CONTENTS
- Scope and Applicability
- Fundamental Principles
- Definitions
- Corrections
- Retractions
- Removal
- Expressions of Concern
- Process, Timelines and Communication
- Notification to Indexes and Databases
- Version of Record and Prohibition of Stealth Corrections
- Accessibility of Corrected and Retracted Articles
- Plagiarism, Self-Plagiarism and Text Recycling
- Duplicate Publication
- Image and Graphical Data Integrity
- Authorship Misconduct
- Citation Manipulation and Other Forms of Misconduct
- Research Ethics Violations
- Institutional Notification and External Reporting
- Wording of Corrective Notices and Rights of Involved Authors
- Appeals Against Misconduct-Related Decisions
- Author Name and Metadata Changes
- Withdrawal of Accepted Manuscripts Prior to Publication
- Reference Standards
1. SCOPE AND APPLICABILITY
This policy governs the procedures adopted by European Gynecology and Obstetrics (EGO) for managing post-publication corrections, retractions, removals, and expressions of concern, and for handling cases of suspected research misconduct affecting the integrity of submitted or published manuscripts. The policy applies to all manuscripts submitted to the Journal, to all published articles, and to all parties involved in the editorial process in any capacity: authors, reviewers, the Editor-in-Chief, Associate Editors, members of the Editorial Board, Guest Editors, editorial staff, and the Publisher. It constitutes an integral part of the Editorial Policy Statement and of the Publication Ethics Policy, to which it refers for the overarching ethical principles and for the COPE flowcharts applicable to each case.
The reference normative framework includes the COPE Retraction Guidelines (2025 version), the COPE Core Practices, the ICMJE Recommendations for the Conduct, Reporting, Editing, and Publication of Scholarly Work in Medical Journals, the Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing of the Directory of Open Access Journals, the NISO Communication of Retractions, Removals, and Expressions of Concern (CREC) Recommended Practice (NISO RP-45-2024) formally endorsed by COPE, and the STM Association Guidelines on the Preservation of the Objective Record of Science.
2. FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES
The management of corrections, retractions, removals, expressions of concern, and research misconduct is governed by the following principles:
• Integrity of the scientific record. The primary purpose of every corrective measure is to maintain the accuracy, completeness, and reliability of the published scientific record. This objective takes precedence over any other consideration, including the protection of the reputation of individuals or institutions.
• Transparency. All post-publication acts are published with their own DOI, permanently linked to the original article, publicly accessible, and notified to all indexes and databases in which the Journal is included, in conformity with NISO CREC standards.
• Proportionality. The measure adopted must be proportionate to the nature and severity of the identified error or misconduct. A correction is not issued where a retraction is required; a retraction is not issued where a correction would suffice; a removal is reserved for the rarest and most exceptional circumstances.
• Due process. All parties involved have the right to be informed of the nature of the concern and to respond before a final decision is taken, consistent with COPE guidelines on procedural fairness and adversarial process.
• Independence. Editorial decisions on corrections, retractions, removals, and misconduct are taken exclusively by the Editor-in-Chief, without interference from the Publisher Edikta S.r.l. or the European Society of Gynecology, except in the specific case of removal where the Publisher is consulted on legal aspects.
• Promptness. The Journal acts without undue delay upon the identification of an error or suspected misconduct, balancing the need for thorough assessment with the imperative to protect the scientific community from reliance on unreliable findings.
• Non-punitive purpose. The purpose of retraction, in conformity with the COPE Retraction Guidelines, is to correct the literature and ensure its integrity, not to punish the authors. Corrective acts are factual instruments of record correction and are not framed as sanctions.
3. DEFINITIONS
For this policy, the following definitions apply:
• Version of Record (VoR). The final, copyedited, typeset, and proofread version of an article published in the Journal, constituting the citable and reliable entry in the scholarly record. The Version of Record includes the article itself, the abstract, all references, all images and tables, and any supplementary materials.
• Erratum. Correction of an error introduced by the Journal in the production, editorial, or typesetting process, not attributable to the authors.
• Corrigendum. Correction of an error introduced by the authors that does not affect the validity of the conclusions of the article.
• Addendum. Addition of information inadvertently omitted from the original article, which does not alter the conclusions but is necessary for completeness of the scientific record.
• Stealth correction. A silent or undocumented modification to the Version of Record without publication of a corresponding correction notice. This policy expressly prohibits stealth corrections.
• Retraction. Formal withdrawal of a published article from the scientific record, issued when the findings are determined to be unreliable, whether due to honest error or misconduct, and no correction would adequately address the problem.
• Retraction with replacement. A specific form of retraction, adopted when the original article contains errors of sufficient severity to require formal retraction but the underlying scholarship remains valid. The original article is retracted, and a corrected version is simultaneously published, with both versions remaining permanently accessible and bidirectionally linked.
• Batch retraction. Simultaneous retraction of multiple articles affected by the same systematic compromise of the publication process, such as paper mill activity, organized fake reviewer networks, or coordinated citation manipulation.
• Removal. Complete withdrawal of an article from online publication, reserved for extremely limited circumstances involving legal risk, privacy violations not remediable through redaction, court orders, or serious public health risks. Article metadata remain accessible after removal; full text and supplementary materials are not.
