South African Journal of Chemistry

Publication Ethics and Post-Publication Policy

The South African Journal of Chemistry (SAJChem) is responsible for the reliability of what it publishes. This policy explains how the journal corrects the published record and how it handles concerns about published articles.

1Principles

The journal follows the guidance of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), in particular its Retraction Guidelines and its guideline on Expressions of Concern (2025). It also follows the ASSAf Code of Best Practice in Scholarly Journal Publishing, Editing and Peer Review (2025).

Four principles apply to every case:

Correcting the literature Corrections and retractions exist to correct the literature, not to punish authors.
Evidence-based assessment Every concern is assessed on documentary evidence.
Opportunity to respond Authors are always given the opportunity to respond before a decision is made.
Editorial independence The decision is made by the Editors-in-Chief in consultation with the advisory board, independently of the publisher and of any commercial interest.

2Definitions

Term What the journal means by it
Plagiarism Presenting another person's text, ideas, data, results, figures or schemes as one's own without clear attribution. This includes verbatim copying, close paraphrase, and the use of ideas or results without credit.
Text recycling Reuse of the authors' own published text without citation. Limited reuse of standard experimental descriptions is acceptable when the earlier article is cited.
Redundant publication Publishing substantially the same data or conclusions in more than one place without cross-reference and justification.
Inadequate credit to prior work Failing to cite, or misdescribing, earlier published work that the article depends on, or that already reports the same compound, method or result, so that the novelty of the article is overstated.
Fabrication and falsification Inventing data or results, or manipulating materials, data, spectra or images so that the research is not accurately represented.
Authorship misrepresentation Listing a person who did not contribute, omitting a person who did, or submitting without the knowledge of all listed authors.
Undisclosed interests or tools Failing to declare a competing interest, or failing to declare the use of generative AI as the Instructions to Authors require.
Honest error and differences of scientific opinion are not misconduct. They are handled by correction or by a published Comment and Reply (section 11).

3Raising a concern

Anyone may raise a concern about an article published in SAJChem, including readers, authors of earlier work, reviewers, editors and institutions. Concerns should be sent to the editor in chief.

Please include:

  • The title and DOI of the SAJChem article.
  • The full reference and DOI of the earlier work, where the concern is about copying or missing credit.
  • A specific description of the concern, ideally with the relevant passages, data or figures marked side by side.
  • Your name and affiliation, and any relationship to the authors or other competing interest.

The identity of the person raising a concern is not disclosed to the authors without that person's consent. Anonymous concerns are considered when they are specific and supported by evidence.

4How a concern is handled

  1. Acknowledgement The journal acknowledges the concern within [5] working days and asks for any missing evidence.
  2. Initial assessment An Editor-in-Chief with no competing interest assesses the evidence within [15] working days. This includes a similarity report and a direct comparison of the works. If the concern has no substance, the person who raised it is told so, with reasons.
  3. Contact with the authors The corresponding author is sent the evidence in writing, with all co-authors copied. The authors have [21] days to respond and may be asked for original data, spectra or laboratory records.
  4. Assessment of the response The response is assessed by an Editor-in-Chief and a Scientific Editor who did not handle the original manuscript. An independent expert or a member of the international advisory board may be consulted.
  5. Decision The Editors-in-Chief decide on one of the outcomes in section 5.
  6. Institution and other journals If the authors do not respond, or their explanation is unsatisfactory, the journal informs the research integrity office of the authors' institution. Where the earlier work appeared in another journal, the editor of that journal is informed.
  7. Notification All authors, the person who raised the concern, and the authors of the earlier work are informed of the outcome.

If a case cannot be resolved within [3] months, for example because an institutional investigation is under way, the journal may publish an Expression of Concern in the interim.

5Possible outcomes

Outcome When it is used What readers see
No action The concern is not supported by the evidence. Nothing changes.
Correction The article is reliable but part of the record is wrong or incomplete. A Corrigendum corrects an author error and an Erratum corrects a journal error. A notice linked to the article, describing the change. The article is corrected where possible.
Expression of Concern A serious, credible concern exists, but the evidence is not yet conclusive or an investigation is continuing. A notice linked to the article, stating the reason for concern. It is later replaced by a correction, a retraction, or a statement that the concern is resolved.
Retraction The findings cannot be relied on, or the article breaches publication ethics in a way a correction cannot repair. A retraction notice linked to the article. The article stays online, marked as retracted.
Removal Only for legal reasons, such as a court order or content that infringes a legal right. The text is removed. The title, authors and an explanation remain.

Copied or uncredited work: correction or retraction

The journal publishes these criteria so that the decision is predictable.

  • A correction is appropriate when the overlap is limited to short passages, no data, results or ideas are misattributed, and the findings are original and reliable. A correction adds the omitted reference and, where needed, amends any statement of novelty.
  • A retraction is appropriate when substantial portions of text, or any data, results, figures, or the central idea or method, were taken without attribution. It is also appropriate when, once the earlier work is properly credited, the article no longer makes an original contribution.

Other grounds for retraction include fabricated or falsified data, redundant publication, unethical research, compromised peer review, authorship that cannot be verified, and major error that invalidates the conclusions.

6Retraction notices

A retraction notice:

  • Is titled "Retraction:" followed by the title of the article, and names the authors and the DOI.
  • States the reason for retraction in factual terms and distinguishes honest error from misconduct.
  • States who is retracting the article, and whether the authors agree.
  • Has its own DOI, is free to read, and is linked to and from the article.
  • Does not assign blame to named individuals.

The retracted article is not deleted. It remains available, with "Retracted" shown on the article page and on every page of the PDF. Indexing services are notified so that the retraction is visible wherever the article is listed.

7 Authors' requests for correction or retraction

Authors who find an error in their own published article should inform the journal promptly. The same outcomes apply. An author-initiated retraction for honest error is recorded as such in the notice.

8 Editors, reviewers and competing interests

An editor does not handle a manuscript or a concern where they have a competing interest. This includes co-authorship, a shared department, or a recent collaboration with an author or with the person raising the concern.

Manuscripts submitted by an editor are handled by another editor, and the submitting editor has no access to the review record. A concern about an article by an Editor-in-Chief, or about the conduct of an Editor-in-Chief, is handled by the other Editor-in-Chief. A concern involving both is referred to the advisory board.

Concerns about reviewer conduct, such as breach of confidentiality or use of unpublished material, are handled under the same procedure.

9Appeals

Authors, or the person who raised the concern, may appeal a decision in writing within [30] days, stating the grounds. The appeal is considered by the advisory board who took no part in the original decision. One appeal is permitted and the outcome is final.

10Consequences for authors

Where misconduct is confirmed, the journal informs the authors' institution. The journal may also decline further submissions from the authors concerned for a defined period.

11 Scientific disagreement: Comment and Reply

Disagreement about the interpretation, novelty or priority of published work is not misconduct. Readers may submit a Comment on an article published in SAJChem. A Comment is peer reviewed and, if accepted, is published together with a Reply from the original authors.

12Review of this policy

This policy was approved by the Editorial Board on 15 October 2026 and is to be reviewed every five years.

Version 1.0