CROSSMARK POLICY PAGE
Assuredly, this document has been crafted with the aspiration to serve the purpose of being the Crossmark policy page belonging to Akadémiai Kiadó Zrt.
Indeed, possessing a dedicated Crossmark policy page happens to be a fundamental precondition for participating in Crossmark.
Unquestionably, this document provides an introductory section and then a concise depiction of our Retraction and correction policies.
As a matter of fact, the presence of these aforementioned two sections are pontificated to be the minimal requirement of this document.
If you want further information about Crossmark, please visit the Crossmark website.
1/a, Rudimentary consideration.
CrossMark is a multi-publisher initiative from Crossref.
CrossMark was crafted in order to provide a unified way for readers to locate the current version of a published piece.
By applying the CrossMark logo, Akadémiai Kiadó Zrt. is committing to maintaining the content it publishes, and to alerting readers to changes if and when they occur.
If you click on the Crossmark logo, you will be bestowed upon a myriad of relevant information concerning the document.
2, Retraction and correction policies.
2/a, Located errors/inaccuracies.
Assuredly, once an error/inaccuracy has been located, appropriate measures should be taken afterwards with conspicuous imminence.
Indeed, the according to the type of the error/inaccuracy exactly one of the following ought to be issued: corrigendum, erratum, retraction, partial retraction.
Once having a DOI, withdrawal of a published piece is disallowed, pertaining to the ida of permanency of content.
A withdrawal, owing to its very nature, is invariably instigated by the author of the article.
As a general consideration, the action of withdrawing an article is not evaluated to be a good practice.
2/c, The idea of a corrigendum/erratum.
Indeed, all articles containing an error ought to remain unaffected and readers should have the opportunity to observe the piece in the form it was originally published.
This rudimentary principle naturally implies that corrigenda/errata should be incorporated to the site.
A corrigendum/erratum happens to be an article which indicates that a previous article most perceivably contains an error, naccuracy, omission or some similar consideration.
2/d, The fundamental distinction between a corrigendum and an erratum.
An erratum corrects the mistakes made by the publisher.
A corrigendum corrects the mistakes made by the authors.
2/e, Inclusion of corrigenda/errata.
A correction/erratum happens to be a fully fledged article possessing DOI and all required metadata as well.
A corrigendum/erratum needs to explicitly point out which parts of the original article are corrected.
2/f, The intertwined nature of errata and the original article.
All corrigendum/erratum needs to be connected to the original article in a fashion that the corrigendum/erratum should link to the original article and the original article should link to the corrigendum/erratum.
Assuredly, said connection ought to be visually conspicuous so that it becomes invariably discernible.
2/g, The appearance of corrigenda/errata.
Naturally, once published, an issue ought to persist unharmed.
Consequently, a corrigendum/erratum should appear in the subsequent issue.
Assuredly, if a corrigendum/erratum happens to be published as online first, then it is obligatory that the corrigendum/erratum to be included to the following issue.
2/h,The idea of a retraction.
A retraction is a piece which indicates that a previous publication should not be considered a part of the scientific literature.
Retractions are a fundamental tool used to preserve the integrity of scientific literature.
The idea of a retraction allows us to provide the reader with the opportunity to observe the retracted piece in its original form while still being aware of the fate of said piece.
2/i, Inclusion of a retraction.
A retraction should be a fully fledged article featuring DOI and all required metadata identically to an erratum.
A retraction should detailfully register the circumstances of the retraction.
Indeed, the reasons for retraction the article should be elaborated on as well.
Furthermore, the reader should be able to effortlessly identify the parts which triggered the retraction.
2/j, The intertwined nature of retraction and the retracted article.
This case is analogous to that of the errata. A retracted article and a retraction ought to be interlinked in a clickable fashion.
2/k, Initiator of the retraction.
It ought to be invariably stated who were the initiator of the retraction.
2/l, Accepted causes of retraction.
Indeed, there exist a handful of well-identifiable scenarios when retraction proves to be the most favourable consequence: violation of ethical considerations, evidence of plagiarism, redundant/Duplicate publication, unintentional error made by the researcher, data fabrication.
2/m, Partial retractions.
In some cases articles can be retracted partially. Intuitively, it means that a portion of the article is considered to be part of the scientific literature, while another is not.
The partial retraction should provide sufficient explanation on which parts are disallowed from contributing to the scientific literature.
Otherwise, a partial retraction ought to behave similarly to a retraction.
2/n, Accepted causes of partial retractions.
Unlike in the case of retractions, the idea of partial retractions is not considered to be as helpful.
Naturally, they are less straightforward and can be potentially misleading even if being formulated with due carefulness.
This is why partial retractions are less common and mostly discouraged.
Nonetheless, there can be certain scenarios where they are oped for. These include for instance partial plagiarism and serious errors limited to one specific region of the article.
However, it should be pointed out that Editors should always reconsider whether a corrigendum for instance would prove more helpful.
2/o, Visual marking of the retracted article.
It is quintessential that all reader could visually identify that an article had been retracted.
The marking should be apparent and unambiguous.
2/p, Complete deletion of the content of an article.
The content of an article ought to be obliterated from the site only in the case of legal obligations to do so.
In this scenario the metadata on front end should be available for readers.
Additionally, if a complete deletion occurs, the reasons and circumstances of the deletion should be listed.
2/q, Replacing an article.
Article replacement is dedicated to be an extremely rare tool for circumstances where the more common ideas are considered inferior.
A popular example might be when one part of an article has the potential to compromise the well-being of sentient creatures, for example concerning unsound medical conclusions/data.
In this case a retraction needs to be issued but it ought to be invariably pointed out that the article has been replaced by a new one.
Assuredly, a clear history of the article and an elaborate explanation should be incorporated accordingly.
2/r, Our ethical guide.
We feature an ethical guide specifically constructed for contributors.
2/s, Chart of author''s instructions.
Due to the diverse nature of our journals the author''s instructions happen to be personalized.
Should you be willing to acquire more information about us, you can observe our chart of authors instructions.
3, Minor Typographical errors
3/a, Minor Typographical errors in general
Minor typographical errors are to be considered not requiring an erratum or corrigendum.
Said errors, by their very nature, do not yield any significant distortion regarding the content of the article.
Two commonly indicated subtypes are grammatical and spelling mistakes.
Should a minor typographical error occur, the editor-in-chief of the journal under consideration will decide whether the PDF or the full-text should be modified as well.
3/b, PDF and Full-text
The modification of the PDF and the full-text can be decided independently.
3/c, Details of modification
As having been mentioned in the previous points, the details of the modification should be easy to observe for the reader.
3/d, Evaluation of typographical errors
It ought to be the responsibility of the editor-in-chief of the journal in question to evaluate whether a typographical error is indeed minor.
4/a, Bibliographic metadata
Bibliographic metadata can be remedied without requiring an erratum or corrigendum.
Similarly to the previous points, the relevant deatails of the modification are obligatory to be displayed to the readers.