• Expression of concern. Formal notice of unresolved doubt about the integrity of a published article, issued when an investigation is ongoing, when its outcome is pending or unlikely to be conclusive, or when the Editorial Direction has been unable to obtain a satisfactory response from authors or their institution within a reasonable timeframe.
• Plagiarism. The reproduction or close paraphrasing of textual, graphical, or conceptual content from another source without proper attribution, to a degree that constitutes misrepresentation of originality.
• Self-plagiarism. The undisclosed reuse by the authors of substantial portions of their own previously published work in a new manuscript, without appropriate citation, acknowledgment, or cross-reference.
• Text recycling. The reuse of portions of previously published text by the same authors, regardless of whether the source is cited, when the extent of reuse exceeds what would be considered normal practice for the article type.
• Duplicate publication. The publication of the same study or substantially overlapping findings and data in two or more journals, without appropriate disclosure, cross-reference, and prior consent of the editorial teams involved.
• Fabrication. The invention of data, results, images, or other research outputs that were not actually obtained in the conduct of the research.
• Falsification. The manipulation of research materials, equipment, or processes, or the alteration or selective omission of data or results, so that the research record does not accurately represent the actual conduct or findings of the research.
• Paper mill. An organization or network that produces fraudulent manuscripts for sale, often through fabricated data, fake authorship, or systematic compromise of the peer review process. Paper mill activity has been documented as a significant problem in gynecology and obstetrics in recent years and constitutes grounds for retraction in this Journal.
• Identity theft and fictitious authorship. The use of another researcher’s identity without authorization, or the inclusion in the author list of fabricated or unverifiable persons, both of which constitute grounds for retraction.
4. CORRECTIONS
The Journal publishes 3 types of corrections: errata, corrigenda, and addenda. A correction is appropriate when an identified error does not undermine the overall validity of the article's conclusions and the scientific record can be accurately and completely restored through a targeted correction.
A correction is published as a distinct document, identified separately from the original article, with its own DOI permanently linked to the original article through a bidirectional link on the Journal platform and in the Crossref metadata deposit. The original article is simultaneously updated with a prominent notice directing readers to the correction. The metadata of both the correction and the original article are deposited in conformity with the NISO CREC Recommended Practice (NISO RP-45-2024).
Authors who identify errors in their published work are required to notify the Editorial Direction promptly. Readers, third parties, and integrity researchers who identify errors are encouraged to submit a report through the editorial platform or via the designated email address for editorial communications. The Editorial Office acknowledges receipt within 5 working days and communicates the assessment outcome within 30 days. Where the error identified is the responsibility of the Journal, an erratum is published without requiring author submission.
5. RETRACTIONS
A retraction is issued when the findings of a published article are determined to be substantially unreliable, regardless of whether the cause is honest error or misconduct, and no correction would adequately address the problem. Consistent with the COPE Retraction Guidelines (2025 version), the following circumstances may lead to retraction:
• fabrication or falsification of data, results, or images, whether affecting part or all of the published findings;
• plagiarism of a degree that fundamentally undermines the originality and integrity of the work;
• duplicate publication without prior disclosure and consent of the editors of the journals involved;
• evidence of paper mill involvement, fake reviewers, or systematic compromise of the peer review process;
• identity theft, fictitious authorship, or inability to verify the identity or accountability of one or more listed authors;
• undisclosed involvement of generative artificial intelligence in the production of the manuscript or its substantive parts, when such involvement materially affects the integrity of the published findings;
• authorship misconduct (ghost authorship, coerced authorship) that materially misrepresents who conducted and takes responsibility for the research;
• violations of research ethics (absence of documented ethics committee approval, absence of documented informed consent) that cannot be remedied post-publication and that render the published study ethically non-compliant;
• citation manipulation, including coordinated citation stacking and other systematic forms of misrepresentation of citation impact;
• any other circumstance rendering the published record so unreliable that retaining it without clearly visible correction would mislead readers and distort the scientific record.
The retraction notice is published with its own DOI, permanently linked to the original article, and freely accessible without paywall or other access barriers. The wording of the retraction notice follows the principles set out in section 19 of this policy. The original article remains accessible on the Journal platform with a prominent watermark identifying it as retracted on every page of the full text and PDF, and with a clearly visible link to the retraction notice on every page. Retracted articles are reported to Crossref, PubMed/PMC where indexed, DOAJ, Scopus, Web of Science, and all databases in which the Journal is included, within 5 working days of publication of the retraction notice, in conformity with NISO CREC standards.
No partial retractions. Consistent with COPE guidance, the Journal does not issue partial retractions. A published article is either retained in the scientific record (with or without correction or expression of concern) or formally retracted in its entirety. Where a portion of an article is found to be unreliable, but the remainder is sound, the appropriate measure is a correction, an expression of concern, or, where the unreliable portion materially affects the conclusions, a retraction with replacement under the procedure set out below. Partial retraction is not adopted because it generates ambiguity in the scientific record and is inconsistent with the citable nature of the Version of Record.
Retraction requested by authors or institutions. Authors and the institutions of affiliation of authors may submit a reasoned request for retraction of a published article when they identify circumstances that meet the criteria established in this section. The Editor-in-Chief assesses such requests on the merits of the evidence presented. The Editorial Direction recognizes that prompt self-correction by authors, including through self-initiated retraction, is a marker of scientific integrity and is welcomed accordingly. The decision to retract remains with the Editor-in-Chief, who acts in accordance with the policy criteria, regardless of whether the request originated from authors, institutions, the editorial process, or third-party reports.
