Editorial Board Resolution Adopting the Institutional Protocol for Corrections, Editorial Clarifications, Expressions of Concern, and Retractions

The Editorial Board of Discimus Journal, in exercise of its editorial autonomy and its authority to define, regulate, and safeguard policies on academic integrity, publication ethics, and transparency in editorial processes, and

Whereas

Whereas Discimus Journal, as an academic and scholarly publication, assumes the institutional responsibility to protect the integrity of the editorial record and to ensure that the academic community has access to verifiable, reliable, and rigorously reviewed content.

Whereas scholarly publishing constitutes a practice of public, ethical, and academic responsibility, and therefore any post-publication action must be governed by the principles of transparency, good faith, proportionality, traceability, publicity, academic integrity, and due process.

Whereas the very dynamics of knowledge circulation require the existence of clear institutional mechanisms for the correction of errors, the clarification of editorial matters, the issuance of expressions of concern, and the retraction of content whenever sufficient grounds exist.

Whereas it is incumbent upon scholarly journals to establish explicit guidelines enabling the objective, documented, and proportionate handling of controversies, inconsistencies, errors, or ethical breaches identified after publication.

Whereas, without prejudice to its editorial autonomy, Discimus Journal takes as a point of reference the guidance of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and other applicable international standards in the field of scholarly publishing ethics, particularly with regard to corrections, editorial clarifications, expressions of concern, and retractions.

Whereas it is necessary to adopt an institutional instrument governing these matters and providing procedural certainty both to the editorial team and to authors, readers, reviewers, and institutions involved in the publication process.

Now, therefore,

Resolves

Article 1. Adoption

To adopt the Institutional Protocol for Corrections, Editorial Clarifications, Expressions of Concern, and Retractions of Publications of Discimus Journal, which shall form an integral part of the journal’s editorial policy and shall be binding in all proceedings related to changes in the editorial status of content that has already been published.

Article 2. Purpose of the Protocol

The protocol adopted through this Resolution is intended to establish the institutional, editorial, and procedural guidelines applicable to the correction, editorial clarification, expression of concern, and retraction of content published by Discimus Journal, with the purpose of safeguarding the integrity of the scholarly record, the transparency of the editorial process, the reliability of the knowledge disseminated, and the minimum guarantees of due process with respect to the persons involved.

Article 3. Scope of Application

This Resolution and the protocol hereby adopted shall apply to all content published by Discimus Journal, regardless of documentary type, including research articles, reflection articles, review articles, editorials, reviews, interviews, translations, pedagogical reflection papers, and any other academic or scholarly works that form part of each issue or volume of the journal.

Article 4. Governing Principles

The interpretation and application of this Resolution and of the protocol it incorporates shall be guided by the principles of academic integrity, truthfulness, editorial responsibility, good faith, proportionality, prevention of academic harm, transparency, traceability, respect for due process, and protection of the public interest associated with the reliability of published knowledge.

Any decision involving a modification of the editorial status of a text shall be grounded in objective, verifiable, and duly documented criteria.

Article 5. Forms of Post-Publication Editorial Action

Discimus Journal may adopt, depending on the nature and seriousness of the case, any of the following editorial measures

a. Minor correction
b. Substantive correction or erratum
c. Editorial clarification
d. Expression of concern
e. Retraction

Article 6. Minor Correction

A minor correction shall be understood as a strictly formal amendment that does not alter the argumentative structure of the text, its methodological consistency, the interpretation of its results, or the general validity of its conclusions. This category includes, among other matters, typographical, spelling, or punctuation errors, bibliographic standardization, formal file adjustments, minor metadata corrections, or amendments to institutional affiliations that do not affect the substantive meaning of the document.

Such corrections may be incorporated directly into the published file, provided that an internal editorial record of the amendment is maintained and, where deemed appropriate, a visible update notice is added.

Article 7. Substantive Correction or Erratum

A substantive correction shall be understood as an editorial intervention intended to remedy significant errors which, while not invalidating the manuscript in its entirety, require a public notice because of their relevance to the proper reading, understanding, use, or interpretation of the text.

This measure shall apply, among other circumstances, where errors are identified in tables, figures, specific data, citations, references, relevant metadata, funding statements, conflict of interest disclosures, authorship, or author contributions.

In such cases, the journal shall issue a formal and independent notice, clearly identified and linked to the original text, in order to ensure transparency in the editorial action undertaken.

Article 8. Editorial Clarification

An editorial clarification shall be issued when it is necessary to specify interpretive, contextual, documentary, or institutional aspects of a published text, without there being a material or substantive error compromising the validity of the content.

This mechanism may also be used where the Editorial Office considers it necessary to set forth an institutional clarification in response to controversies arising from the academic reception of the text, provided that such action contributes to the transparency and intelligibility of the editorial record.

Article 9. Expression of Concern

An expression of concern constitutes a preventive, provisional, and public editorial measure, appropriate where serious, reasonable, and documented indications exist that cast doubt on the reliability, originality, integrity, or ethical legitimacy of a published text, but where conclusive elements are not yet available to support a final decision on substantive correction or retraction.

