The Editor-in-Chief is responsible for making editorial decisions concerning published content, guided by the journal's editorial policies, the available evidence, applicable legal requirements, and relevant publication ethics standards. In handling suspected publication misconduct or serious errors, Journal Ius Constituendum follows the guidance of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), particularly its Retraction Guidelines.

A retraction may be initiated by the Editor-in-Chief, the author or authors, or an author's affiliated institution. The journal will assess each case individually and determine the appropriate action based on the nature and seriousness of the issue. Retraction is intended to correct the scholarly record and alert readers to unreliable publications, rather than to punish authors.

The journal distinguishes between withdrawal of an unpublished manuscript, retraction of a published article, removal of content for exceptional legal reasons, and the publication of a corrected replacement version. These procedures are described below.

1. Article Withdrawal

Article withdrawal refers to the removal of a manuscript before it has been formally published as part of the journal's permanent scholarly record. Withdrawal may be considered when a manuscript contains a significant error, has been submitted or accepted through an unintended duplicate process, or is affected by a serious ethical or procedural concern that makes continued processing inappropriate.

Circumstances that may justify withdrawal include duplicate submission to another journal, false or disputed authorship declarations, plagiarism, inappropriate text or data reuse, fraudulent or unreliable data, and other substantial violations of publication ethics. Each allegation must be assessed carefully, and the journal will not treat an allegation alone as conclusive proof of misconduct.

Authors who wish to withdraw a manuscript should submit a written request to the Editor-in-Chief, explaining the reasons for withdrawal. Where appropriate, the request should be supported by a statement from the corresponding author confirming that the co-authors have been informed and that the request reflects their position. The Editors may seek clarification or supporting documentation before approving the request.

If the journal identifies a possible ethical violation before publication, the Editors may suspend the editorial process while the matter is assessed. If the manuscript is found to be unsuitable for publication because of a confirmed ethical violation, it may be rejected. Withdrawal should not be used to avoid an ongoing investigation into suspected misconduct.

2. Article Retraction

Retraction is a formal editorial action taken when a published article contains serious problems that undermine the reliability, validity, or integrity of its content, or when other circumstances described in applicable publication ethics guidance warrant retraction. The decision will be made by the Editor-in-Chief following an appropriate assessment of the available evidence and consultation with the Editorial Board or relevant experts where necessary.

In accordance with COPE guidance, grounds for considering retraction may include, but are not limited to, the following:

• Clear evidence that the findings, analysis, data, or conclusions are unreliable because of a major error, data fabrication, falsification, manipulation, or another serious irregularity.
• Plagiarism or substantial unattributed use of another person's work.
• Redundant or duplicate publication without appropriate attribution, disclosure, permission, or justification.
• Use of materials or data without the necessary authorization, or serious copyright or other legal violations.
• Evidence of unethical research or serious breaches of applicable ethical requirements.
• Publication based on a compromised or manipulated peer-review process.
• False authorship, identity misrepresentation, or other substantial misrepresentation affecting the integrity of the publication.
• Failure to disclose a significant conflict of interest that, in the Editor's assessment, materially affects the interpretation, evaluation, or credibility of the work.

Retraction may be appropriate whether the problem resulted from intentional misconduct or an honest but serious error. The journal will assess the reliability and significance of the problem rather than assume that every error constitutes misconduct. Where a limited error does not undermine the overall reliability of the article, a correction may be more appropriate than retraction.

Where a credible concern is raised, the Editors may request an explanation from the author or authors, examine relevant records, consult independent experts, and contact the author's institution or another competent body when appropriate. Authors will ordinarily be given an opportunity to respond to the concerns. However, a retraction may proceed when the available evidence supports it, even if an author disagrees with the decision or does not respond.

2.1 Retraction Procedure

When retraction is considered necessary, Journal Ius Constituendum will take appropriate steps to communicate the decision and correct the published record. The procedure will generally include the following:

1. The Editor-in-Chief assesses the available evidence and determines whether the article's reliability or publication integrity has been seriously compromised.
2. The author or authors are informed of the concerns and, where appropriate, invited to provide an explanation or supporting evidence.
3. The Editors may consult the Editorial Board, independent experts, or the relevant institution if further assessment is required.
4. If retraction is warranted, the journal publishes a clearly identified retraction notice explaining the reason for the action and identifying who is retracting the article.
5. The retraction notice is linked to the original article wherever technically possible and is made accessible to readers without unnecessary access restrictions.
6. The original article is clearly marked as retracted, and its status is maintained in the journal's online records and available metadata, subject to exceptional legal or technical constraints.

2.2 Retraction Notice and Preservation of the Published Record

A retraction notice will ordinarily be titled “Retraction: [Article Title]” and will identify the original article by its title, author or authors, publication details, and DOI where available. The notice will state the reason for retraction in objective, factual, and sufficiently clear language, distinguish serious error from misconduct where the evidence allows, and identify whether the retraction is issued by the authors, the journal, or another responsible party.

