Retraction & Integrity of the Scholarly Record
The Operating Room Global Journal (TORGJ) is committed to maintaining an accurate, transparent, and trustworthy scholarly record. Where published research is shown to be materially unreliable or affected by serious ethical or publication-integrity concerns, TORGJ may retract the publication or take another appropriate post-publication action.
Retraction is primarily a mechanism for correcting the scholarly literature and protecting readers from relying on work that can no longer be considered sufficiently reliable. It is not primarily a mechanism for punishing authors.
Protecting the Reliability of Published Research
Retraction provides a transparent mechanism for alerting readers when a published article, or its principal findings and conclusions, should no longer be relied upon. Retraction may result from research misconduct, publication misconduct, unethical research, or serious errors discovered after publication.
Protect Readers
Readers should be clearly alerted when published findings should no longer be relied upon.
Preserve Transparency
Retraction should normally preserve the publication history rather than silently deleting the scholarly record.
Use Proportionate Action
TORGJ will distinguish between problems requiring correction, expression of concern, retraction, or another appropriate post-publication response.
This policy applies to content published by TORGJ where concerns arise concerning reliability, originality, research ethics, publication ethics, authorship, competing interests, data integrity, duplicate publication, editorial-process integrity, or other matters capable of materially affecting confidence in the published record.
Purpose & Principles of Retraction
TORGJ approaches retraction as a scholarly-record correction mechanism. Decisions should be based on the reliability and integrity of the published work, the seriousness and extent of the identified concern, and the action required to ensure that readers are not misled.
Correct the Literature & Protect Those Who Rely on It
Published research may influence future studies, clinical practice, education, policy, professional decisions, and patient care. Where an article can no longer be relied upon because of a fundamental problem with its findings, conduct, provenance, or publication integrity, the scholarly record should clearly communicate that fact.
Principles Guiding TORGJ Retraction Decisions
TORGJ will seek to apply post-publication action consistently, transparently, proportionately, and with appropriate procedural fairness.
Reliability
The central consideration is whether readers can continue to rely on the article’s principal findings and conclusions.
Transparency
Retractions and other material post-publication actions should be clearly identified and linked to the affected publication.
Proportionality
The journal should use the least disruptive action capable of adequately correcting and protecting the scholarly record.
Timeliness
Credible concerns should be assessed without unnecessary delay while allowing sufficient time for appropriate investigation.
Procedural Fairness
Relevant authors should ordinarily have an opportunity to respond to material concerns before a final editorial decision is made.
Preservation
The publication history should normally remain visible so that the evolution of the scholarly record can be understood.
The Central Question: Can the Article Still Be Relied Upon?
When determining the appropriate response, TORGJ may consider the nature, extent, and effect of the concern on the article as a whole.
Procedural Fairness Does Not Give Authors a Veto Over Retraction
TORGJ will ordinarily seek relevant information and provide affected authors with a reasonable opportunity to respond before making a final retraction decision. However, the journal’s responsibility to protect the scholarly record is independent of author consent. Where the evidence sufficiently supports retraction, TORGJ may retract an article even if one or more authors disagree with, do not respond to, or decline to sign the retraction.
A retracted article should ordinarily remain identifiable within the scholarly record and be clearly marked as retracted, with a transparent retraction notice linked to the publication. Removal of published content should be reserved for exceptional circumstances where continued availability creates compelling legal, privacy, safety, or other serious concerns.
When TORGJ Will Consider Retraction
TORGJ may consider retraction where credible evidence indicates that a published article is materially unreliable, seriously breaches research or publication ethics, substantially duplicates previously published work, or otherwise presents a significant risk to the integrity of the scholarly record.
Retraction Is Reserved for Material Problems
The existence of an error, disagreement, allegation, or imperfection does not automatically justify retraction. The concern should ordinarily be sufficiently serious that the article’s principal findings, conclusions, ethical legitimacy, originality, or publication integrity can no longer be considered reliable without a formal retraction.
Circumstances That May Warrant Retraction
The following are examples rather than an exhaustive list. Each case will be assessed according to its evidence, seriousness, scope, and effect on the reliability and integrity of the published work.
Unreliable Findings
Clear evidence shows that the findings or conclusions are materially unreliable because of major error, flawed analysis, invalid data, or another fundamental problem.