Retraction with replacement. Where the original article contains errors of sufficient severity to require retraction but the underlying scholarship remains valid, the Editorial Direction may, in agreement with the authors, retract the original article and simultaneously publish a corrected version with a new DOI. Both versions remain permanently accessible. The retraction notice for the original version states the reason for retraction and links to the replacement; the replacement version explicitly references the retracted version and details the corrections applied. This mechanism is consistent with the COPE Retraction Guidelines (2025 version) and with NISO CREC.
Batch retractions and paper mills. The Journal recognizes that systematic compromises of the publication process, including paper mill activity, organized fake-reviewer networks, coordinated citation manipulation, and systematic identity theft, may require the simultaneous retraction of multiple articles affected by the same issue. Batch retractions are issued when evidence supports the conclusion that multiple articles share a common compromise that fundamentally undermines the integrity of the affected publications. Each retracted article in a batch is published with its own retraction notice and DOI. The Journal cooperates with sister journals, indexing services, and integrity researchers when batch retractions affect multiple journals. The field of gynecology and obstetrics has been specifically affected by paper mill activity in recent years, and the Journal maintains heightened vigilance for systematic indicators of paper mill involvement.
6. REMOVAL
In extremely limited circumstances, an article may be removed from online publication. Removal is a measure of last resort, distinct from retraction, reserved for the following exceptional cases consistent with the COPE Retraction Guidelines:
• the article is clearly defamatory and constitutes a substantiated legal risk to the Publisher or the European Society of Gynecology;
• the article violates personal privacy, including patient confidentiality, in ways that cannot be remedied through redaction or correction;
• the article is the subject of a binding court order requiring its removal from public access;
• the article poses a serious health risk to the general public, such that continued accessibility would constitute a substantive public health threat.
When an article is removed, the article's metadata (title, authors, DOI) remain accessible on the Journal platform, with a clearly visible removal notice published with its own DOI that explains the reason for removal in factual terms compatible with the underlying legal or public health context. The full text and supplementary materials are not accessible after removal. The DOI of the original article continues to resolve to the article page, which displays the removal notice in place of the article content.
Removal decisions are taken by the Editor-in-Chief in consultation with the Publisher and, where appropriate, with legal counsel. Removal is never used as a substitute for retraction in cases where retraction would be the appropriate measure: removal applies only where the article must not remain readily accessible due to the nature of the legal or public health risk involved.
7. EXPRESSIONS OF CONCERN
An expression of concern is issued when the Editorial Direction becomes aware of credible evidence suggesting potential problems with the integrity of a published article. Still, the available evidence is not yet sufficient to justify a retraction when a formal investigation is ongoing. Its outcome is pending when the investigation is unlikely to be conclusive within a reasonable timeframe, or when the Editorial Direction has made reasonable efforts to investigate but has been unable to obtain a satisfactory response from the authors or their institution.
An expression of concern is published with its own DOI and permanently linked to the original article, freely accessible without a paywall. It does not constitute a final determination of misconduct. If the investigation concludes with no finding of misconduct or error, the expression of concern is removed and replaced by a formal notice of resolution, published with its own DOI and linked to both the original article and the original expression of concern. If the investigation concludes with a finding justifying retraction, the expression of concern is superseded by a retraction notice.
Concerns regarding the integrity of a published article may also arise from post-publication discussions conducted under the Post-Publication Discussions Policy. Where such discussions raise issues falling within the scope of this Policy, the procedures set out herein apply.
8. PROCESS, TIMELINES AND COMMUNICATION
All reports of suspected errors or misconduct related to published or submitted articles are received by the Editorial Direction through the official editorial platform, via the designated email address for editorial communications, or from third-party integrity researchers. The Journal follows the COPE flowcharts applicable to the specific case. The process is structured as follows:
Acknowledgement. The Editorial Direction acknowledges receipt of the report within 5 working days.
Preliminary assessment. The Editor-in-Chief conducts a preliminary assessment within 15 working days of acknowledgment, determining whether the evidence presented is sufficient to warrant a formal investigation and which COPE flowchart is applicable.
Author notification. Where the preliminary assessment identifies plausible grounds for concern, the corresponding author is formally notified of the nature of the concern and invited to respond within 30 days. The notification is factual and does not prejudge the outcome of the process.
Investigation. Where the author's response does not resolve the concern, the Editor-in-Chief may involve the Editorial Board, independent external experts, or the author's institution of affiliation. The Editorial Direction cooperates fully with institutional investigations. It does not take unilateral action while an institutional investigation is in progress, except when the protection of the scientific record requires urgent interim action (e.g., an expression of concern).
Decision. The final decision is communicated to all parties within 60 days of the opening of the formal investigation, unless exceptional circumstances require an extension, in which case it is communicated to the parties without delay.
Publication of the corrective act. Corrections, retractions, expressions of concern, and removals are published as soon as possible after the final decision, and no later than 30 days from the decision.
Interim editor’s note. Where the formal investigation is expected to extend significantly beyond the standard 60-day timeframe, or where credible evidence of integrity problems has been identified. Still, a final determination is not yet available, the Editor-in-Chief may publish an interim editor’s note attached to the original article. The interim note is identified by its own DOI and informs readers that an investigation is in progress, without prejudging its outcome. The interim note is superseded by the final corrective act (correction, expression of concern, retraction, or removal) once the investigation concludes.
