Update & Correction Policy

How the Journal of Pharmacological Horizons handles corrections, retractions, withdrawals, and other changes made to published content after publication.

Last reviewed: November 2026 · Applies to all JPH content

Our commitment

All articles published in the Journal of Pharmacological Horizons (JPH) are governed by this Update & Correction Policy. Once an article is published, it becomes part of the permanent scholarly record and is assigned a persistent Digital Object Identifier (DOI) through Crossref, where applicable, so it can always be reliably found and cited.

We recognise that no editorial or peer review process is infallible. Genuine errors — in data, methodology, attribution, or production — can surface after publication, and readers, authors, or reviewers may reasonably ask for a change. JPH treats every such request seriously, evaluates it on its merits, and acts transparently rather than quietly editing the record.

Any post-publication change — including a correction, erratum, addendum, clarification, expression of concern, retraction, withdrawal, removal, or new version — is handled in line with this policy and with the guidance of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), whose retraction guidelines and flowcharts inform our editorial decisions.

This policy applies to every article published in JPH unless a more specific notice states otherwise. Where Crossmark is enabled, all approved updates are registered with Crossref so that readers can verify an article's current publication status and reach the latest authoritative version directly from the published PDF or HTML page.

Types of post-publication update

The classification of an update depends on what changed, who introduced the error, and how materially it affects the article's findings or conclusions. JPH follows the update types defined in the Crossref schema and widely used across scholarly publishing:

Correction / Corrigendum

An author-identified error in a published article (e.g. a data, methods, or figure error) that does not undermine the article's overall conclusions.

Erratum

A publisher-introduced error (typesetting, production, or editorial mistake) unrelated to the authors' original submission.

Addendum

Additional information that supplements the original article without altering its conclusions.

Clarification

A statement resolving ambiguity or potential misinterpretation in the original text.

Expression of concern

A notice that an article is under investigation for a potential integrity issue, published while the matter is unresolved.

Partial retraction

A specific, clearly-identified part of an article is withdrawn while the remainder stands.

Retraction

The article is withdrawn in full, typically due to research or publication misconduct, or errors that invalidate the findings.

Withdrawal

Removal of an article prior to formal publication, or in exceptional circumstances after publication (e.g. legal reasons).

Removal

An article is taken down entirely, reserved for rare cases (e.g. legal requirement, serious and unambiguous ethical breach).

New version / New edition

A substantially revised version of the work is published, superseding the original while keeping it accessible.

Author name / affiliation change

A change to an author's name, order, or affiliation made after publication, subject to written confirmation from all listed authors.

Republication

Re-issuing an article, typically to fix a serious production error, with a note linking clearly back to the original publication event.

Minor issues — spelling, formatting, or typographical corrections that don't affect the meaning, data, or metadata of an article — are fixed directly without a formal notice or Crossref update record.

Who can request an update

A request for correction, clarification, or retraction may be raised by:

Authors, including corresponding and co-authors, who identify an error after publication.
Readers, who notice a factual, statistical, or reference error while reading the article.
Peer reviewers or editors, who become aware of an issue after the review process has closed.
Institutions or funders, acting on the outcome of a formal research-integrity investigation.
Third parties, such as other researchers attempting to replicate or build on the work.

Anonymous concerns are accepted and reviewed, though we may not be able to update the requester on the outcome if no contact route is available.

How an update is made

Raised. A concern is submitted to the editorial office (contact details below), ideally with the article title, DOI, and a clear description of the issue.Any format accepted — email, contact form, or written letter.
Acknowledged. The editorial office confirms receipt and opens an internal case reference for tracking.Typically within 5 working days.
Reviewed. The editorial board assesses the concern, consults the corresponding author, and — where relevant — seeks independent expert or statistical advice, following COPE guidelines.Authors are always given the opportunity to respond before a decision is finalised.
Classified. The board decides which update type applies (correction, erratum, expression of concern, retraction, etc.) based on the severity, cause, and impact of the issue on the article's conclusions.
Published. A dated notice is published and linked bidirectionally to the original article. For corrections and errata, the original article page is updated to point to the notice; for retractions, the original is clearly watermarked as retracted while remaining permanently accessible.
Registered. The update is registered with Crossref and linked to this policy, so it surfaces automatically through the Crossmark button on the original article and in downstream indexing services.

Timelines & transparency

The time needed to resolve a case varies with its complexity — a straightforward author-identified data error can usually be corrected within a few weeks, while a suspected integrity issue requiring institutional investigation can take considerably longer. As a general guide:

Stage	Typical timeframe
Acknowledgement of a submitted concern	Within 5 working days
Initial editorial assessment	2–4 weeks
Author response window	Up to 4 weeks (extendable on request)
Publication of a correction, erratum, or clarification once approved	2–3 weeks
Retraction or expression of concern involving institutional investigation	Case-dependent; may extend to several months

Throughout the process, JPH aims to keep the requester and the authors informed of progress. Where an investigation is prolonged, an expression of concern may be published on the article in the interim so readers are aware a review is underway.

In-situ corrections

Where a correction is made directly to the article file (replacing the original in place, without a separate notice), the article's DOI does not change, and the Crossmark date stamp is updated to reflect when the correction was made. This route is used sparingly and only for minor, editorially insignificant fixes — such as a broken hyperlink, a typographical slip, or a formatting issue — since in-situ changes are inherently less transparent than a dated, versioned correction notice. Any change that affects data, results, author lists, or the article's substantive meaning is always handled through a formal, dated notice rather than an in-situ edit.

Retraction & removal safeguards

Because retraction and removal are the most consequential actions JPH can take against a published article, they are subject to additional safeguards:

A retraction decision is made by the editorial board as a whole, not by a single editor, and follows the relevant COPE retraction guidelines.
Authors are notified and given a fair opportunity to respond before a retraction notice is finalised, except where doing so is not possible or appropriate (e.g. contact cannot be established).
A retraction notice states, in as much detail as possible, the reason for retraction and who is issuing it, and is linked to the original article in both directions.
The original retracted article remains accessible, clearly watermarked as "Retracted," in keeping with the principle that the scholarly record should not simply disappear.
Outright removal of an article (rather than retraction) is reserved for exceptional cases — for example, a legal requirement, a serious risk to public health if the content remains available, or defamatory or unlawful content — and is a decision of last resort.

Appeals

An author who disagrees with an editorial decision regarding a correction, expression of concern, or retraction may submit a written appeal to the Editorial Office within 30 days of the decision being communicated. Appeals are considered by editorial board members who were not involved in the original decision, and, where appropriate, may draw on independent external advice. The outcome of an appeal is final within JPH's internal process, without prejudice to any further steps the author may wish to pursue through their institution or a relevant oversight body.

Preprints & linked versions

Where an article published in JPH originated from, or is linked to, a preprint on an external server, corrections or retractions applied to the JPH version of record do not automatically propagate to the preprint. Authors are expected to update or annotate any linked preprint themselves once a formal correction or retraction notice has been published in JPH, and are encouraged to add a link back to the published notice.

Contact the Editorial Office

Authors, reviewers, readers, institutions, and other stakeholders may request a post-publication update by contacting the Editorial Office of the Journal of Pharmacological Horizons. Please include the article title, DOI (if assigned), author name(s), and a detailed description of the issue — supporting evidence (e.g. raw data, correspondence, or a comparison table) helps the board reach a decision more quickly.

Editorial Office — Journal of Pharmacological Horizons, Lakshmi Biosciences

Connaught Place, New Delhi, India

Every request is reviewed by the Editorial Board in accordance with the Journal's editorial policies and COPE recommendations before any correction, retraction, or other update is approved and published.