Fabrication or Falsification
Data, results, records, images, analyses, participant information, or other research materials were fabricated, falsified, or manipulated in a way that materially affects the publication.
Fundamental Honest Error
A serious methodological, analytical, coding, calculation, data-processing, sampling, or other error makes the principal findings unreliable and cannot adequately be resolved through correction.
Serious Plagiarism
Substantial unattributed copying, appropriation of another person’s work, or another serious originality violation materially compromises the integrity of the publication.
Duplicate or Redundant Publication
The article substantially reproduces previously published work without appropriate justification, attribution, permission, or transparent disclosure.
Unethical Research
The research involved serious ethical violations, such as absence or misrepresentation of required ethical approval or serious failures concerning participant rights, consent, welfare, or protection.
Compromised Editorial or Peer Review Process
Evidence indicates manipulation, fabrication, impersonation, undisclosed interference, or another serious compromise of the peer-review or editorial process affecting the publication.
Unauthorised or Unlawful Publication
Publication materially infringes copyright, confidentiality, privacy, legal rights, or another restriction that makes continued publication inappropriate.
Material Misrepresentation of the Research
Serious misrepresentation concerning the origin, conduct, ownership, dataset, approvals, study population, or provenance of the research undermines confidence in the article.
Systematic Citation Manipulation
Evidence demonstrates serious manipulation of citations or references intended to distort scholarly influence, metrics, attribution, or the presentation of the evidence base.
Manipulation of the Publication Process
Fabricated identities, false documentation, deceptive submission practices, paper-mill involvement, or coordinated manipulation materially compromises confidence in the article.
Comparable Integrity Failures
Other circumstances may justify retraction where the evidence demonstrates that continued reliance on the article would materially mislead readers or undermine the integrity of the scholarly record.
Research-Ethics Concerns May Require Retraction
Ethical approval and participant protection are integral to the legitimacy of human and other regulated research. Serious ethical concerns may therefore affect the acceptability of the publication even where the numerical results themselves appear technically intact.
Allegations Alone Do Not Automatically Trigger Retraction
TORGJ will distinguish between an allegation and sufficiently established evidence. Credible concerns may justify investigation, requests for documentation, consultation with institutions, or an expression of concern while enquiries remain unresolved. A final retraction decision should ordinarily be supported by evidence sufficient to conclude that retraction is necessary to protect the scholarly record.
A single case may involve several concerns simultaneously, such as data falsification, lack of ethical approval, authorship misrepresentation, and compromised peer review. TORGJ may consider the combined effect of all substantiated concerns when determining the appropriate post-publication action.
Retraction vs Correction vs Expression of Concern
Not every problem identified after publication requires the same response. TORGJ will consider the seriousness of the concern, its effect on the reliability of the article, the available evidence, and whether the problem can be corrected transparently without invalidating the principal findings.
The Editorial Response Should Match the Problem
TORGJ seeks to use proportionate post-publication action. A correctable error should not ordinarily lead to retraction merely because it occurred after publication. Equally, a correction should not be used where the article’s principal findings or integrity have been fundamentally compromised.
Correction
A correction may be appropriate where a material error or omission is identified but the article’s principal findings, conclusions, and overall integrity remain sufficiently reliable.
The problem can be clearly identified and corrected without fundamentally changing the meaning or reliability of the article.
Expression of Concern
An expression of concern may be appropriate where credible and potentially serious questions exist, but the available evidence is not yet sufficient to determine whether correction, retraction, or no further action is required.
Readers should be alerted to significant unresolved concerns while investigation, institutional review, or evidence gathering remains incomplete.
Retraction
Retraction may be appropriate where sufficiently established evidence demonstrates that the article, its principal findings, or its publication integrity can no longer be relied upon.
The problem is fundamental, cannot adequately be repaired through correction, or involves a serious ethical or publication-integrity failure requiring the literature to be clearly marked as unreliable.
Practical Decision Framework
The following framework illustrates how TORGJ may distinguish between the principal post-publication actions.
When Correction May Be Sufficient
A correction may preserve the article where the problem is identifiable, limited, and capable of transparent repair without invalidating the work as a whole.
