Corrections, Expressions of Concern, and Retractions
Neural Prosody, LLC · Applies to all journals published under the Neural Prosody imprint
Neural Prosody is committed to the accuracy and integrity of the published record.
Errors, concerns, and confirmed misconduct are addressed transparently, promptly, and in accordance with COPE guidelines.
1. Purpose and Scope
This policy governs how Neural Prosody, LLC responds to errors, concerns, and confirmed misconduct in published articles across all journals under its imprint. It establishes the conditions under which a Correction, Expression of Concern, or Retraction is issued, the procedures for investigation and decision-making, and the standards for archival treatment of affected articles.
Neural Prosody follows the guidelines of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) in all matters governed by this policy. Where this policy does not address a specific situation, COPE guidelines serve as the default standard. This policy applies to all published articles, including those published prior to any amendment of the policy.
The integrity of the published record is not negotiable. Neural Prosody will act to correct, flag, or retract published work whenever the evidence warrants it, regardless of the seniority of the authors involved, the prominence of the findings, or the reputational consequences for any party.
2. The Three Instruments
Neural Prosody uses three distinct instruments to address problems in published articles, each calibrated to the nature and severity of the issue:
| Instrument | When used | Effect on published article |
| Correction | Honest error by authors that does not affect the validity of the conclusions; minor inaccuracies in data reporting, figures, or text that require correction for accuracy | Correction notice published and linked to the original article; original article updated or annotated |
| Expression of Concern | Credible allegation of misconduct or serious error that has not yet been resolved; investigation is ongoing; continued citation of the article without notice could mislead readers | Expression of Concern published and linked to the original article; original article flagged pending resolution |
| Retraction | Confirmed misconduct or error that materially affects the validity, reliability, or integrity of the findings, methodology, or conclusions; article should not be cited as valid research | Retraction notice published and linked to the original article; original article retained in the archive with permanent retraction watermark |
3. Corrections
3.1 Grounds for correction
A Correction is issued when an honest error in a published article requires amendment for accuracy but does not affect the validity of the study’s findings or conclusions. Common grounds for correction include:
Typographical errors in text, data tables, or figure labels that could mislead readers
Errors in statistical values or p-values that do not change the direction or interpretation of findings
Incorrect or missing attribution in author contributorship statements
Omission of a required disclosure (funding, conflict of interest, pre-registration) that was present but not included due to editorial or production error
Figure or image errors that do not affect the integrity of the underlying data
3.2 Correction procedure
Corrections may be initiated by the authors, the editorial office, or any third party who identifies an error. The procedure is as follows:
The editorial office notifies the corresponding author of the identified error and requests confirmation or clarification within 14 days.
Upon confirmation, the Editor-in-Chief approves the correction and prepares a Correction notice specifying the nature of the error and the corrected content.
The Correction notice is published as a standalone article linked bidirectionally to the original article.
The original article is updated or annotated to reflect the correction, with the correction date and notice DOI displayed prominently.
Corrections do not affect the publication date, DOI, or citation record of the original article. The corrected version supersedes the original for citation purposes.
4. Expressions of Concern
4.1 Grounds for expression of concern
An Expression of Concern (EOC) is issued when Neural Prosody has received a credible allegation of misconduct or serious error relating to a published article, but the investigation is ongoing and a final determination has not yet been reached. An EOC may also be issued where the Publisher has been unable to obtain a response from the authors or their institution within the required timeframe.
An EOC is not a finding of misconduct. It is a transparent notice to readers that the reliability of the article is under active review, so that the article is not cited as established fact during the period of uncertainty.
4.2 EOC procedure
Upon receipt of a credible allegation, the editorial office notifies the corresponding author and, where applicable, the author’s institution, in writing.
The corresponding author is given 21 days to respond to the allegation with evidence or explanation.
If the allegation cannot be resolved through author response alone, or if no response is received within 21 days, the Editor-in-Chief may issue an EOC pending further investigation.
The EOC is published as a standalone notice linked bidirectionally to the original article. The original article is flagged with a visible EOC notice.
The EOC remains in place until the investigation is resolved. Upon resolution, the EOC is superseded by either a Correction, a Retraction, or a formal notice of clearance, each linked to the original EOC.
5. Retractions
5.1 Grounds for retraction
A Retraction is issued when an article contains errors or evidence of misconduct that materially affect the validity, reliability, or integrity of the findings, methodology, or conclusions, such that the article should not be cited as valid research. Neural Prosody will issue a Retraction on any of the following grounds:
Data fabrication or falsification: manipulation, invention, or selective omission of data that affects the reported findings
Plagiarism: use of another party’s work, ideas, or data without appropriate attribution, of a nature and extent that renders the article’s original contribution invalid
Duplicate or redundant publication: submission and publication of the same or substantially similar work in more than one venue without disclosure
Undisclosed conflicts of interest: failure to disclose a financial, professional, or personal interest that, had it been known, would materially affect the reader’s assessment of the work
Authorship disputes: confirmed inclusion of individuals who did not meet authorship criteria, or exclusion of individuals who did, where the dispute cannot be resolved by correction
Ethical violations: conduct of the research without required institutional review board approval or informed consent, or in violation of applicable ethical standards
Important: Retraction does not require proof of intent.