Conflict of interest of the Editor-in-Chief in post-publication review. Where the article subject to post-publication review is co-authored by the Editor-in-Chief, by an Associate Editor, or by a member of the Editorial Board, or where the Editor-in-Chief has a substantial relationship with one or more of the authors that could compromise impartiality, the post-publication review is managed by an Associate Editor different from any author and free from conflicts of interest, in coordination with the Publisher. Where no Associate Editor free from conflicts is available, the case is referred to an external independent expert designated by the Publisher in consultation with the European Society of Gynecology. The conflicted Editor-in-Chief or Associate Editor is excluded from every phase of the decisional process. The fact that the case has been managed under this procedure is made explicit in the corrective notice, as a guarantee of transparency, in coherence with the procedure established in the Peer Review Policy (Section 21) for manuscripts authored by members of the Editorial Direction.
The confidentiality of the process is maintained throughout, consistent with the principles established in the Publication Ethics Policy and in the Peer Review Policy. The identity of the reporter is protected and may not be disclosed to the parties under investigation without the explicit consent of the reporter. Anonymous third-party reports and reports from external integrity researchers are evaluated based on the evidence presented, in accordance with COPE guidance on anonymous reports.
9. NOTIFICATION TO INDEXES AND DATABASES
Upon publication of a correction, retraction, expression of concern, or removal, the Editorial Direction notifies within 5 working days, in conformity with the NISO Communication of Retractions, Removals, and Expressions of Concern (CREC) Recommended Practice (NISO RP-45-2024):
• Crossref, through the deposit of the corrective notice with its own DOI and through the registration of the corresponding Crossmark update (Retraction, Correction, Expression of Concern, or Reinstatement, as applicable), with bidirectional metadata linkage between the original article and the corrective notice;
• PubMed and PubMed Central, where the article is indexed;
• DOAJ, where the article is registered;
• Scopus and Web of Science, where the Journal is indexed;
• preprint servers (such as medRxiv, bioRxiv, Research Square) where the article was previously deposited as a preprint, requesting the corresponding update of the preprint record;
• clinical trial registries (ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO ICTRP, EudraCT, and any other registry where the trial reported in the article was registered), to ensure that the registry record is updated with the post-publication status of the article;
• any other database, aggregator, or index in which the Journal is included at the time of publication of the corrective act.
The notification includes the DOI of both the original article and the corrective act, the nature of the corrective act (correction, retraction, expression of concern, or removal), and the metadata elements specified in the NISO CREC Recommended Practice to ensure consistent, machine-readable communication among stakeholders. The Journal maintains a record of all notifications issued.
10. VERSION OF RECORD AND PROHIBITION OF STEALTH CORRECTIONS
The Journal formally adopts the concept of Version of Record (VoR) as defined by international standards: the final, copyedited, typeset, and proofread version of an article published in European Gynecology and Obstetrics (EGO), constituting the citable and reliable entry in the scholarly record. Once an article reaches the status of Version of Record, no modification to its content is made without formal publication of a corresponding correction, retraction, expression of concern, or removal notice, in accordance with the procedures established in this policy.
The Journal expressly prohibits stealth corrections, that is, silent or undocumented modifications to the Version of Record. Any change to the published article, including correction of typographical errors that affect scientific content, must be accompanied by a publicly accessible notice that documents the change and is permanently linked to the article. The only exceptions to the requirement of a published notice are non-substantive interventions that do not alter the scientific content, such as correcting formatting errors that do not affect readability or interpretation, or repairing broken DOI or URL links to external resources.
This commitment to the integrity of the Version of Record is consistent with the NISO Communication of Retractions, Removals, and Expressions of Concern (CREC) Recommended Practice (NISO RP-45-2024), with the COPE Retraction Guidelines, with the STM Association Guidelines on the Preservation of the Objective Record of Science (which establish that articles published as the Version of Record should remain extant, exact, and unaltered to the maximum extent possible), and with the principles of transparency required by the Directory of Open Access Journals.
The Journal publishes every accepted article in its Online First section as soon as production is complete, in advance of assignment to a numbered issue, as provided in the Submission Guidelines. The article published Online First is the Version of Record. The completion of bibliographic metadata that takes place when such an article is subsequently assigned to a numbered issue, namely the addition of volume, issue, and page range, with retention of the same Digital Object Identifier and the same stable URL, does not constitute a modification of the Version of Record and does not require a corrective notice under this Policy.
11. ACCESSIBILITY OF CORRECTED AND RETRACTED ARTICLES
Corrected articles remain accessible on the Journal platform and are updated with a prominent notice directing readers to the correction. Retracted articles remain permanently accessible on the Journal platform with a retraction watermark on every page of the full text and PDF, and with a clearly visible link to the retraction notice prominently displayed at the top of the article page. The DOI of the original article remains active and resolves to the article page.
The Journal does not remove retracted articles from the platform (except the specific cases of removal under section 6 of this policy), in conformity with COPE Retraction Guidelines and with the requirements of Crossref, PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science for the maintenance of the permanent and traceable scientific record. Requests from authors to remove retracted articles outside the cases governed by section 6 are declined, with an explanation of the policy rationale. The metadata of removed articles, when removal is applied under section 6, remains accessible to ensure traceability of the editorial action.
