Retraction Policy

The journal "Achievements of Economics: Perspectives and Innovations" adheres to international standards for ensuring the integrity of the scholarly literature. This policy defines the grounds, procedures, and consequences of retracting published articles in accordance with the COPE Retraction Guidelines (Version 3, August 2025).

The purpose of retraction is to correct the scholarly literature and ensure its integrity, not to punish the authors.

1. Grounds for Retraction

The editorial board considers retraction of a published article when it no longer has confidence in the reliability of the results and conclusions reported in the publication. Grounds for such loss of confidence may include, but are not limited to:

— discovery of substantial errors in data, methodology, calculations, or interpretation of results that undermine the reliability of the main conclusions and cannot be addressed through a correction;

— fabrication or falsification of data, research results, tables, graphs, or images;

— plagiarism, including the use of others' texts, ideas, data, or results without proper citation and attribution;

— duplicate publication — the article or a substantial part of it was previously published in another venue without proper disclosure, permission, or justification;

— authorship of the publication cannot be verified or there are serious concerns about accountability for the research (including cases of fictitious authorship or the use of paper mill services);

— use of materials or data without necessary permissions (including data obtained in breach of confidentiality or without informed consent of research participants);

— violations of research ethics involving human participants, including the absence of required ethical approval;

— undisclosed use of artificial intelligence for generating substantive parts of the text, fabricating data, or citations that substantially affect the reliability of the publication;

— systematic manipulation of the publication process (fabricated reviews, manipulation of the peer review process, coordinated actions to circumvent editorial controls);

— undisclosed conflict of interest that substantially influenced the interpretation or conclusions of the research.

2. Alternatives to Retraction

Not every issue requires retraction. The editorial board considers alternative measures when they are sufficient to preserve the integrity of the scholarly record:

Correction (Erratum) — published when errors are identified that do not affect the main conclusions of the article. A correction clearly describes the nature of the error and provides necessary amendments. Applied when the main research findings remain reliable.

Expression of Concern — published when the editorial board has serious doubts about the reliability of a publication but lacks sufficient evidence for retraction (e.g., during an institutional investigation or when obtaining information is delayed). An Expression of Concern may subsequently be replaced by a retraction, correction, or withdrawal of concern depending on investigation results.

Retraction is a measure of last resort, applied when the above alternatives cannot ensure the reliability of the scholarly record.

3. Who May Initiate Retraction

Retraction proceedings may be initiated by:

— the author(s) of the article — upon discovery of substantial errors in their own work;

— the Editor-in-Chief — based on editorial review, received reports, or on their own initiative;

— the institution with which the author is affiliated — based on internal investigation results;

— third parties — through a substantiated report to the editorial office with evidence of violations.

The decision to retract is made exclusively by the Editor-in-Chief of the journal.

4. Retraction Procedure

Step 1. Receipt of information. The editorial office receives a report of a possible violation from authors, reviewers, readers, institutions, or as a result of its own review (including through plagiarism detection software).

Step 2. Preliminary assessment. The Editor-in-Chief conducts a preliminary assessment of the merit of the report. If the report is unfounded or concerns issues that do not warrant retraction, the author or complainant is provided with a response and explanation.

Step 3. Author notification. If the preliminary assessment confirms grounds for consideration, the editorial office notifies the author(s) in writing about the identified issues and provides an opportunity to respond within 14 calendar days. Authors have the right to submit additional materials, rebuttals, or acknowledge the error.

Step 4. Review and decision. The Editor-in-Chief reviews all available materials (initial report, author explanations, review results, institutional investigation findings if available) and makes one of the following decisions:

— close the case without action (violation not confirmed); — publish a correction (error does not affect main conclusions); — publish an Expression of Concern (insufficient evidence for a final decision); — retract the article.

In complex cases, the Editor-in-Chief may consult members of the editorial board.

Step 5. Retraction notice. Upon deciding to retract, the editorial office prepares a Retraction Notice.

5. Retraction Notice

The Retraction Notice is published as a separate article in the current issue of the journal and must include:

— full bibliographic details of the retracted article (title, authors, issue, DOI);

— clear indication of who initiated the retraction (authors, editorial board, institution);

— grounds for retraction, stated specifically and factually, without generalized or uninformative wording; — the date of the retraction decision;

— reference to the results of an institutional investigation, if conducted, with proper attribution of findings to the institution;

— indication of whether the authors were informed and whether they agree with the retraction.

The Retraction Notice is assigned a separate DOI.

6. Treatment of Retracted Articles

After retraction:

— the original article remains on the journal's website and in all indexing databases but is not removed;

— a clear "RETRACTED" watermark is placed on each page of the article's PDF;

— article metadata in OJS, Crossref, and Zenodo are updated with retraction designation;

— a prominent retraction notice is placed on the article's page on the journal website with a link to the Retraction Notice;

— the Retraction Notice and the original article are linked through bidirectional references;

— bibliographic databases (Google Scholar, Index Copernicus, and others) are notified of the retraction for record updates.

Complete removal of an article is permitted only in exceptional circumstances: if the article contains information that threatens individuals' safety or violates a court order. In such cases, metadata and a removal notice are preserved.

7. Author-Initiated Retraction

Authors have the right to request retraction of their own article. Such a request must include specific justification of the reasons. The editorial office reviews the request in accordance with this policy. The decision to retract remains with the Editor-in-Chief even in cases where the initiative comes from the author.

If authors disagree with a retraction decision, they have the right to provide a written justification of their position, which will be considered by the editorial office. Author disagreement is not grounds for refusal to retract if the editorial board has sufficient grounds for doing so.

8. Timelines

The editorial office commits to:

— providing a preliminary assessment of the report within 7 business days of receipt;

— allowing authors 14 calendar days to provide explanations;

— making a decision within 30 calendar days of receiving all materials;

— publishing the Retraction Notice in the nearest issue after the decision;

— updating metadata in all indexing databases within 14 days of publishing the notice.

In cases where institutional investigation results are awaited, timelines may be extended with the publication of an Expression of Concern during the waiting period.

9. Confidentiality

The retraction review process is confidential until a decision is made. The editorial office does not disclose information about the review process to third parties other than those directly involved (authors, institution, complainant).

After publication of the Retraction Notice, the information becomes public.

10. Regulatory Framework

This policy has been developed with reference to:

— COPE Retraction Guidelines (Version 3, August 2025) — https://publicationethics.org/guidance/guideline/retraction-guidelines — COPE guidance on Expressions of Concern — ICMJE Recommendations on Corrections and Retractions — ANSI/NISO RP-25-2020: Recommended Practice for Retractions, Removals, and Expressions of Concern