The notice will be published promptly once the Editor-in-Chief has sufficient grounds to conclude that retraction is warranted. It should be freely accessible and linked to the retracted article in the journal's online platform wherever possible.

The original article will ordinarily remain available in the journal archive to preserve the transparency and traceability of the scholarly record. Its PDF will be clearly marked with a “Retracted” watermark, and the article's online landing page will display the retraction status and link to the notice. The HTML version may be annotated or otherwise clearly marked to prevent readers from mistaking the article for a valid, unretracted publication.

Retraction does not automatically mean that every statement in an article is false. Rather, it indicates that the article as a whole, or its principal findings or conclusions, should no longer be relied upon in the manner originally presented. The notice should explain the basis for the action so readers can understand its scope.

3. Article Removal: Legal Limitations

Removal of a published article is an exceptional measure. In contrast to retraction, which normally preserves the original article with a clear retraction notice, removal involves taking the article's full text offline when continued public access would create a compelling legal or comparable risk that cannot reasonably be addressed through ordinary correction or retraction procedures.

Removal may be considered in narrowly defined circumstances, including where a competent court or other legally authorized body requires removal, where publication is clearly unlawful or defamatory, where the content infringes legally protected rights, or where continued availability creates a serious and demonstrable risk that cannot adequately be addressed by a notice or other less restrictive measure. Any decision must be assessed in accordance with applicable law and the journal's responsibility to preserve the scholarly record.

Before removing content, the journal will consider whether a retraction notice, correction, restriction required by law, or another proportionate measure can adequately address the issue. Where a removal is legally required or otherwise determined to be necessary, the journal will document the reason for the action to the extent permitted by law and applicable confidentiality obligations.

Where legally permissible and technically feasible, the article's bibliographic metadata, including its title, author information, publication details, and DOI, will be retained. The removed text may be replaced with a notice stating that the article has been removed and providing an appropriate explanation, subject to legal restrictions. The journal will avoid removing metadata or records unnecessarily, since doing so may undermine citation accuracy and the traceability of the scholarly record.

4. Article Replacement

In exceptional circumstances, a published article may contain serious errors that require more extensive correction than can reasonably be addressed through a conventional correction notice. Where a corrected version can appropriately resolve the identified problem, Journal Ius Constituendum may consider a coordinated retraction and republication, provided that the process is transparent and consistent with COPE guidance.

A replacement will not be automatic and will not be used merely to avoid the consequences of a retraction. The Editor-in-Chief must assess whether the corrected version adequately resolves the identified problems, whether the authors have supplied sufficient supporting information, and whether republication is justified in light of the interests of readers and the integrity of the scholarly record.

If a retract-and-republish approach is approved, the journal will publish a retraction notice explaining the reasons for retracting the original version and linking to the corrected version. The corrected article should be clearly identified as a replacement or republication, with appropriate publication history and links between the original article, the retraction notice, and the corrected version.

The original article should not ordinarily be deleted or silently overwritten. It should remain identifiable as the retracted version, with its retraction status clearly indicated. This approach enables readers, researchers, and indexing services to trace the publication history and understand which version should be consulted.

5. Expressions of Concern

Where credible concerns have been raised about a published article but the available evidence is inconclusive, an investigation remains ongoing, or a final determination cannot reasonably be reached within an appropriate period, the Editor-in-Chief may consider publishing an expression of concern.

An expression of concern informs readers that an issue potentially affecting the reliability or integrity of an article is under assessment. It is not a final finding of misconduct and does not, by itself, constitute a retraction. The notice will identify the article concerned and explain the nature of the unresolved issue to the extent that the available evidence and applicable confidentiality requirements permit.

When further information becomes available, the Editors will assess whether additional action is required, including publication of a correction, retraction, or another appropriate editorial notice. The expression of concern will remain part of the publication record so that readers can follow the status and outcome of the matter.

6. Appeals and Author Cooperation

Authors who disagree with a withdrawal, retraction, or related editorial decision may submit a reasoned written appeal to the Editor-in-Chief. The appeal should identify the decision being challenged, explain the grounds for reconsideration, and include relevant supporting evidence. The Editors may consult the Editorial Board or an independent adviser when appropriate, particularly where a conflict of interest could affect the assessment.

Submission of an appeal does not automatically suspend a necessary correction or retraction notice. The journal will consider the appeal fairly and determine whether the available evidence warrants reconsideration. Authors are expected to cooperate with reasonable requests for clarification and supporting documentation.

7. Guiding Principles

All decisions concerning withdrawal, retraction, removal, replacement, or expressions of concern will be guided by fairness, proportionality, transparency, confidentiality where appropriate, and the protection of the scholarly record. The journal will distinguish between honest error, legitimate academic disagreement, and evidence of serious publication misconduct.

Journal Ius Constituendum will seek to communicate editorial actions clearly to authors and readers and to maintain appropriate links among the original article, any editorial notice, and any corrected or replacement version. These procedures are intended to safeguard the reliability of legal scholarship and maintain public confidence in the journal's publication process.