Apollo: Journal of Tourism and Business is committed to maintaining the accuracy, integrity, reliability, and completeness of the scholarly record. The journal welcomes constructive discussion of published articles and considers concerns that may require clarification or editorial action.
Scholarly disagreement does not automatically establish an error or misconduct. When evidence identifies a problem in the published record, the journal determines an appropriate response according to the nature, extent, and significance of the issue.
This policy explains the journal's procedures for post-publication discussion, corrections, Expressions of Concern, and retractions. Its application is informed by relevant guidance from the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), including the COPE Retraction Guidelines.
The journal welcomes evidence-based questions, comments, critiques, and responses concerning its published articles. Discussion may clarify research methods, findings, interpretations, limitations, or implications.
Submit comments to apollo[at]mediadigitalpublikasi.com using the subject line Post-Publication Discussion: [Article Title or DOI].
Contributors should provide:
No fixed deadline applies to raising a substantive concern about a published article. Contributors are encouraged to report issues promptly.
Editors assess comments for relevance, clarity, evidence, scholarly value, and respectful presentation. Criticism must not be excluded merely because it challenges the original article or a previous editorial decision.
The editor may request clarification, seek independent expert advice, and invite the original author(s) to respond. Responses are subject to the same standards of accuracy and professional conduct.
The absence of an author response does not automatically prevent publication of a substantive critique. Where appropriate, the journal may state that the authors were invited to respond.
Substantive comments and responses may be published as letters, commentaries, or editorial correspondence and linked to the original article. Submission does not guarantee publication.
The journal may request revision or decline material containing personal attacks, abusive or discriminatory language, unsupported accusations, confidential personal information, promotional content, or repetitive material without additional scholarly value.
Anonymous or confidential reports containing specific, verifiable integrity concerns are assessed under the Allegations of Research Misconduct policy. Public attribution of correspondence will be addressed with the contributor before publication.
Discussion alone does not alter an article. Identified errors are assessed under the sections below; suspected misconduct follows the journal's separate misconduct procedure.
A Correction addresses an error or omission in a published article when the issue can be resolved without invalidating its principal findings or overall conclusions.
The significance of an error determines the action. A problem described as a typographical, disclosure, or analytical error may require a different response if its effects are substantial.
Authors or other parties should notify the editorial office using the subject line Correction Request: [Article Title or DOI], identify the affected material, explain the proposed correction, and provide supporting evidence.
The editor assesses whether the proposed change is justified and sufficient. Authors may be asked to provide revised text, corrected files, calculations, or other documentation.
Authorship amendments must also satisfy the journal's authorship requirements. A correction cannot substitute for resolving an authorship dispute.
A formal correction notice should:
When the article itself is updated, the change must be clearly identified and linked to the correction notice. Substantive amendments must not be made silently.
Corrections are intended to improve the accuracy of the record and may address errors introduced by authors or during editorial production. If assessment shows that correction is insufficient, the editor considers the other actions described below.
An Expression of Concern may be issued when substantial unresolved questions about a published article warrant alerting readers while the evidence does not yet support a final determination.
Relevant circumstances may include:
An allegation or investigation does not automatically require an Expression of Concern. The editor considers the evidence, potential impact on readers, and proportionality of the notice.
The notice must explain the concern without presenting an unproven allegation as an established finding. It should be linked to the article and updated or followed by an appropriate outcome notice when the assessment concludes.
A Retraction is a formal notice that a published article should no longer be relied upon because serious problems affect its reliability, originality, or ethical acceptability, or because other qualifying grounds under relevant COPE guidance apply.
Retraction may be appropriate when the evidence establishes:
Retraction corrects the literature and alerts readers; its purpose is not to punish authors. It may result from misconduct or a significant honest error. Retraction alone does not establish that an author committed misconduct.
Authorship disagreement alone does not normally justify retraction when the findings remain reliable. Citation, disclosure, and other concerns are assessed individually; not every instance requires retraction.
The editor determines whether retraction is justified after assessing the available evidence and relevant guidance. Authors are normally informed of the concerns and given an opportunity to respond.
Retraction may be initiated by authors or by the journal. Author agreement is not required when the evidence warrants the action. A request from an author does not automatically establish grounds for retraction.
The journal publishes a notice that:
The continued availability and marking of retracted articles are addressed in Section 6.
Concerns may arise through reader discussion, author notifications, institutional reports, or communications from other parties. The journal assesses their significance and supporting evidence impartially.
Assessment may involve reviewing the article and publication history, examining supporting materials, requesting author explanations, and seeking independent expert advice.
Suspected misconduct is handled under the journal's Allegations of Research Misconduct policy, which explains confidentiality, independent handling, author responses, and institutional cooperation.
The journal evaluates the published record and does not replace a formal institutional investigation into a researcher's conduct. Matters requiring such investigation may be referred to the relevant institution or competent body.
Where an external investigation is incomplete or unavailable, the journal may still take proportionate action justified by the evidence to protect readers and the scholarly record.
A retracted article normally remains accessible as part of the published scholarly record rather than being deleted.
The article, its landing page, and available full-text versions should be prominently marked RETRACTED and linked to the retraction notice wherever technically possible.
The journal seeks to retain the bibliographic record, DOI, publication history, and associated notices so that readers can understand the article's status.
Complete removal is reserved for exceptional circumstances where continued availability presents serious legal, privacy, or safety concerns, or where another compelling obligation requires removal.
Retraction and removal are distinct actions. An article is not removed merely because it has been retracted.
When removal is necessary, an appropriate bibliographic record or explanatory notice should remain unless an overriding requirement prevents disclosure.
Authors must promptly notify the journal when they discover significant errors or concerns in their published work and cooperate in determining an appropriate response.
Reports should identify the article, describe the issue and its effect on the findings, and provide relevant supporting materials or proposed amendments.
Authors may respond to scholarly critiques through Section 1. A request for correction, retraction, or removal is assessed according to the relevant sections of this policy and does not automatically result in the requested action.
Published comments, responses, corrections, Expressions of Concern, and retraction notices should be clearly identified and connected to the relevant article wherever technically possible.
The journal makes reasonable efforts to communicate changes in article status through its website and relevant publication metadata, including updates supplied to registration or indexing services where applicable.
Substantive changes must be documented. The original publication history and subsequent editorial actions should remain understandable to readers.
This policy is applied alongside the journal's Publication Ethics, Allegations of Research Misconduct, Authorship, and Complaints and Appeals policies.
Each case is considered individually according to the evidence, seriousness of the issue, fair treatment of the parties, and the need to maintain an accurate scholarly record.
Requests for reconsideration should identify significant new evidence or a specific factual or procedural error. Appeals are handled under the Complaints and Appeals policy and do not automatically suspend an editorial notice needed to inform readers.
Relevant guidance: COPE Retraction Guidelines.
