Post-Publication Discussions and Corrections

1. Introduction

Andalasian Livestock (ALive) is committed to maintaining the accuracy, reliability, transparency, and integrity of the scholarly record throughout the entire publication lifecycle.

The journal recognizes that scholarly evaluation does not end when an article is published. New evidence, methodological concerns, errors, and constructive scientific criticism may arise after publication and may require clarification, further discussion, or formal editorial action.

Andalasian Livestock encourages responsible post-publication discussion and is committed to addressing credible concerns about published articles fairly, objectively, and in accordance with relevant publication ethics guidance.

This policy establishes the journal's principles and procedures for post-publication discussions, corrections, addenda, expressions of concern, retractions, article updates, and exceptional content removal.

The policy is informed by the Core Practices and relevant guidance of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), with particular attention to maintaining an accurate and transparent scholarly record.

2. Description

2.1. Post-Publication Discussion

Post-publication discussion refers to scholarly communication concerning research that has already been published.

Such discussion may include:

• Questions about research methods, experimental design, or statistical analysis.

• Scientific critiques of published findings.

• Requests for clarification of reported results.

• Comments concerning the interpretation of evidence.

• Identification of possible errors or omissions.

• Discussion of reproducibility and research data.

• Responses from the authors of published articles.

• New evidence relevant to previously published conclusions.

Constructive criticism is a legitimate part of scientific progress and must not automatically be treated as an allegation of misconduct.

2.2. Correction

A correction is a formal publication notice used to amend a significant error or omission in a published article when the principal findings remain sufficiently reliable.

Depending on the journal's terminology, a correction may be described as:

Corrigendum: A correction addressing an error originating from the author or authors.

Erratum: A correction addressing an error introduced during the journal's editorial or production process.

The journal may also use the general term Correction when this provides clearer and more consistent communication.

2.3. Retraction

A retraction is a formal editorial notice informing readers that a published article should no longer be relied upon as a valid contribution to the scholarly record.

Retraction may be necessary when findings are unreliable because of major error or research misconduct, or when other serious publication ethics concerns justify withdrawal of the article's scholarly claims.

Retraction is a mechanism for correcting the scholarly record and is not necessarily a determination of an author's intent or personal culpability.

2.4. Expression of Concern

An Expression of Concern is an editorial notice alerting readers to substantial unresolved concerns about a published article.

It may be appropriate when serious questions about the reliability or integrity of the work remain unresolved, or when a necessary investigation is ongoing or expected to take considerable time.

An Expression of Concern should be reviewed when significant new evidence becomes available.

2.5. Addendum

An addendum is a separately identifiable publication that provides relevant additional information concerning a published article without necessarily correcting an error in the original publication.

An addendum should not be used to conceal unreliable findings or avoid a correction or retraction where one is warranted.

2.6. Article Versioning

Article versioning refers to the documented management of changes to published content.

Versioning allows readers to identify which version of an article they are consulting and understand any substantive changes made after initial publication.

Substantive changes must be transparent and should not be implemented through undisclosed replacement of the published record.

3. Policy

3.1. Commitment to the Integrity of the Scholarly Record

Andalasian Livestock is responsible for maintaining an accurate and trustworthy record of the articles it publishes.

When significant errors, omissions, or ethical concerns are identified after publication, the journal will assess the available evidence and determine whether an appropriate editorial response is necessary.

Editorial responses should be:

• Evidence-based.

• Fair and proportionate.

• Transparent.

• Clearly documented.

• Timely in relation to the complexity of the concern.

• Consistent with relevant publication ethics guidance.

The journal will distinguish between minor inaccuracies, correctable errors, unresolved concerns, and problems that fundamentally undermine the reliability of published findings.

3.2. Encouraging Constructive Scholarly Discussion

Andalasian Livestock welcomes constructive, evidence-based discussion of published research.

Authors, readers, reviewers, researchers, and other interested parties may raise questions concerning the accuracy, methods, interpretation, or ethical integrity of published articles.

Scholarly discussion should be respectful, relevant, and supported by appropriate reasoning or evidence.

The journal may consider suitable contributions for publication as letters, commentaries, responses, or other appropriate forms of scholarly communication, subject to editorial assessment and the journal's approved article categories.