Neural Prosody will retract an article where honest error—not misconduct—has produced findings that are unreliable and cannot be corrected. The distinction between error and misconduct will be noted in the Retraction notice.
5.2 Retraction procedure
Upon identification of potential grounds for retraction, the editorial office notifies the corresponding author and, where applicable, the author’s institution, in writing, setting out the specific concern.
The corresponding author is given 21 days to respond with evidence, explanation, or a request for additional time. Requests for extension are considered at the Editor-in-Chief’s discretion.
The Editor-in-Chief reviews all available evidence, including the author’s response, peer review records, underlying data (where accessible), and any institutional investigation findings.
Where the Editor-in-Chief determines that retraction is warranted, a Retraction notice is prepared identifying the grounds for retraction, the date of the decision, and whether the retraction was initiated by the authors, the Publisher, or a third party.
Authors are given the opportunity to review the draft Retraction notice and submit written comments within 7 days. Author comments are considered but do not confer a right of veto.
The Retraction notice is published as a standalone article with its own DOI, linked bidirectionally to the original article.
The original article is retained in the archive and permanently watermarked on every page with a notice reading: “RETRACTED — [Date] — See Retraction Notice [DOI].” The article’s metadata is updated to reflect retracted status.
5.3 Archival treatment of retracted articles
Neural Prosody does not remove retracted articles from the public record. The original article, the Retraction notice, and—where applicable—any prior Expression of Concern are all retained in the archive and linked to one another. This approach ensures that the full history of the article is transparent and accessible to researchers, institutions, and the public.
Retracted articles are clearly identified as retracted in all metadata supplied to indexing services, discovery platforms, and digital object identifier registries. Neural Prosody will notify CrossRef, PubMed (where applicable), and all indexing services in which the article is listed of the retraction.
5.4 Author-initiated retractions
Authors who become aware of a material error in their published work that warrants retraction are encouraged to contact the editorial office promptly. Author-initiated retractions are handled with the same procedure as Publisher-initiated retractions. The Retraction notice will identify the retraction as author-initiated. Author-initiated retraction of an article containing honest error, disclosed proactively, reflects well on the authors’ commitment to the integrity of the scientific record and will be characterized accordingly in the notice.
6. Investigation Standards and Confidentiality
All allegations of error or misconduct are treated with confidentiality during the investigation period. The identities of parties who report concerns in good faith are protected to the extent possible. Allegations made anonymously are assessed on their merits; anonymous allegations that cannot be substantiated without identifying information from the reporting party may be set aside.
Neural Prosody conducts its own preliminary assessment of all allegations. Where the allegation involves conduct that falls within the jurisdiction of an author’s employing institution—such as research misconduct as defined under U.S. federal policy or applicable institutional policy—Neural Prosody will defer to or coordinate with the institutional investigation process while retaining independent authority over the disposition of the published article.
Neural Prosody will not delay action on a published article indefinitely pending the outcome of an institutional investigation. Where an investigation is prolonged, the Publisher will issue an Expression of Concern to ensure that readers are informed of the ongoing uncertainty.
7. Reporting a Concern
Any party—author, reviewer, reader, or third party—who has reasonable grounds to believe that a published Neural Prosody article contains a material error or evidence of misconduct is encouraged to contact the editorial office. Reports should include:
The title, authors, and DOI of the article in question
A clear description of the specific concern, including the relevant sections, data, or figures
Any supporting evidence the reporting party is able to provide
The reporting party’s contact information (anonymous reports are accepted but may limit the Publisher’s ability to investigate)
Reports submitted in good faith are handled confidentially. Neural Prosody does not tolerate retaliation against individuals who report concerns in good faith, and will take appropriate action if retaliation occurs.
8. Appeals
Authors who wish to contest a Retraction decision may submit a written appeal to the editorial office within 21 days of receiving notice of the decision. Appeals must identify specific grounds—factual error in the Publisher’s assessment, new evidence not previously available, or material procedural irregularity—and must include supporting documentation.
The Editor-in-Chief reviews all appeals and issues a final ruling. Where an appeal raises substantive new evidence, the Editor-in-Chief may seek external expert assessment before ruling. The Editor-in-Chief’s ruling on appeal is final. Submission of an appeal does not suspend the publication of a Retraction notice or the flagging of the original article, unless the Editor-in-Chief determines that the appeal raises grounds sufficient to warrant suspension pending review.
To report a concern about a published article, contact the Neural Prosody editorial office.
Include the article DOI and a description of the concern. All reports received in good faith are handled with confidentiality and taken seriously.