The long-term digital preservation of all published articles, including retracted articles and corrective notices, is ensured through the archiving services outlined in the Editorial Policy Statement (Section 25) and detailed in the Journal's Digital Preservation Policy. The archived versions retain each article's post-publication editorial status (correction, retraction, expression of concern, or removal), ensuring that the editorial history of the scientific record remains accessible even in the event of disruption to the active platform.
12. PLAGIARISM, SELF-PLAGIARISM AND TEXT RECYCLING
All manuscripts submitted to European Gynecology and Obstetrics (EGO) undergo systematic similarity-check screening using internationally recognized tools (Crossref Similarity Check/iThenticate or equivalents), as described in the Peer Review Policy (Section 6, Phase 2). The operational threshold for attention is set at 20 percent of the overall similarity index, with case-by-case qualitative assessment by the Editorial Direction, in accordance with the interpretive criteria established in the Peer Review Policy.
Plagiarism identified before publication. Manuscripts in which plagiarism is identified at the screening or peer review stage are desk rejected without external review, with formal communication to the corresponding author specifying the nature and extent of the overlap identified. Where the plagiarism involves a specific identifiable source, the Editorial Direction notifies the editors of the source journal. Where the evidence suggests intentional misconduct, the Editorial Direction may notify the authors' institution of affiliation.
Self-plagiarism and text recycling. Overlaps attributable to the authors' own previously published work are assessed on a case-by-case basis, distinguishing:
• legitimate self-citation and quotation, in which the authors cite and properly attribute their previous work within the accepted conventions of the discipline;
• undisclosed text recycling, in which the authors reuse substantial portions of their own previously published text in a new manuscript without attribution, which constitutes a form of misconduct managed according to the applicable COPE flowchart;
• redundant publication, in which the authors report the same study or the same dataset in two or more articles without cross-reference, which is managed as duplicate publication under section 13 of this policy.
Plagiarism identified after publication. Suspected plagiarism in a published article is handled in accordance with the applicable COPE flowchart. Depending on the extent of the plagiarism and its impact on the validity of the conclusions, the outcome may be a corrigendum, an expression of concern, or a retraction. The Journal notifies the editors of the affected source journal and, where the evidence supports intentional misconduct, the authors' institution of affiliation and, where relevant, the funding bodies.
13. DUPLICATE PUBLICATION
Duplicate publication occurs when the same study or substantially overlapping findings and data are published in two or more journals without appropriate prior disclosure, cross-reference, and consent of the editorial teams involved. Submitting the same manuscript to two or more journals simultaneously constitutes dual submission, which is governed by the Peer Review Policy (Section17).
Duplicate publication identified before acceptance results in immediate desk rejection, with formal communication to the corresponding author and, where the overlap involves a specifically identifiable previously published article, notification to the editors of the other journal. Duplicate publication identified after publication is managed according to the applicable COPE flowchart. It normally results in retraction of the later-published article, with formal notification to the editors of both journals and to the author's institution of affiliation.
14. IMAGE AND GRAPHICAL DATA INTEGRITY
Images contained in manuscripts, including clinical photographs, histological images, gel and blot images, radiological scans, microscopy images, and any other graphic material of demonstrative scientific significance, must faithfully represent the original data. The following types of manipulation are expressly prohibited:
• selective removal, addition, relocation, or duplication of elements within an image, including the removal of bands, spots, or signals from gel or blot images;
• assembly of composite images from different experimental conditions without explicit and clearly visible labeling of the composite nature and origin of each component;
• application of non-uniform brightness, contrast, or color balance adjustments to selected areas of an image;
• use of an image from one experimental condition, time point, or sample to represent a different experimental condition, time point, or sample;
• generation or modification of images using generative artificial intelligence tools in ways that alter the scientific content or create representations not grounded in actual experimental data.
Modifications applied uniformly to the entire image (overall brightness, contrast, or color balance adjustments) are permitted provided they do not obscure, eliminate, or distort information present in the original data, and provided their application is disclosed in the figure legend.
The Journal applies image forensics screening at the editorial assessment stage and post-publication, using internationally recognized tools (such as Imagetwin, Proofig, or equivalent forensic software) where appropriate, in addition to expert visual review. The Journal reserves the right to request high-resolution original image files, raw data files, and instrument output files from authors at any stage of the editorial process, including post-publication, without justifying the request.
Suspected image manipulation identified during the editorial process is managed according to the applicable COPE flowchart and may lead to desk rejection, suspension of the review process, request for clarification and raw files, or rejection. Suspected image manipulation identified in a published article may lead to an expression of concern, a corrigendum, or a retraction depending on the severity of the manipulation and its impact on the scientific validity of the conclusions.
15. AUTHORSHIP MISCONDUCT
The Journal recognizes the following forms of authorship misconduct, each managed according to the applicable COPE flowchart:
• Ghost authorship. The omission from the author list of individuals who have made substantial contributions meeting all 4 ICMJE authorship criteria and who should therefore be recognized as authors.
• Gift authorship. The inclusion in the author list of individuals who have not made substantial contributions that meet ICMJE authorship criteria, regardless of their seniority, institutional position, or funding.