Localised Problems Should Not Automatically Trigger Retraction of an Otherwise Reliable Article
Where a problem affects only a limited component of a publication and the remainder of the article remains reliable, TORGJ will consider whether a transparent correction or another targeted post-publication notice can adequately protect readers. Retraction should be used when the affected material cannot be reliably separated from the principal findings or when the problem materially compromises confidence in the publication as a whole.
Where published content requires substantive correction, qualification, or retraction, TORGJ should preserve an appropriate transparent record of the change. The relevant notice should be linked to the affected article so that readers can understand what changed, why action was taken, and the current status of the publication.
How Concerns Are Reported & Assessed
TORGJ welcomes credible information concerning the reliability, ethics, originality, authorship, provenance, or publication integrity of material published in the journal. Concerns may be raised by authors, readers, reviewers, editors, institutions, research-integrity offices, funders, regulators, or other parties with relevant information.
Authors May Report Problems in Their Own Work
Authors who identify a serious error, integrity concern, unreliable result, undisclosed issue, or other material problem after publication should contact TORGJ promptly and provide relevant information.
External Concerns May Be Submitted
Readers, researchers, clinicians, or other members of the scholarly community may raise concerns where they identify specific evidence suggesting a problem with a published article.
Formal Findings May Inform Editorial Action
Universities, employers, research-integrity offices, ethics committees, funders, regulators, publishers, and other appropriate bodies may provide findings or evidence relevant to the status of a publication.
Initial Editorial Assessment
On receiving a concern, TORGJ may conduct an initial assessment to determine whether the matter falls within the journal’s remit, whether there is sufficient specificity to evaluate it, and whether further investigation or evidence is required.
What Makes a Concern Easier to Assess?
Reporters are encouraged to provide specific, verifiable information rather than broad or unsupported allegations. Relevant material may include:
Good-Faith Integrity Concerns Should Be Treated Professionally
Raising a credible concern about published research should not itself be treated as misconduct or disloyalty. TORGJ will seek to assess concerns based on evidence rather than the professional status, institutional affiliation, nationality, discipline, or seniority of the person reporting them. Where appropriate, the journal may limit disclosure of the reporter’s identity to protect legitimate confidentiality.
A complaint may be closed without further action where it contains no identifiable concern, provides no credible evidence after reasonable requests for clarification, merely repeats matters already adequately assessed, or is clearly intended to harass, threaten, defame, or misuse the integrity process. This does not prevent reconsideration if materially new evidence later becomes available.
Report a Concern About a Published TORGJ Article
Include the article title or DOI, identify the specific concern, and provide supporting evidence or sources where available.
Investigation & Due Process
Where a concern appears sufficiently credible and material, TORGJ may undertake further assessment or seek information from authors, institutions, experts, funders, ethics bodies, or other appropriate parties. The process should be fair, evidence-based, appropriately confidential, and focused on determining what action is required to protect the scholarly record.
Relevant Authors Should Ordinarily Be Informed
Where appropriate, TORGJ will notify the corresponding author or other relevant authors of the material concern and provide sufficient information for them to understand and respond to the issue under review.
Decisions Should Be Based on Verifiable Information
Editorial action should be informed by the published article, submission record, source material, original research records where available, institutional findings, expert advice, and other relevant evidence.
Relevant Conflicts Should Be Managed
Editors or advisers with a material conflict involving the authors, complainant, institution, research, or subject of the investigation should recuse themselves where appropriate.
Possible Steps in a Retraction Investigation
Not every case will require every step, and the sequence may vary depending on the concern and available evidence.
Evidence TORGJ May Consider
Depending on the concern, the Editorial Office may request or review material necessary to assess reliability, research conduct, authorship, provenance, or publication integrity.
TORGJ May Rely on or Cooperate With External Investigations
Journals are not normally equipped to conduct the full fact-finding functions of universities, employers, research-integrity offices, regulators, ethics bodies, or other authorised investigative institutions. TORGJ may therefore request an investigation, cooperate with an existing investigation, or consider reliable institutional findings when deciding what should happen to the publication. The journal nevertheless retains responsibility for deciding the status of material published by TORGJ.
Information relating to an active integrity investigation should ordinarily be shared only where necessary for appropriate assessment, response, specialist review, institutional enquiry, legal compliance, or protection of the scholarly record. TORGJ cannot guarantee absolute confidentiality where disclosure is necessary to investigate or resolve the matter appropriately.