The journal does not guarantee publication of every submitted comment or criticism.

3.3. Submission of Post-Publication Concerns

Individuals who identify a possible error or integrity concern in a published article are encouraged to contact the journal's editorial office.

A report should provide sufficient information to permit an initial assessment, including:

1. The title of the affected article.

2. The names of the authors, where known.

3. The DOI or article URL.

4. A clear description of the concern.

5. The relevant section, table, figure, dataset, or result.

6. Supporting evidence or references, where available.

7. Contact information for further communication, where the reporter wishes to provide it.

The journal should also consider sufficiently specific and credible concerns submitted anonymously or through public channels.

The absence of a reporter's identity does not automatically invalidate a concern.

3.4. Initial Assessment of Reported Concerns

The editorial team will assess whether a reported concern is relevant, sufficiently specific, and supported by evidence warranting further review.

The initial assessment may involve:

• Reviewing the published article and related materials.

• Identifying the nature and significance of the alleged error.

• Determining whether the concern relates to scientific interpretation, reporting accuracy, or possible misconduct.

• Consulting an editor or subject specialist without relevant competing interests.

• Requesting clarification from the authors.

• Examining supporting datasets or documentation where appropriate.

Not every disagreement concerning scientific interpretation requires a formal correction or investigation.

3.5. Responsibilities of Authors After Publication

Authors remain responsible for the accuracy and integrity of their published work.

When authors identify a significant error or omission, they should inform the journal promptly.

Authors are expected to cooperate with reasonable editorial requests for:

• Clarification of published methods or results.

• Supporting data and analytical documentation.

• Information concerning ethical approval or consent.

• Explanation of discrepancies.

• Proposed corrections.

• Relevant institutional findings.

Authors should not attempt to conceal significant errors or discourage legitimate scientific scrutiny.

3.6. Corrections to Published Articles

A correction may be issued when a significant error or omission is identified but the article's principal findings remain reliable.

Examples may include:

• Incorrect numerical values in a table.

• Errors in figure labels or legends.

• Incorrectly reported statistical values.

• Mistakes in measurement units.

• Omissions in funding or competing interest declarations.

• Errors in author affiliation or acknowledgment.

• Incorrect methodological details that require clarification.

• Production errors introduced by the journal.

The editorial team will evaluate whether the proposed correction adequately addresses the problem.

A correction must not be used when the underlying findings are fundamentally unreliable.

3.7. Corrections in Livestock and Animal Science Research

For articles involving livestock and animal science, corrections may concern:

• Animal sample sizes.

• Experimental units or treatment allocations.

• Feed intake or nutrient composition values.

• Growth performance and feed conversion calculations.

• Reproductive performance indicators.

• Laboratory measurement units.

• Statistical model descriptions.

• Animal breed or physiological characteristics.

• Welfare-related methodological details.

• Data presented in tables, figures, or supplementary materials.

The journal will consider whether an error materially affects the scientific interpretation or conclusions.

Where corrected analyses substantially change the findings, the editorial team must determine whether a correction remains appropriate or whether a more substantial editorial action is necessary.

3.8. Publication of Correction Notices

A formal correction notice should:

1. Be clearly identified as a Correction, Corrigendum, or Erratum.

2. Identify the original article by title, authors, and DOI or permanent URL.

3. Explain the error or omission.

4. Provide the corrected information.

5. State whether the principal conclusions are affected.

6. Identify the responsible issuing party where appropriate.

7. Be electronically linked to the original article.

8. Be publicly accessible and independently citable where supported by the journal's publication infrastructure.

The original article should display a prominent notice or link indicating that a correction has been issued.

Substantive changes must not be made silently.

3.9. Minor Editorial Changes

Minor typographical or formatting errors that do not affect interpretation may be handled through proportionate editorial procedures.

The journal should distinguish between insignificant production adjustments and substantive changes that require a formal correction notice.

Any change affecting the scientific meaning, attribution, ethical declarations, or reliability of an article should be documented transparently.

3.10. Grounds for Retraction

Retraction may be considered when there is sufficiently reliable evidence that a published article should no longer be relied upon.

Relevant circumstances may include:

Unreliable Findings

Major errors in experimental design, data analysis, measurement, or interpretation that invalidate the principal conclusions.

