Correction and Retraction Policy

Jurnal Gizi dan Kesehatan (JGK) is committed to maintaining the accuracy, reliability, transparency, and integrity of the scholarly record. Errors or ethical concerns may be identified before or after publication. Accordingly, the journal establishes procedures for correcting, clarifying, withdrawing, retracting, or, in exceptional circumstances, removing scholarly content.

The purpose of these procedures is to protect readers from unreliable information and preserve the integrity of scholarly communication, rather than to punish authors or other individuals.

1. Scope and General Principles

This policy applies to all manuscripts submitted to and scholarly content published in JGK, including empirical research, reviews, conceptual and theoretical articles, methodological contributions, and scholarly perspectives.

The following principles guide editorial action:

Accuracy: Publications must accurately represent research methods, sources, evidence, analyses, and conclusions.
Transparency: Substantive changes must be documented through appropriate notices.
Accountability: Authors, editors, and the publisher share responsibilities for maintaining the scholarly record.
Fairness: Concerns must be assessed objectively, with affected parties given reasonable opportunities to respond.
Preservation: Published content should ordinarily remain accessible, including when corrected or retracted.
Proportionality: Action must reflect the nature, severity, and consequences of the concern.
Timeliness: Substantiated concerns should be addressed without unnecessary delay.

2. Categories of Corrections and Editorial Notices

2.1. Author Correction (Corrigendum)

An Author Correction addresses significant errors originating in the authors’ work that can be corrected without fundamentally invalidating the article’s principal contribution.

Examples include:

Incorrect numerical values or analytical results;
Errors in tables, figures, quotations, or documentary references;
Inaccurate descriptions of methods, sampling, or case selection;
Verified errors in author information or contribution statements; and
Material omissions in funding, conflicts of interest, references, or acknowledgements.

The notice must identify the error, provide the corrected information, and explain its implications.

2.2. Publisher Correction (Erratum)

A Publisher Correction addresses significant errors introduced during editorial production or publication, such as:

Incorrect titles, author names, or affiliations;
Typesetting errors affecting meaning;
Incorrect reproduction of tables, figures, or supplementary materials;
Discrepancies between approved proofs and published content; and
Errors in bibliographic metadata.

Minor metadata errors may be resolved through documented updates when a separate notice is unnecessary.

2.3. Addendum

An Addendum supplies important additional information needed to understand the original article.

It may provide essential methodological clarification or supporting documentation. It must not conceal errors, introduce unsupported conclusions, or replace a correction or retraction where those actions are warranted.

Substantially new research should normally be submitted as a separate article.

2.4. Editor’s Note

An Editor’s Note may inform readers of an editorial clarification or an inquiry concerning a published article.

It does not establish misconduct and must distinguish verified information from unresolved concerns.

2.5. Editorial Expression of Concern

An Expression of Concern alerts readers to serious questions about an article when the evidence is incomplete or an investigation remains unresolved.

It may be appropriate when:

Credible concerns require further investigation;
The reliability of evidence or analysis is seriously questioned;
Institutional findings are delayed or inconclusive;
Significant ethical concerns remain unresolved; or
Available explanations do not adequately resolve concerns.

The notice should describe the issue fairly and be followed by an appropriate update when sufficient information becomes available.

3. Article Correction Procedures

Corrections may be initiated by authors, readers, reviewers, editors, institutions, or other concerned parties.

The journal will normally:

Receive a description of the error and supporting evidence;
Assess its significance;
Request author clarification or corrected materials;
Consult independent specialists where necessary;
Determine whether correction is sufficient; and
Publish and link an appropriate notice.

Correction notices should identify the article, describe the original error, provide the amendment, and explain whether the interpretation or conclusions are affected.

When article files are updated, the corrected version and amendment history must be identifiable. Substantive changes must not be made silently.

4. Grounds for Retraction

Retraction informs readers that an article’s reliability or ethical integrity has been fundamentally compromised.

JGK may retract an article when reliable evidence establishes:

Fabrication or Falsification: Invented or manipulated data, interviews, observations, documents, quotations, or findings;
Unreliable Conclusions: Major methodological, analytical, or reporting errors that invalidate the principal conclusions;
Plagiarism: Significant unattributed use of another person’s work;
Redundant Publication: Substantial duplication without appropriate disclosure or justification;
Serious Research Ethics Violations: Including breaches of required consent, ethical approval, or participant protection;
Compromised Peer Review: Manipulation that undermines confidence in the publication process; or
Other Fundamental Integrity Failures: Established circumstances that make continued reliance on the article inappropriate.