• Coerced authorship. The inclusion or exclusion of an individual from the author list without their knowledge or against their expressed will. This encompasses situations arising from the exercise of institutional hierarchy, professional pressure or supervisory authority that overrides the individual's free consent, including: (a) the requirement by a supervisor, principal investigator or institutional authority that their name be added to the author list as a condition of providing resources, laboratory access, funding or approval, in the absence of qualifying contributions under the ICMJE criteria; (b) the deliberate exclusion from the author list of a student, trainee or early-career researcher who has made qualifying contributions, through the exercise of supervisory authority; and (c) the inclusion of any individual whose nominal presence misrepresents who conducted and who bears responsibility for the research. The complete definition and the applicable assessment criteria are set out in Section 9.3 of the Authorship Policy (AUP), to which this section refers for interpretive purposes.
• Identity theft and fictitious authorship. The use of another researcher’s identity without authorization, or the inclusion in the author list of fabricated, unverifiable, or non-existent persons. Both constitute serious misconduct and grounds for retraction.
Authorship misconduct identified before publication results in suspension of the editorial process pending resolution of the authorship dispute. The Editorial Direction does not adjudicate authorship disputes between authors but facilitates communication and, where necessary, refers the matter to the authors' institutions of affiliation. Authorship misconduct identified after publication may result in a corrigendum (where the authorship can be corrected), an expression of concern (where the investigation is pending), or a retraction (where the misconduct is sufficiently serious to render the published record unreliable). The ICMJE authorship criteria and CRediT taxonomy requirements applicable to EGO submissions are detailed in the Authorship Policy.
16. CITATION MANIPULATION AND OTHER FORMS OF MISCONDUCT
Citation manipulation includes any deliberate practice aimed at artificially inflating citation counts without scientific justification. The following forms are recognized:
• Citation stacking. The systematic and unjustified mutual citation among a group of authors or journals, organized to inflate citation metrics artificially.
• Coercive citation. Requests by editors, reviewers, or any other party to authors to add citations to specific articles without scientific justification, whether as a condition of acceptance or in any other coercive form. Any such request directed at authors of manuscripts under assessment at the European Gynecology and Obstetrics (EGO) must be reported to the Editor-in-Chief immediately.
• Self-citation manipulation. Excessive and unjustified self-citation by authors, disproportionate to the scientific relevance of the cited works to the manuscript submitted.
Other forms of misconduct covered by this policy include: fabrication and falsification of data as defined in section 3; misrepresentation of conflicts of interest constituting a substantial and material non-disclosure; undisclosed involvement of generative artificial intelligence in the production of substantive parts of the manuscript; and any other deliberate misrepresentation of the conduct, findings, or attribution of the research. All suspected cases are managed according to the applicable COPE flowcharts. Citation manipulation, AI-related misconduct, or data misconduct identified in a published article may lead to an expression of concern, a correction, or a retraction depending on the nature and severity of the misconduct and its impact on the published findings.
17. RESEARCH ETHICS VIOLATIONS
Research ethics violations constitute grounds for retraction when they affect the fundamental legitimacy of the research and cannot be remedied post-publication. This policy covers the following violations:
• conduct of research on human subjects without documented approval from a competent and independent ethics committee or institutional review board, or without documented informed consent of participants, in violation of the Declaration of Helsinki and of the Research Ethics Policy;
• conduct of animal research without compliance with ARRIVE Guidelines and applicable national and institutional regulations on the care and use of animals in research;
• failure to register clinical trials prospectively in a recognized public registry (ClinicalTrials.gov or an ICTRP-WHO compliant registry), where such registration was required by applicable guidelines at the time the trial commenced;
• violations of personal data protection law applicable to the research, including EU Regulation 2016/679 (GDPR) and equivalent national legislation, in ways that cannot be adequately remedied.
Research ethics violations identified before acceptance result in desk rejection, with formal communication to the corresponding author specifying the nature of the violation. Research ethics violations identified after publication are managed in accordance with the applicable COPE flowchart and typically result in retraction, as the absence of ethics committee approval or informed consent cannot be remedied post-publication. The Editorial Direction notifies the authors' institution of affiliation and, where relevant, the funding bodies and regulatory authorities.
18. INSTITUTIONAL NOTIFICATION AND EXTERNAL REPORTING
In cases of serious misconduct, the Editorial Direction reserves the right and, in appropriate cases, assumes responsibility for notifying external parties. The following principles govern external notification:
Institution of affiliation. The Editorial Direction notifies the institution of affiliation for the authors involved when evidence supports serious misconduct (fabrication or falsification of data, substantial plagiarism, serious authorship misconduct, paper mill involvement, identity theft, or serious research ethics violations). Notification is factual, proportionate, and consistent with COPE guidelines on communicating with institutions.
Funding bodies. The Editorial Direction notifies the funding bodies that supported the research where the misconduct involves misuse of research funds or where the terms of the funding require such notification.
Regulatory and supervisory authorities. Notification to regulatory or supervisory authorities is made when required by applicable law or regulation, or when the public safety implications of the misconduct necessitate such notification.
Other journals. The Editorial Direction notifies the editors of other journals where related work has been published when there are reasonable grounds to believe that the misconduct identified in the EGO submission may affect those publications.
Third-party reports and integrity researchers. The Journal welcomes reports from third-party integrity researchers and from post-publication peer-review communities. Such reports are assessed based on the evidence presented, in accordance with COPE guidance on anonymous and third-party reports. The Journal distinguishes between legitimate evidence-based reports, which are evaluated on their merits, and patterns of behavior that may amount to defamatory or harassing complaints, which are managed in accordance with COPE guidance.