Fabrication or Falsification

Evidence that data or results were invented, manipulated, or misrepresented in a manner that undermines reliability.

Plagiarism

Substantial unattributed use of another person's scholarly work.

Redundant or Duplicate Publication

Substantial republication of previously published material without appropriate justification, disclosure, or permission.

Serious Ethical Violations

Research conducted in violation of applicable ethical requirements where the violation is sufficiently serious to justify retraction.

Compromised Peer Review

Evidence of manipulation or other serious compromise of the editorial or peer-review process.

Unauthorized Publication or Serious Rights Violations

Circumstances involving serious infringement of intellectual property rights, confidentiality, or other rights that cannot be adequately remedied through a less extensive action.

Retraction decisions must be based on the seriousness of the problem and its effect on the scholarly record.

3.11. Honest Error and Research Misconduct

Andalasian Livestock distinguishes between honest scientific error and deliberate misconduct.

A major error may justify retraction even when the authors acted in good faith.

Conversely, an allegation of misconduct does not automatically justify retraction without an appropriate assessment of the available evidence and its implications for the article.

Retraction notices should distinguish honest error from misconduct when the evidence permits such a distinction.

The journal must avoid unsupported allegations about individuals.

3.12. Retraction Decision-Making

The Editor-in-Chief or an appropriately authorized independent editor is responsible for determining whether retraction is warranted.

The editorial assessment should consider:

• The reliability of the published findings.

• The significance of the identified problem.

• The availability of supporting evidence.

• Responses from the authors.

• Relevant institutional or ethics committee findings.

• The possibility of correcting the article.

• The need to protect readers and the scholarly record.

Authors should ordinarily be given an appropriate opportunity to respond before a final decision.

Where the Editor-in-Chief has a relevant competing interest, the matter must be handled independently.

The journal may proceed with an appropriate editorial action even when some authors disagree, provided the decision is adequately supported.

3.13. Retraction Notices

A retraction notice must be clearly identifiable and linked to the affected article.

The notice should include:

1. A title identifying the notice as a retraction.

2. The title and bibliographic details of the original article.

3. The original article DOI or permanent link.

4. A clear explanation of the reason for retraction.

5. Identification of the party issuing the retraction.

6. An indication of whether the action concerns error, misconduct, or another substantiated problem, where appropriate.

7. The publication date of the notice.

8. Relevant information necessary to understand the status of the article.

The journal should ensure that the original article landing page and accessible article files clearly indicate the retracted status.

The notice should remain publicly accessible.

3.14. Preservation of Retracted Articles

Retracted articles should ordinarily remain accessible as part of the historical scholarly record.

The article must be clearly marked as retracted and linked to the retraction notice.

Retraction must not be implemented by silently deleting the article or removing all evidence that it was published.

Maintaining the original record supports transparency, accountability, and the ability to understand the history of the publication.

3.15. Expressions of Concern

An Expression of Concern may be issued when substantial, well-founded concerns about an article remain unresolved.

Circumstances may include:

• A serious investigation that is expected to take considerable time.

• Conflicting or inconclusive evidence concerning the reliability of published findings.

• Credible concerns requiring institutional assessment.

• An unresolved ethical or data integrity problem that readers should be made aware of.

An Expression of Concern is not a declaration that misconduct has occurred.

The notice should explain the nature of the concern without making unsupported accusations.

3.16. Follow-Up to Expressions of Concern

The journal should review an Expression of Concern when new evidence or an investigation outcome becomes available.

Possible outcomes include:

• A correction.

• A retraction.

• An editorial notice explaining that the concern has been resolved.

• An update explaining why the concern remains unresolved.

The journal should maintain a clear public record of the outcome.

An Expression of Concern should not be left unreviewed indefinitely merely because it has already been published.

3.17. Addenda and Supplementary Clarifications

An addendum may be considered when relevant information becomes available after publication and would materially assist readers in understanding the article.

Examples may include:

• Additional methodological documentation.

• Clarification of experimental procedures.

• Supplementary explanations concerning analytical methods.

• Relevant information omitted from the original report that does not invalidate the findings.

An addendum should be subject to appropriate editorial assessment and, where necessary, independent review.

