COPE Guidelines

COPE Council. (2019). COPE Guidelines: Retraction Guidelines.

Type

Report

Intellectual base

Grey literature

Year

2019

DOI

10.24318/cope.2019.1.4

DOI registrant

Committee on Publication Ethics

Link

https://doi.org/10.24318/cope.2019.1.4

Cited from

information_theory

Cited by

3 citations across 3 artifacts.

Each citation links to the sentence it supports in the citing article.

Primes

• Validity-ending Event
  • The pattern is not tied to a single substrate: the same in-force-to-invalidated transition, with its authority, trigger, effective date, and post-invalidation regime, governs a revoked certificate, a recalled drug lot, a repealed statute, and a retracted paper.

Domain-specific

• Correction Burial
  • The independent watchdog Retraction Watch, and the practice of binding a retraction flag to the article's metadata in databases like PubMed

    This sourceCOPE guidance requiring retraction notices to link to, and clearly identify, the retracted article and to be freely accessible.

    Supported in partVerified against a saved copy of the source

    “Notices of retraction should link to the retracted article, clearly identify it with title and authors, and be published promptly and be freely accessible to all readers.”

    Read by an automated reader; not a human review. How support was checked

Mechanisms

• Correction and Retraction Notice
  • The discipline that keeps it honest is the version-of-record norm: the corrected item becomes canonical, but the original remains linked and labelled, so the correction adds to the history instead of overwriting it.

    This sourceRequires the original item to remain linked and clearly labelled so a correction or retraction adds a visible record rather than erasing history.

Verification

Does it exist? Confirmed. This work's DOI resolves to a registered record, which fixes its identity. That is all it fixes.

Does it back the claim? Read against the text for 1 of 3 citations: 1 supported in part. Each verdict is shown under its citation below, with what in the work backs the sentence.

Was it audited? Yes. A second, independent pass read the citation against the article text and recorded a verdict.

Support is checked per citation rather than per work — the same source can be cited soundly in one article and wrongly in another. Per-citation recording began recently, so a citation with no recorded check is a gap in the record rather than evidence it went unchecked.

See how references were verified.

Registry ID ref:96b0eb383688 · see in the full table