Depending on the nature and severity of the problem, and whether it can be corrected without undermining the main findings, possible editorial actions include:

• Corrections: replacing a figure, clarifying processing in the legend or adding an explanatory note when the underlying data remain reliable.
• Expression of concern: an interim notice when serious questions exist but investigations are ongoing or incomplete.
• Retraction or: when image manipulation seriously compromises or invalidates the findings, or when there is evidence of deliberate data fabrication or falsification.

In all cases, Iran Occupational Health (IOH) journal aims to follow recognized best practice for corrections and retractions, as described in the Corrections & retractions policy, and to use cases to improve guidance and education for authors and reviewers.

Roles & responsibilities

Responsibilities are shared, but authors hold primary responsibility for the images they submit:

• Authors:
  • ensure that all images and figures comply with this policy;
  • retain and provide original image data when requested;
  • describe acquisition and processing methods transparently;
  • avoid delegating image handling to individuals who are not familiar with these requirements.
• Institutions & laboratories:
  • provide training on good image handling practices;
  • establish internal procedures for secure storage and responsible processing of imaging data.
• Editors & journals:
  • communicate clear expectations to authors and reviewers;
  • use proportional screening and follow-up mechanisms;
  • apply policies consistently and in line with broader research integrity frameworks.
• Reviewers and readers:
  • flag possible concerns about image integrity confidentially to editors, without making public allegations.

Corrections, retractions, withdrawals & version of record

Even with rigorous peer review and editorial checks, published articles may contain errors or become the subject of integrity concerns. Iran Occupational Health (IOH) journal has a responsibility to:

• correct the literature promptly when errors are identified;
• provide clear notices when concerns about reliability arise; and
• retract or withdraw articles when necessary to protect the scientific record and readers.

Key terms & definitions

• Version of record (VoR): the final, formally published article on the journal website, with DOI, volume/issue details and layout. The VoR is the authoritative version for citation.
• Correction / erratum / corrigendum: a notice that fixes an error in a published article. The terminology may differ by journal, but the function is to correct the record while keeping the article available.
• Addendum: a notice that adds important information (for example, an additional analysis or clarification) to a published article without changing its main conclusions.
• Expression of concern: a notice indicating that serious questions have been raised about an article, while an investigation is ongoing or evidence is incomplete.
• Retraction: a formal notice stating that an article is unreliable, in whole or in substantial part, due to errors, misconduct or other serious problems.
• Withdrawal: removal of an article from publication before it is formally assigned as part of the record (for example, during production or ahead-of-print) when major issues are discovered.
• Removal: in rare situations, an article may need to be removed from public view (for example, legal orders, serious privacy breaches). In such cases, bibliographic information and a brief explanation are typically retained.

Decisions about which route to follow (correction vs retraction vs withdrawal) depend on the nature and severity of the problem, and are guided by the Research & publication misconduct policy.

When are corrections issued?

Corrections are appropriate when:

• the article remains reliable overall; and
• errors can be clearly identified and corrected without requiring withdrawal or retraction.

Typical reasons for issuing corrections include:

• typographical or formatting errors that could affect interpretation;
• errors in author names, affiliations or funding information;
• minor mistakes in figures, tables or units that do not change the main conclusions;
• clarification of methods, ethics approvals, data availability statements or conflict-of-interest disclosures.

If errors call into question the robustness of results or the integrity of the work, editors may instead consider an expression of concern or retraction.

Types of corrections & notices

Iran Occupational Health (IOH) journal may use several types of notices:

• Publisher correction / erratum: used when the journal or publisher is responsible for an error (for example, production or typesetting mistakes).
• Author correction / corrigendum: used when the authors identify an error in their own work that needs correction.
• Addendum: used to add information that is important for completeness or transparency (for example, an omitted acknowledgement, additional methodological detail or late-discovered conflict of interest) without changing the main results.
• Editor’s note or editorial note: a short notice, sometimes used alongside other actions, to explain context or summarize relevant information for readers.

All correction-related notices:

• are linked to the original article;
• are labelled clearly (e.g. “Correction”, “Addendum”, “Expression of concern”); and
• include a transparent description of what has been changed and why.

Process for requesting corrections

Requests for corrections can come from:

• authors of the article;
• readers, reviewers or other researchers; or
• editors and journal staff who notice potential errors.

To request a correction, a detailed explanation should be sent to the journal’s editorial office, including:

• article title, journal name and DOI;
• a clear description of the problem;
• the proposed correction and any supporting evidence (for example, re-analyzed data or revised figures).

Editors will:

• assess the request, consulting reviewers or external experts if needed;
• determine whether a simple correction, addendum or a more serious action (e.g. expression of concern or retraction) is appropriate;
• share the proposed text of the correction notice with the authors for factual checking when time allows.

Version of record & minor updates

The version of record (VoR) is meant to be stable and citable. However, in some cases it may be necessary to make small technical updates (for example, fixing formatting or broken links) without a formal correction notice.
General principles:

• Substantive changes that affect interpretation, data, analyses or conclusions must be documented by a formal notice (correction, addendum, etc.).
• Minor, non-substantive edits (e.g. spelling corrections that do not change meaning, layout fixes, web link repairs) may be made quietly, but journals aim to keep such cases limited.
• Where tools such as Crossmark are implemented, the current status of the VoR (including corrections and updates) will be visible via the Crossmark icon.