The addendum must be linked to the original article and clearly identified as a subsequent publication.

3.18. Article Updates and Version Control

Where substantial updates to published content are considered, the journal should maintain a transparent version history.

The journal should identify:

• The date of the update.

• The nature of the changes.

• The reason for the changes.

• The relationship between the original and revised versions.

New results or substantial changes to the scientific conclusions should not be presented as an undocumented revision of the original publication.

Depending on the circumstances, a new article, correction, addendum, or retraction may be more appropriate.

3.19. Exceptional Article Removal

Complete removal of an article from public access should be considered only in exceptional circumstances.

Such circumstances may include:

• A binding legal requirement.

• Serious and unlawful disclosure of private information.

• Material posing a substantial and immediate risk that cannot be adequately addressed through less restrictive measures.

• Other exceptional legal or ethical circumstances requiring removal.

Where an article must be removed, the journal should ordinarily retain an appropriate bibliographic record and publish an explanatory notice, to the extent legally and ethically permissible.

Removal must not be used to conceal editorial mistakes or legitimate scientific criticism.

3.20. Author Disagreements

Disagreement among authors does not prevent the journal from assessing a credible post-publication concern.

The editorial team should seek relevant responses from the authors and evaluate the evidence independently.

Where authors disagree about the proposed editorial action, the journal should document the disagreement and determine an appropriate outcome based on the integrity of the published record.

3.21. Institutional Investigations

Research institutions and competent authorities may have responsibility for formal investigations into researcher conduct.

Andalasian Livestock may refer serious allegations to the relevant institution when appropriate.

The journal retains responsibility for editorial decisions concerning its published articles.

The journal may consider institutional findings but should independently determine whether a correction, Expression of Concern, retraction, or other notice is required.

The journal should not unnecessarily delay action when reliable evidence already establishes that the published record requires correction.

3.22. Confidentiality and Fairness

Post-publication concerns must be handled fairly and with appropriate confidentiality.

The journal should protect sensitive personal information and avoid unnecessary disclosure of allegations while they are being assessed.

Individuals whose conduct is questioned should be given an appropriate opportunity to respond.

Good-faith complainants must not be subjected to retaliation by the journal.

Public notices should communicate the facts necessary to inform readers without including unnecessary personal details.

3.23. Independence and Conflicts of Interest

Editors involved in evaluating post-publication concerns must disclose relevant competing interests.

An editor with a significant conflict must not control the outcome of the case.

Where necessary, the journal should appoint an independent editor or seek appropriate external expertise.

Editorial decisions must not be influenced by author status, institutional prestige, financial interests, or personal relationships.

3.24. Discoverability and Publication Metadata

The journal should take reasonable steps to ensure that formal post-publication notices are discoverable.

Where supported by its publishing infrastructure, the journal should:

• Publish notices as identifiable records.

• Assign persistent identifiers to notices.

• Link notices to affected articles.

• Update article landing pages and files.

• Register relevant relationships with DOI registration services.

• Notify appropriate indexing and abstracting services.

• Preserve notices through applicable archiving arrangements.

Metadata updates should accurately reflect the current status of the article.

The journal should not claim that external databases have updated their records until the relevant updates can be verified.

3.25. Fees for Post-Publication Notices

Editorial actions required to preserve the integrity of the scholarly record should not be conditioned on an author's payment of an additional publication fee.

Proposed ALive policy: Formal corrections, Expressions of Concern, and retraction notices issued for publication integrity purposes should not incur an additional APC.

This provision requires confirmation and approval by the journal's authorized management body before publication as an operational commitment.

4. Implementation and Procedures

4.1. Receiving Reports and Requests

The editorial office should maintain a clear communication channel for receiving:

• Requests for correction.

• Scientific comments and critiques.

• Concerns about research data.

• Allegations of plagiarism or misconduct.

• Requests for retraction.

• Questions about ethical approval.

• Other significant post-publication concerns.

Official contact: [INSERT VERIFIED EDITORIAL EMAIL]

4.2. Registration and Initial Review

The editorial office should record the date of receipt, affected article, nature of the concern, and available supporting information.

An authorized editor should conduct an initial assessment and determine whether the concern requires clarification, scientific review, an integrity investigation, or no further action.