All external notifications are issued only after a preliminary assessment has determined their necessity, in a factually and proportionately justified manner, without premature attribution of guilt. Copies of all external notifications are retained in the editorial record of the manuscript.
19. WORDING OF CORRECTIVE NOTICES AND RIGHTS OF INVOLVED AUTHORS
The wording of correction notices, retraction notices, expression of concern notices, and removal notices follows specific principles to ensure factual accuracy, proportionality, and protection from defamation claims, consistent with the COPE Retraction Guidelines:
• Factuality. The wording is limited to proven facts established through the editorial assessment and any institutional or external investigation. Speculation, unverified motives, or unproven elements are not included.
• Proportionality. The notice describes the nature and extent of the issue in proportion to the evidence available, without excess or understatement.
• Avoidance of ad hominem and personal attacks. The notice does not engage in personal attacks against the authors or other parties involved. Statements about misconduct findings are included only when properly attributed to the body that made the finding (such as an institutional or funder investigation).
• Attribution of responsibility where appropriate. Where retraction is due to the actions of some, but not all, of the authors of a publication, the notice mentions this fact whenever possible. However, authorship entails some degree of joint responsibility for the integrity of the reported research, and accordingly, the authors' names are not removed from the publication record, even if the individuals were not directly culpable for the actions leading to the retraction.
Author consent to wording. Where feasible, the Editorial Direction seeks the consent of the authors to the specific wording of the retraction or expression of concern notice. Author consent to the wording, where obtained, may provide a defense against defamation claims and is recorded in the editorial file. The absence of author consent does not prevent the publication of the corrective notice where the Editorial Direction determines that publication is necessary to protect the integrity of the scientific record.
Right of reply of authors. Authors who consider that a corrective notice misrepresents the facts or contains errors may submit a reasoned request for amendment of the wording. The Editor-in-Chief and, where appropriate, assesses the request and leads to the publication of an amended notice or of a separate clarification statement, in accordance with the appeal procedure outlined in section 20 of this policy.
20. APPEALS AGAINST MISCONDUCT-RELATED DECISIONS
Authors who consider that a decision to retract an article, issue an expression of concern, remove an article, or apply other corrective measures was made in error, in violation of procedural fairness, or without adequate consideration of the available evidence may submit a formal appeal to the Editor-in-Chief within 30 days from communication of the decision.
The appeal must be reasoned and must identify specifically the grounds on which the decision is challenged. Appeals based solely on disagreement with the editorial judgment, on personal or emotional arguments, or on the mere repetition of arguments already considered in the original process are not admissible. The admissibility criteria and the probative standards for each possible outcome of the appeal are governed by the provisions established in the Peer Review Policy (Section 16). They will be further developed in the forthcoming Complaints, Appeals and Whistleblowing Policy.
The submission of an appeal does not suspend publication of the already decided and communicated corrective act. However, the corrective act will include a notice that an appeal has been submitted and is under examination. If the appeal is upheld and the corrective act is determined to have been issued in error, the act is formally retracted and replaced by a notice of withdrawal, published with its own DOI and permanently linked to the original article and to the withdrawn corrective act.
21. AUTHOR NAME AND METADATA CHANGES
21.1 Scope. This section governs requests for changes to the name under which an author is listed in a published article, and related metadata corrections (affiliations, ORCID identifiers). Such requests arise from 2 distinct circumstances: (a) a legal or preferred name change resulting from personal circumstances, including marriage, divorce, civil registration, or gender transition; or (b) a correction of an error in the original publication of author names, affiliations, or identifiers introduced by the Editorial Office or typesetter at the production stage. The 2 categories are governed by different procedures, as specified below.
21.2 Name changes due to personal circumstances. Where a change of name is requested in connection with personal circumstances, including gender transition or gender identity affirmation, the change is implemented as a metadata correction, without publication of an erratum or corrigendum notice, unless the author expressly requests one. No explanation, documentation, or justification for the change is required from the author. Implementation is completed within 30 working days of confirmation of the request and covers: (a) the article record in the OJS editorial platform; (b) the Crossref metadata deposit, including the author name field and any linked ORCID identifier; and (c) notifications to abstracting and indexing services in accordance with Section 9 of this Policy. If the author expressly requests that an editorial note or corrigendum be published, the request is accommodated in accordance with Section 4.
21.3 Name changes due to publication error. Where a change is requested to correct an error in the original publication introduced by the Editorial Office or typesetter (for example: transcription error, incorrect rendering of diacritical marks, transposition of given name and family name, or incorrect ORCID identifier), the correction is treated as an erratum in accordance with Section 4 of this Policy and published with its own DOI, bidirectionally linked to the corrected article.
21.4 Procedure. The author submits a written request to the Editorial Office specifying: (a) the article or articles concerned, identified by DOI or volume/issue reference; (b) the name or identifier as currently appearing in the publication; (c) the corrected name or identifier as it should appear; and (d) whether the request falls under Section 22.2 (personal circumstances) or Section 22.3 (publication error). For requests under Section 22.2, no documentation or justification is required. For requests under Section 22.3, the author may be asked to provide the relevant correspondence or submission records demonstrating the error. The Editorial Office acknowledges receipt within 5 working days and communicates the assessment outcome within 15 working days.
