Corrections and Retractions

el-Noorda: Interdisciplinary Journal of Qur’an and Hadith maintains the scholarly record through transparent action when errors or integrity concerns affect published articles. The purpose of a correction or retraction is to inform readers about the reliability of the work.

1. Reporting an Error

Authors and readers should notify the editorial office when they identify a significant error or concern. Reports should identify the article, specify the affected passages or findings, and provide relevant evidence. Authors are expected to cooperate in assessing and resolving the issue.

2. Corrections

A correction may be issued when an error affects the accuracy, interpretation, attribution, or usability of an article but does not invalidate its central findings. Examples include:

• Incorrect data, labels, quotations, translations, or references that can be corrected without undermining the principal conclusions.
• Material omissions in funding or competing-interest disclosures.
• Verified errors in author details or contributions.
• Production errors that materially alter meaning.

Material corrections will be described in a dated notice linked to the original article. Any updated version will be identified transparently. Minor typographical changes that do not affect meaning may be handled without a separate notice.

3. Expressions of Concern

An expression of concern may be published when there is a substantial unresolved question about an article’s reliability or ethical integrity and a conclusive assessment is not yet available. The notice will explain the nature of the concern without presenting unproven allegations as established facts.

The journal will review the notice when further evidence becomes available and communicate the resulting outcome.

4. Retractions

Retraction may be appropriate when:

• There is clear evidence that central findings are unreliable because of a major error, fabrication, or falsification.
• The article contains substantial plagiarism or unjustified redundant publication.
• Serious ethical violations undermine the publication.
• The editorial or peer-review process was manipulated in a way that compromises the article’s reliability.
• A serious undisclosed competing interest materially undermines confidence in the work.

Retraction may be necessary because of honest error as well as misconduct. A disagreement about interpretation, or an authorship dispute alone, does not ordinarily justify retraction where the findings remain reliable.

5. Assessment and Decision

The editor will assess the evidence, seek an author response, and consult independent experts or relevant institutions where appropriate. An editor with a competing interest will not make the decision.

Authors will normally be informed of the proposed action and its grounds. Author agreement is desirable but is not required where the evidence warrants action to protect readers and the scholarly record.

6. Retraction Notices and Article Availability

A retraction notice will identify the article, state who is retracting it, explain the reasons, and link to the original publication. The notice will distinguish established facts from unresolved matters.

The article will ordinarily remain accessible with a prominent retraction label. It will not be silently deleted or replaced, and its bibliographic record will be retained.

7. Exceptional Removal

Removal of article content is reserved for exceptional circumstances, such as a binding legal requirement, a serious privacy infringement, or a substantial risk of harm that cannot be addressed through a notice or limited redaction. Where permitted, a bibliographic record and an explanation of the removal will remain available.

8. Withdrawal Before Publication

Authors requesting withdrawal of an unpublished manuscript should provide a reason and confirmation that all authors agree. The editorial office will confirm the manuscript’s status. A withdrawal request does not automatically terminate an investigation into a credible integrity concern.

9. Appeals

Authors may appeal by identifying a procedural error or supplying relevant new evidence. Where feasible, an independent editor will assess the appeal. An appeal does not automatically suspend an action necessary to inform readers of a substantial reliability concern.