The expression of concern shall be reasoned, published in a visible manner, and remain linked to the document while the underlying facts are being clarified or until the journal reaches a final decision.

Article 10. Retraction

Retraction constitutes the most significant editorial measure and shall apply where, following the corresponding verification process, the published content is found to be wholly or substantially unreliable, whether as a result of serious error, negligence, conduct contrary to publication ethics, academic fraud, plagiarism, unjustified duplicate publication, manipulation of information, falsification, fabrication of data, material omission of essential elements, or any other circumstance substantially affecting the scientific, ethical, or legal validity of the document.

The purpose of retraction shall be to state publicly, unequivocally, and on a documented basis that the affected text should not be regarded as a reliable scholarly reference in the terms in which it was originally published.

Article 11. Criteria for Determining the Applicable Measure

The decision as to the appropriate editorial measure shall be made taking into consideration the nature of the issue identified, the extent to which it affects the validity of the text, any potential harm to third parties, the scholarly impact of the error or irregularity, the presence or absence of intent, negligence, or honest error, the sufficiency of the available evidence, and the need to preserve the integrity of the editorial record.

In all cases, the journal shall apply the principle of proportionality, so that the measure adopted is commensurate with the magnitude of the problem identified.

Article 12. Initiation of the Procedure

The procedure may be initiated at the request of authors, upon report by readers, reviewers, members of editorial or scientific committees, upon communication from academic institutions, funding bodies, or external organizations, or ex officio by the Editorial Office whenever a matter requiring review comes to its attention.

Any request, report, or alert shall be documented in the corresponding editorial file.

Article 13. Competent Authority

Jurisdiction to hear, process, and decide matters governed by this Resolution shall rest with the Editorial Office of Discimus Journal, with the support of the Editorial Board.

Where the complexity, seriousness, or sensitivity of the case so requires, an opinion may be sought from the Scientific Committee, external reviewers, or the institution with which the authors are affiliated, without prejudice to the journal’s editorial autonomy in adopting the final decision.

Article 14. Stages of the Procedure

Depending on the nature of the case, the procedure shall comprise the following stages

1. Receipt of the alert, complaint, request, or report
2. Preliminary review of admissibility
3. Opening of the editorial proceeding
4. Communication to the authors concerned
5. Collection and verification of information
6. Assessment by the Editorial Office and the Editorial Board
7. Adoption of a reasoned decision
8. Public notice of the decision through the corresponding editorial statement

Article 15. Guarantees of Editorial Due Process

In any proceeding governed by this Resolution, the persons concerned shall be guaranteed knowledge of the facts under review, the opportunity to present their position, submit supporting documentation, and provide clarifications, as well as the adoption of a decision grounded in verifiable and sufficiently documented elements.

This shall not preclude the adoption of preventive measures to protect the editorial record where the seriousness of the case so warrants.

Article 16. Publicity of Editorial Decisions

Any decision resulting in a visible modification of the editorial status of a published text shall be made public through the corresponding editorial notice, with reciprocal linking between that notice and the affected document.

The drafting of such notices shall preserve the institutional nature of the pronouncement, avoid injurious, speculative, or disparaging language, and be limited to an objective account of the facts and of the editorial determination adopted.

Article 17. Effects of Retraction

Retraction shall not, as a general rule, entail removal of the historical publication record, unless a court order, legal mandate, or exceptional circumstance justifies the removal of the content.

As a matter of principle, the retracted text shall remain accessible with a clear and visible notice of its editorial status, thereby preserving the traceability of the process and avoiding any artificial alteration of the journal’s scholarly archive.

Article 18. Metadata, DOI, and Updating of the Record

Where the content subject to correction, editorial clarification, expression of concern, or retraction has a DOI or other persistent identifiers, the journal shall endeavor to update the relevant metadata and to record, to the extent technically feasible, the relationship between the original document and the subsequent editorial notice.

Article 19. Archiving and Institutional Traceability

The journal shall maintain an internal record of all proceedings carried out under this Resolution, including the reports received, communications sent and received, evidence gathered, opinions issued, and the decision adopted.

This record shall form part of the institutional memory of the editorial process and shall serve as supporting documentation for purposes of transparency, oversight, and continuous improvement.

Article 20. Supplementary Interpretation

Situations not expressly provided for in this Resolution shall be decided by the Editorial Office and the Editorial Board in accordance with the principles of academic integrity, publication ethics, reasonableness, proportionality, and institutional responsibility, always seeking to preserve the scholarly record and public confidence in Discimus Journal.

Without prejudice to its editorial autonomy, Discimus Journal shall take as a point of reference the guidance of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and other applicable international standards in the field of scholarly publishing ethics.

Article 21. Entry into Force

This Resolution shall enter into force upon its approval by the Editorial Board of Discimus Journal and shall apply to all proceedings initiated after its entry into force, without prejudice to its use as an interpretive guide for addressing prior situations requiring institutional review.