4.3. Communication with Authors

Where appropriate, the corresponding author and other relevant authors should be informed of the concern.

The journal should request a substantive response and supporting documentation within a reasonable period appropriate to the circumstances.

Acknowledgment and response timelines: [INSERT APPROVED OPERATIONAL TIMEFRAMES]

The journal should not publish arbitrary deadlines that it cannot consistently meet.

4.4. Independent Scientific Assessment

The editor may consult independent reviewers, statistical experts, animal science specialists, research ethics experts, or other appropriately qualified individuals.

Independent assessment may be particularly important where a concern involves:

• Experimental design or pseudoreplication.

• Statistical errors affecting principal conclusions.

• Inconsistent animal performance data.

• Questionable laboratory measurements.

• Unreliable images or datasets.

• Serious animal welfare or ethical approval concerns.

Individuals consulted must maintain confidentiality and disclose relevant conflicts of interest.

4.5. Determining the Editorial Outcome

Following assessment, the authorized editor should determine whether the appropriate action is:

1. No formal action.

2. A private clarification or response.

3. Publication of a scholarly discussion or author reply.

4. A correction.

5. An addendum.

6. An Expression of Concern.

7. A retraction.

8. Exceptional removal or another legally required action.

The decision should be proportionate to the available evidence and documented appropriately.

4.6. Publication of a Correction

When a correction is approved, the editorial office should:

1. Prepare a clear correction notice.

2. Verify the corrected information.

3. Obtain appropriate editorial authorization.

4. Publish the notice as a distinct, identifiable record.

5. Link it to the original article.

6. Mark the original article as corrected.

7. Update relevant metadata where supported.

8. Preserve the notice as part of the publication record.

4.7. Publication of an Expression of Concern

When an Expression of Concern is justified, the editorial office should:

1. Prepare an evidence-based notice.

2. Identify the affected article.

3. Explain the unresolved concern.

4. Avoid unsupported conclusions about misconduct.

5. Publish and link the notice.

6. Record the need for follow-up.

7. Update the public record when the matter is resolved.

4.8. Publication of a Retraction

When retraction is justified, the editorial office should:

1. Prepare a formal retraction notice.

2. Identify the article and the reason for retraction.

3. Obtain appropriate editorial authorization.

4. Publish the notice with a persistent link to the article.

5. Clearly mark the original article as retracted.

6. Update the article landing page and relevant files.

7. Update DOI metadata and notify relevant services where feasible.

8. Preserve both the original article and the retraction notice.

4.9. Post-Publication Discussion and Author Responses

The journal should establish an appropriate process for receiving scholarly letters or commentaries concerning published articles.

Submissions may be assessed for relevance, scientific substance, civility, and potential legal or ethical concerns.

The authors of the original article should ordinarily be offered an opportunity to respond to substantive criticism.

Publication of a commentary or response remains subject to editorial approval.

Online commenting feature: [CONFIRM WHETHER AVAILABLE AND APPROVED FOR USE]

The journal must not describe an interactive commenting facility as active unless it is operational.

4.10. Technical Implementation in OJS

The editorial office should configure its publishing workflow to support clearly identified post-publication notices.

Recommended measures include:

• Creating appropriate publication categories or sections for notices.

• Using consistent notice titles.

• Linking each notice to the affected article.

• Displaying the current article status prominently.

• Maintaining accurate DOI and publication metadata.

• Preserving notices and affected article records.

• Testing links after publication.

The journal should verify the capabilities of its installed OJS version and relevant plugins before implementing technical procedures.

4.11. Recordkeeping

The journal should maintain confidential records of significant post-publication concerns, relevant evidence, correspondence, editorial assessments, and decisions.

Records should be stored securely and retained according to applicable institutional and legal requirements.

4.12. Appeals

Authors or other affected parties may appeal an editorial decision through the journal's Complaints and Appeals Policy.

An appeal should explain the grounds for reconsideration and provide relevant supporting information.

Where feasible, the appeal should be assessed by an individual who was not responsible for the original decision.

4.13. Policy Review

The editorial team should periodically review this policy and its implementation to ensure consistency with current publication ethics guidance, operational capabilities, and the journal's responsibilities to authors and readers.