenAI) Policy.
Plagiarism Policy.
Withdrawal of Manuscript Policy.
Copyright and License Policy.

Where multiple ethical issues arise, the relevant policies should be applied consistently.

20. Policy Review and Updates

ARISTHA may periodically review this policy to reflect developments in publication ethics, scholarly communication, digital publishing practices, and applicable institutional requirements.

The journal remains committed to ensuring that corrections, expressions of concern, and retractions are handled fairly, transparently, and in a manner that protects the reliability of the scholarly record.

Correction: Applied when an error can be remedied without invalidating the principal findings.

Expression of Concern: Applied when substantial reliability or ethical concerns remain unresolved.

Retraction: Applied when an article's findings are substantially unreliable or serious ethical violations justify retraction.

Final Editorial Authority: Editor-in-Chief or an appropriately designated editor.