TORGJ May Alert Readers Before the Investigation Is Complete
Where concerns are sufficiently serious that continued unqualified reliance on an article may be inappropriate, but the evidence is not yet sufficient for a final correction or retraction decision, TORGJ may publish an expression of concern or another interim notice. Such action does not predetermine the final outcome.
Retraction Decision & Editorial Authority
The decision to retract a TORGJ publication is an editorial decision concerning the status of the scholarly record. It should be based on sufficiently reliable evidence, appropriate assessment of the article’s continued reliability, and consideration of relevant author, institutional, ethical, technical, and legal information.
The Journal Determines Publication Status
Institutions may investigate research conduct and other external bodies may provide findings, but TORGJ retains responsibility for determining whether content published by the journal should remain unchanged, be corrected, carry an expression of concern, or be retracted.
Retraction Requires a Sufficient Basis
A final retraction should ordinarily be supported by evidence sufficient to establish that the article is materially unreliable or that another serious integrity problem makes retraction necessary to protect the scholarly record.
Editorial Independence Must Be Protected
Decisions should not be dictated by author status, institutional prestige, funders, sponsors, commercial interests, threats, personal relationships, or external pressure unrelated to the evidence and integrity of the publication.
Questions Considered Before a Final Retraction Decision
The journal may assess the complete evidential record rather than relying on a single allegation, software output, correspondence, or external opinion.
Information That May Inform the Final Decision
TORGJ may consider multiple forms of evidence and advice, giving each appropriate weight according to its reliability and relevance.
TORGJ May Act Before, During, or After an External Investigation
An institutional investigation can provide important evidence, but a journal is not always required to wait indefinitely for an external process to conclude. Where sufficiently clear evidence already demonstrates that the publication is materially unreliable or should not remain unqualified in the literature, TORGJ may take appropriate editorial action. Conversely, where critical facts remain unresolved, the journal may await further evidence and use an expression of concern in the interim where necessary.
Where the Editor-in-Chief, Managing Editor, handling editor, editorial-board member, or other decision-maker has a material conflict involving the article or investigation, responsibility should be transferred, where reasonably possible, to another suitably qualified and independent editorial decision-maker. TORGJ may also seek external specialist or legal advice where the complexity of the matter requires it.
Retraction Notices & Treatment of the Original Article
Retraction should be transparent, visible, and permanently connected to the affected publication. TORGJ will seek to ensure that readers can readily identify that an article has been retracted, understand the principal reason for the action, and locate the associated retraction notice.
Retraction Should Be Visible — Not Silent
TORGJ will not ordinarily remove a retracted article and act as though it was never published. Retraction is intended to correct the literature transparently. The publication history should therefore remain identifiable, while readers are clearly informed that the article should no longer be relied upon.
What a TORGJ Retraction Notice Should Communicate
The content will depend on the circumstances of the case, but a retraction notice should be sufficiently informative to explain the status of the publication without including unnecessary, unsupported, defamatory, confidential, or legally restricted material.
Identify the Retracted Article
The notice should clearly identify the article, normally including its title, authors, citation, DOI, or other relevant publication details.
Clearly State That It Is Retracted
The wording and presentation should make the article’s retracted status immediately clear to readers.
Identify Who Is Retracting the Article
Where appropriate, the notice should indicate whether the retraction is issued by the authors, the journal, or the journal in agreement with some or all authors.
Explain the Principal Basis
The notice should state the reason for retraction clearly enough for readers to understand why continued reliance on the article is inappropriate.
Explain the Effect on the Article
Where possible, the notice should distinguish between unreliable findings, honest error, misconduct findings, ethical problems, or other relevant grounds.
Record Material Author Disagreement
Where relevant, the notice may state that one or more authors agreed with, disagreed with, or did not respond regarding the retraction.
Treatment of the Retracted Article
Where technically possible and legally appropriate, TORGJ should preserve access to the original publication while ensuring that its retracted status is unmistakable.
When Published Content May Need to Be Removed
Complete removal of published content should be exceptional. Where continued public availability would itself create a serious legal, privacy, confidentiality, safety, or other compelling risk, TORGJ may remove or restrict access to some or all of the content while preserving an appropriate bibliographic or explanatory notice whenever reasonably possible.
If a material factual error is subsequently identified in a retraction notice, TORGJ may correct or update the notice while preserving an appropriate record of the change. New evidence may also justify reconsideration through the journal’s appeals and post-publication review processes.