Retraction may be necessary because of deliberate misconduct or honest error. A finding of intentional misconduct is not required when the published work is demonstrably unreliable.

Authorship disputes or undisclosed interests alone do not normally justify retraction when the article remains reliable and the issue can be adequately addressed through correction.

5. Retraction Assessment and Decision-Making

Stage 1: Preliminary Assessment

The Editorial Team documents the concern, identifies the affected article, and evaluates the supporting evidence.

Stage 2: Author Notification

The corresponding author and, where appropriate, other authors are informed and invited to provide explanations or supporting records.

Requests must account for confidentiality, participant consent, and restrictions on sensitive research materials.

Stage 3: Independent Evaluation

The journal may consult methodological specialists, subject experts, research-ethics advisers, or relevant institutions.

Allegations requiring formal investigation of researcher conduct may be referred to the authors’ institutions.

Stage 4: Editorial Determination

The Editor-in-Chief or an independent authorized editor assesses whether correction, an Expression of Concern, retraction, or another action is warranted.

Anyone with a relevant conflict of interest must withdraw from decision-making.

Stage 5: Notification

Authors will be informed of the decision and given a reasonable opportunity to respond.

Author disagreement does not prevent retraction where sufficient evidence supports it. The journal may act to protect readers without awaiting a final institutional determination.

Stage 6: Publication of Notice

A formal Retraction Notice will be published and linked to the original article.

6. Retraction Notices and Preservation

A Retraction Notice must:

Be clearly labelled and freely accessible;
Identify the article, authors, publication details, and DOI where available;
Explain the reasons and evidential basis;
Identify who is issuing the retraction;
Report author agreement or disagreement where appropriate; and
Link directly to the affected article.

The article page and PDF will be marked RETRACTED, where technically feasible. Relevant metadata will be updated through supported systems.

Retracted articles ordinarily remain accessible as part of the scholarly record. Notices must use objective language and avoid unsupported allegations or unnecessary personal blame.

7. Manuscript Withdrawal Before Publication

Withdrawal ends consideration of a manuscript before formal publication.

Authors may request withdrawal because of substantial errors, unresolved authorship issues, ethical concerns, or other legitimate circumstances.

The corresponding author should submit a written request explaining the reason and confirming that all co-authors have been informed. Relevant author agreement or disagreement should be disclosed.

The Editorial Team will document the request and communicate the manuscript’s status. Where an authorship or ethical dispute exists, it may require further assessment.

Withdrawal does not terminate a legitimate integrity inquiry.

Articles already published online, including Article in Press publications, are subject to post-publication procedures rather than ordinary manuscript withdrawal.

8. Exceptional Removal of Published Content

Removal is considered only when continued public access presents compelling legal or ethical concerns, including:

A binding legal requirement;
Serious infringement of rights;
Disclosure that substantially compromises participant privacy or confidentiality; or
A serious risk to an individual’s safety.

Where feasible, limited redaction will be considered before removing an entire article.

The journal will ordinarily retain bibliographic information and an explanatory notice. Removal must not be used to conceal publication history or substitute for an appropriate retraction.

9. Article Replacement and Version Control

In exceptional cases, substantial errors may require consideration of retraction and republication or another transparently documented replacement process.

The journal will:

Assess whether ordinary correction is sufficient;
Obtain appropriate independent evaluation;
Clearly identify the status of the original publication;
Explain the reason for replacement;
Link the original record, notice, and replacement; and
Preserve relevant publication history and metadata.

Replacement must not be used to silently rewrite the scholarly record.