In all cases, the DOI for the VoR remains the same; corrections and related notices receive their own DOIs and are linked bidirectionally with the article.

Expressions of concern

An expression of concern may be issued when:

• serious questions arise about the reliability or integrity of an article;
• an investigation by the journal, institution or funder is underway but not yet complete; or
• evidence is conflicting or incomplete, and an immediate decision to retract or correct is not yet possible.

The notice will:

• be clearly labelled as an “Expression of concern”;
• describe, as far as possible, the nature of the concerns;
• indicate that an investigation is ongoing and that further action (correction, retraction or no action) may follow.

Once investigations are complete, a follow-up notice (such as a correction or retraction) is issued, and the status of the expression of concern is updated accordingly.

Retractions: criteria & triggers

Retraction is reserved for cases where:

• the findings are unreliable due to major errors (for example, miscalculation, flawed experimental design, or misinterpretation that fundamentally undermines the conclusions);
• there is evidence of research or publication misconduct (for example, data fabrication, falsification, plagiarism, serious image manipulation), as outlined in the Misconduct policy;
• the article reports research that was conducted without required ethics approval or in serious breach of ethical or legal standards;
• duplicate or redundant publication has occurred, and partial or selective correction is not sufficient.

Retraction is not used to punish authors, but to indicate that the article should not be relied upon as part of the scholarly record.

Retractions: process & labelling

Ensuring that retractions are clear, fair and discoverable.
When considering retraction, editors will:

• seek explanations from the authors;
• consult institutions, funders or independent experts where appropriate;
• follow due process in line with the Research & publication misconduct policy and relevant national/institutional procedures.

Retraction notices will:

• be clearly labelled as “Retraction”;
• be freely accessible, linked to the retracted article and assigned their own DOI;
• state who is retracting the article (authors, editors, publisher or jointly) and summarize the reasons;
• distinguish between honest error and misconduct where this can be established.

The original article is usually retained online with a clear watermark or header indicating that it has been retracted, so that the scholarly record remains transparent. In rare cases (e.g. legal requirements or severe privacy risks), partial or full removal may be necessary (see Section of Article removal, replacement & republication).

Manuscript withdrawal before publication

A submission may be withdrawn:

• by the authors, with editorial agreement, before acceptance or during early production; or
• by the journal, if serious problems are discovered before the article becomes part of the formal record (for example, pre-issue “online first” status).

When an article that has already been posted online ahead of issue is withdrawn:

• a withdrawal notice is typically posted in place of the article or alongside it, explaining the reason;
• indexing services and repositories may be notified.

Authors should not attempt to remove or obscure early online versions themselves; all changes must be coordinated through the editorial office to maintain a transparent record.

Article removal, replacement & republication

Removing an article from public access is an exceptional measure, considered only when:

• leaving the article online would pose a serious legal risk (e.g. defamation, court orders);
• there is a significant breach of privacy or confidentiality (for example, publication of identifiable patient information without consent, contrary to the Consent & privacy policy);
• the article contains content that is clearly unlawful.

In such cases:

• the usual approach is to remove the full text but retain the bibliographic record, including title, authors and DOI;
• a brief note explains why the content has been removed;
• where possible, an alternative version that addresses the problem (for example, with sensitive material removed) may be published and clearly linked.

If corrected content is republished as a new version, this will be made explicit, and links between earlier and updated versions will be maintained.

Linking, indexing & discoverability

To maintain a clear scholarly record, Iran Occupational Health (IOH) journal aims to:

• ensure that corrections, expressions of concern, retractions and withdrawals are directly linked to the affected article;
• notify indexing and abstracting services (e.g. Scopus, Web of Science, MEDLINE) of significant changes, so that status is updated in databases;
• make notices freely accessible, even when the underlying article is not open access.

Where feasible, metadata will indicate:

• the current status of the article (e.g. corrected, retracted);
• the date of the notice and links to related documents.

Crossmark & tracking article status

Where implemented Iran Occupational Health (IOH) journal uses Crossmark to display up-to-date information about an article’s status. The Crossmark icon (or equivalent) on the article page and PDF allows readers to:

• check whether the version they are viewing is current;
• see if corrections, retractions or other updates have been issued;
• access additional metadata such as funding, ethics and data availability, where available.

Even where Crossmark is not in use, the journal website will indicate corrections and other notices clearly on the article page and in PDF headers or watermarks.

Roles, responsibilities & appeals

Maintaining the integrity of the literature is a shared responsibility:

• Authors:
  • inform the journal promptly if they discover errors or integrity concerns in their own work;
  • cooperate with investigations and proposed corrections;
  • do not attempt to hide or unilaterally alter online versions of articles.
• Editors & journal:
  • assess concerns impartially and proportionately;
  • follow clear, documented procedures, consistent with the Misconduct policy;
  • communicate decisions and reasons transparently to authors and, where appropriate, to readers.
• Institutions & funders:
  • lead investigations into alleged misconduct involving their researchers;
  • keep journals informed of relevant outcomes, within legal and confidentiality limits.
• Readers, reviewers & other researchers:
  • raise concerns responsibly and confidentially with journals, providing evidence where possible.

Authors who disagree with a correction or retraction decision may submit a reasoned appeal to the journal. Appeals will be reviewed by senior editorial staff and, where appropriate, by independent advisors not involved in the original decision.