Retraction Without Author Agreement
TORGJ will ordinarily seek author input before retraction, but author approval is not a prerequisite for correcting the scholarly record. Where sufficiently reliable evidence establishes that retraction is necessary, the journal may proceed even if one or more authors disagree, cannot be contacted, or do not respond.
Authors Do Not Hold a Retraction Veto
Publication gives authors important rights and responsibilities, but it does not give them exclusive authority over whether an unreliable article remains unqualified in the scholarly literature.
Disagreement Should Be Considered
Authors who disagree with proposed retraction should have an appropriate opportunity to provide evidence or explanation relevant to the journal’s decision, where circumstances permit.
Reliability Takes Priority
Where the evidence demonstrates that readers should no longer rely on the publication, disagreement between the journal and authors should not prevent transparent correction of the literature.
How Author Positions May Differ
Retraction notices should reflect relevant differences among authors accurately rather than suggesting unanimous agreement when none exists.
The Retraction Notice May Record Author Agreement or Disagreement
Where relevant and factually established, a notice may state which authors agreed with the retraction, which disagreed, and which did not respond. Such statements should be concise, neutral, and limited to information necessary to explain the retraction process. They should not imply individual misconduct unless there is an appropriate evidential basis for doing so.
Where an author does not respond, TORGJ should not describe that author as agreeing with the retraction. The journal may, however, proceed after reasonable efforts to obtain a response if the evidence independently supports the need for retraction.
The Integrity of the Literature Cannot Depend on Unanimous Consent
Retraction is a journal action concerning the reliability and status of a publication. TORGJ will seek fairness, author participation, and accurate representation of disagreement, but its responsibility to protect readers and the scholarly record remains independent of whether every author agrees with the final decision.
Post-Publication Evidence, Appeals & Reconsideration
Retraction decisions should be capable of reconsideration where materially new evidence emerges or where a substantive factual, procedural, or conflict-of-interest concern is raised about the original decision. Reconsideration does not guarantee reversal; it provides a mechanism for ensuring that the scholarly record reflects the best available evidence.
Authors May Request Reconsideration
An author may appeal a retraction decision where there is a specific scholarly, factual, procedural, ethical, or conflict-of-interest basis for believing that the decision should be reviewed.
Later Evidence May Change the Record
New institutional findings, validated data, corrected documentation, independent technical evidence, or other material information may justify reconsideration even after a retraction notice has been published.
Retraction Notices Can Be Corrected
If a retraction notice itself contains a material factual error, misleading statement, or important omission, TORGJ may correct or update the notice while preserving the transparent history of the record.
What a Retraction Appeal Should Include
An appeal should address the substance of the decision and provide a clear basis for reconsideration rather than simply expressing disagreement with the outcome.
New Evidence That May Warrant Reconsideration
Reconsideration is most useful where the new information could materially alter the factual basis for the retraction.
Can a Retraction Ever Be Reversed?
In exceptional circumstances, materially new and sufficiently reliable evidence may demonstrate that the original basis for retraction was incorrect or no longer supports the article’s retracted status. TORGJ may then take an appropriate, transparent action to correct the scholarly record. Any reinstatement or reversal should preserve the history of the original retraction and clearly explain why the article’s status has changed. Reversal should not be used merely because authors disagree with the retraction or because the consequences of retraction are significant.
A notice may require amendment because of an incorrect author name, inaccurate wording, later clarification, or another limited factual issue while the underlying retraction remains valid. TORGJ may correct such errors without changing the article’s retracted status.
Submit a Retraction Appeal or New Evidence
Identify the article and retraction notice clearly, explain the basis for reconsideration, and provide materially relevant supporting evidence where available.
Special Cases: Duplicate Publication, Plagiarism, Authorship & Unethical Research
Some post-publication concerns require particular consideration because the appropriate response depends not only on whether a problem occurred, but also on its extent, effect on the reliability of the article, and whether the scholarly record can be adequately corrected without retraction.
Duplicate or Redundant Publication
Substantial republication of the same work without appropriate disclosure, justification, permission, or cross-reference may require retraction, particularly where the duplication could distort the evidence base, create inappropriate multiple publication credit, or mislead readers regarding the originality of the work.