10. Considerations Specific to Nutrition and Health Research

Nutrition and health research involves unique biological, behavioral, and public health dimensions. When conducting studies, reviewing manuscripts, or engaging in post-publication discussions in fields like Jurnal Gizi dan Kesehatan (JGK), several special considerations must be addressed:

a. Dietary Assessment and Methodological Challenges

Recall Bias and Misreporting: Self-reported dietary intake data (such as 24-hour recalls or food frequency questionnaires) are highly prone to memory lapses, underreporting, or overreporting (especially regarding energy intake and socially undesirable foods).
Confounding Lifestyle Factors: Nutritional outcomes are heavily influenced by complex confounding variables, such as physical activity, socioeconomic status, baseline health status, genetics, and environmental exposures, which must be rigorously controlled during analysis.
Biomarker Validation: Reliance solely on dietary surveys can be limited; integrating biochemical assessments (e.g., serum ferritin, plasma glucose, lipid profiles) provides a more robust validation of nutritional status.

b. Anthropometric and Clinical Precision

Standardization of Measurement: Anthropometric measurements (height, weight, MUAC, skinfold thickness) require strict standardization and inter-rater reliability training to minimize measurement errors, particularly in vulnerable groups like infants, pregnant women, and the elderly.
Appropriate Reference Standards: Studies must utilize globally or nationally recognized growth and nutritional standards (such as WHO growth standards or Indonesian Ministry of Health benchmarks) to evaluate nutritional status accurately.

c. Ethical and Human Subject Considerations

Vulnerable Populations: Nutrition interventions often involve vulnerable groups (e.g., malnourished children, pregnant/lactating mothers, low-income communities). Researchers must ensure strict ethical approval, informed consent, and safeguards against exploitation.
Ethical Dilemmas in Intervention Studies: Withholding nutritional treatment or placing control groups on restrictive diets for experimental purposes requires careful ethical justification and continuous safety monitoring.

d. Public Health Context and Generalizability

Cultural and Regional Diversity: Dietary habits, food availability, and nutritional problems vary significantly by geography, culture, and local food systems (e.g., urban vs. rural areas in Indonesia). Researchers and reviewers must consider whether findings from one local population can be generalized to others.
Translational Impact: Nutrition research must ideally bridge the gap between bench science and practical application—translating data into actionable public health policies, community interventions, or localized dietary guidelines (e.g., tackling stunting, micronutrient deficiencies, or the double burden of malnutrition).

Editorial action must be supported by demonstrable errors, unreliable evidence, or substantiated ethical concerns. Institutional or political pressure must not determine the outcome.

11. Responsibilities

Authors

Authors must promptly report significant errors, cooperate with legitimate inquiries, and supply relevant supporting information where ethically permissible.

They should assist with necessary corrections or retractions and accurately explain the implications of identified problems.

Editors and Editorial Board Members

Editors must assess concerns impartially, protect confidential information, manage competing interests, and base decisions on evidence.

They must ensure that notices clearly communicate the publication’s status.

Publisher

The publisher supports editorial independence, publication of notices, metadata maintenance, and preservation of the scholarly record.

Financial, institutional, political, or reputational interests must not improperly influence corrective decisions.

12. Appeals and Reconsideration

Affected parties may appeal through the journal’s official editorial communication channels.

An appeal should include:

The article and decision concerned;
Specific grounds for reconsideration;
Supporting evidence; and
Relevant information not adequately considered previously.

Where appropriate, an independent editor or qualified representative without a relevant conflict will assess the appeal.

An appeal does not automatically suspend a necessary correction, Expression of Concern, or retraction.

13. Transparency, Indexing, and Preservation

JGK will seek to:

Publish editorial notices on its journal platform;
Link notices and affected articles;
Maintain accurate bibliographic and status information;
Update DOI metadata where supported;
Notify relevant indexing or archiving services where appropriate; and
Clearly distinguish corrected, retracted, and replaced content.

These measures support discoverability and help readers assess whether an article remains suitable for reliance or citation.

14. Relationship with Other Policies

This policy operates alongside the journal’s:

Publication Ethics;
Allegations of Research Misconduct Policy;
Conflict of Interest Policy;
Post-Publication Discussion Policy;
Authorship and Contributorship Policy;
Peer Review Policy; and
Artificial Intelligence Policy.

Research-integrity investigations and decisions about the published record are related but distinct. A correction or retraction may be necessary even when misconduct has not been established.

15. Commitment to Research Integrity

Jurnal Gizi dan Kesehatan (JGK) recognizes correction of errors and transparent handling of unreliable publications as essential responsibilities of scholarly publishing.

The journal will address these matters fairly, proportionately, consistently, and without unnecessary delay, while preserving the publication record and supporting trustworthy scholarship in nutrition and health studies.