Plagiarism & Misappropriation
Retraction may be appropriate where plagiarism is substantial and affects the originality, attribution, provenance, or integrity of the article. The journal should consider the extent and significance of the copied material rather than relying solely on a numerical similarity score.
Authorship & Contributor Problems
Authorship disputes do not automatically require retraction. Where the findings remain reliable, an authorship correction may be sufficient. Retraction may become necessary where the authorship problem is inseparable from fabrication, misappropriation, accountability failures, fraudulent submission, or another serious integrity concern.
Unethical or Unauthorised Research
Serious violations involving research participants, consent, ethics approval, animal welfare, privacy, confidentiality, or other fundamental ethical requirements may justify retraction, particularly where the research should not have been conducted or published in its reported form.
Not Every Form of Prior Dissemination Is Duplicate Publication
TORGJ should assess the relationship between publications, the degree of overlap, disclosure to editors and readers, copyright or permission requirements, and whether the publication could materially distort the scientific record. Prior dissemination may be legitimate in circumstances recognised by applicable journal policies and accepted scholarly practice.
Similarity Percentage Alone Does Not Determine Retraction
Similarity-detection software is an investigative aid, not a final determination of plagiarism. TORGJ should examine the nature, location, source, attribution, extent, and significance of overlapping material. Substantial unattributed appropriation of another person’s ideas, data, results, figures, images, or original expression may justify retraction.
Serious Ethical Violations May Require Retraction Even Where the Data Appear Technically Correct
Scientific accuracy does not by itself make research ethically publishable. Where a study involved serious violations of participant rights, informed consent, required ethics review, confidentiality, animal welfare, lawful research conduct, or other fundamental safeguards, TORGJ may determine that retraction is necessary. The seriousness of the violation, applicable requirements, available evidence, and potential harm should be considered.
Where fabricated data, falsified results, manipulated images, invented references, fabricated quotations, fictitious participants, unreliable AI-generated material, or other manufactured content materially undermines a publication, retraction may be appropriate. The use of an artificial intelligence tool is not, by itself, the basis for retraction; the relevant questions include compliance with applicable disclosure requirements, author accountability, accuracy, provenance, confidentiality, and whether the published record remains reliable.
The Editorial Response Should Match the Nature and Severity of the Problem
TORGJ will not treat every post-publication problem as requiring retraction. Where the literature can be reliably corrected, a correction or other notice may be sufficient. Where the article is fundamentally unreliable, seriously unethical, fraudulently produced, or otherwise unsuitable to remain as an unqualified part of the scholarly record, retraction may be necessary.
International Standards, Related Policies & Contact
TORGJ’s approach to retractions, corrections, expressions of concern, investigations, and other post-publication actions is informed by recognised principles of publication ethics and should be read alongside the journal’s wider editorial and research-integrity framework.
External Guidance Informing TORGJ Practice
TORGJ may consider relevant guidance from established international organisations when assessing whether correction, expression of concern, retraction, removal, or another post-publication action is required.
Post-Publication Standards Continue to Evolve
TORGJ may review and update this policy periodically to reflect developments in publication ethics, research integrity, artificial intelligence, digital publishing, scholarly metadata, indexing requirements, legal obligations, and international editorial guidance.
Consult the Official Online Policy
The version published on the official TORGJ website should be regarded as the journal’s current Retraction Policy. Archived, downloaded, or previously circulated versions may no longer reflect current procedures.
Correct the Record. Preserve Transparency. Protect Trust.
Retraction is an important mechanism for maintaining confidence in scholarly publishing. TORGJ will seek to ensure that post-publication action is evidence-based, proportionate, transparent, procedurally fair, and focused on whether readers can continue to rely on the published work. The objective is not to erase publication history, but to ensure that the history accurately communicates the current status of the evidence.
Retraction & Post-Publication Integrity Enquiries
To report a concern, provide new evidence, request correction of a retraction notice, or submit an appeal concerning a TORGJ publication, contact the Editorial Office and include the article title or DOI together with relevant supporting information.
Help Us Maintain an Accurate Scholarly Record
TORGJ encourages authors to disclose serious errors promptly and welcomes specific, evidence-based concerns from readers, researchers, institutions, ethics bodies, funders, and other appropriate parties. Good-faith reporting of potential problems supports reliable research communication and responsible correction of the literature.