21.5 Confidentiality. All name change requests processed under Section 22.2 are handled with full confidentiality. The reason for the request is not disclosed to editors, reviewers, members of the Editorial Board, or any third party. The Privacy and Data Protection Policy and applicable data protection law govern data processing carried out in connection with name change requests.
21.6 Cross-reference. The Diversity, Equity, Inclusion and Accessibility Policy (Section 12) sets out the Journal's institutional commitment to the non-discriminatory and confidential handling of author name change requests, including those resulting from gender transition. This section governs the procedural and technical implementation of that commitment.
22. WITHDRAWAL OF ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPTS PRIOR TO PUBLICATION
22.1 Scope. This section governs requests by authors to withdraw a manuscript that has been formally accepted for publication but has not yet been published online. Requests to withdraw a submission before acceptance are governed by the Submission Guidelines. Once an article has been published online, including publication in the Online First section of the Journal website, it constitutes a published article, and its removal from the scholarly record is governed exclusively by Section 5 (Retractions) and Section 6 (Removal) of this Policy.
22.2 Effect of acceptance. Upon acceptance, the corresponding author, acting on behalf of all authors, grants to the Publisher the license to publish set out in the Copyright and Licensing Policy. From that moment the authors no longer hold an unconditional right to withdraw the manuscript. This position is consistent with the COPE position statement on handling author requests to remove their submission, which identifies the signature of the license agreement as the point beyond which unconditional withdrawal ceases to be available to authors.
22.3 Procedure. A request to withdraw an accepted manuscript is submitted in writing to the Editorial Office by the corresponding author, states the grounds for the request in detail, and is accompanied by the written consent of all co-authors. The Editorial Office acknowledges receipt within 5 working days and suspends production of the article pending a decision. The decision rests with the Editor-in-Chief, who communicates it in writing, with reasons, within 20 working days of receipt of a complete request.
22.4 Grounds warranting acceptance of the request. The Editor-in-Chief normally grants a withdrawal request where: (a) the authors have identified a substantive error in the data or in the analysis that invalidates the findings and that cannot be remedied by correction of the accepted text; (b) an ethical, legal, or research integrity concern has emerged that would preclude publication under this Policy or under the Research Ethics Policy; (c) an authorship dispute has arisen that prevents the identification of the legitimate author list; (d) an error by the Journal in the conduct of the editorial process has materially affected the acceptance decision; or (e) other exceptional circumstances that, in the judgement of the Editor-in-Chief, make publication inappropriate.
22.5 Grounds not warranting acceptance of the request. A request based solely on the intention of the authors to submit the manuscript to another journal, including a journal perceived to carry greater prestige or a higher citation-based indicator, does not constitute a legitimate ground for withdrawal. COPE regards such conduct as unethical, since it appropriates the Journal's editorial and peer-review resources and those of its reviewers without contributing to the scholarly record. Where the Editor-in-Chief declines a withdrawal request on this ground, publication proceeds in accordance with the license granted upon acceptance.
22.6 Withdrawal where an integrity investigation is pending. A withdrawal request submitted after the Editorial Office has initiated an investigation under this Policy does not suspend that investigation. It does not entitle the authors to the removal of the manuscript from the editorial record. The investigation is concluded, its outcome is recorded, and, where appropriate, the institutions of affiliation are notified in accordance with Section 18, irrespective of whether the manuscript is ultimately published.
22.7 Record, transparency, and consequences. Every withdrawal request and its outcome are recorded in the editorial file of the manuscript and retained in accordance with the archiving provisions of the Peer Review Policy. Where a withdrawal is granted, no public notice is published, since the article has not entered the scholarly record. The Journal levies no charge on authors in any circumstance, in accordance with the Article Processing Charges Policy, and accordingly applies no withdrawal fee and maintains no watch list of authors. Where a request is declined, and the authors subsequently submit the same manuscript to another journal, the Editor-in-Chief may inform the editor of the receiving journal that the manuscript has been accepted for publication in European Gynecology and Obstetrics, in accordance with Section 13 and Section 18.
22.8 Appeal. The authors may appeal a decision to decline a withdrawal request in accordance with the Complaints, Appeals and Whistleblowing Policy.
23. REFERENCE STANDARDS
This policy is drafted in compliance with the following international standards:
• COPE - Committee on Publication Ethics, Retraction Guidelines (2025 version);
• COPE - Core Practices;
• COPE Flowcharts for the management of misconduct cases (plagiarism, duplicate publication, image manipulation, authorship disputes, citation manipulation, fraudulent peer review, paper mill involvement);
• NISO Communication of Retractions, Removals, and Expressions of Concern (CREC) Recommended Practice (NISO RP-45-2024), formally endorsed by COPE;
• STM Association Guidelines on the Preservation of the Objective Record of Science;
• ICMJE - Recommendations for the Conduct, Reporting, Editing, and Publication of Scholarly Work in Medical Journals;
• DOAJ - Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing;
• Crossref - Metadata standards for corrections, retractions, removals, and expressions of concern;
• WMA - Declaration of Helsinki, latest version in force;
• ARRIVE Guidelines for animal research reporting;
• EU Regulation 2016/679 (GDPR) for the protection of personal data in research.
• Post-Publication Discussions Policy: EGO editorial policy governing post-publication discussions, including letters, correspondence, and rapid responses, as a channel for identifying concerns that may require action under this Policy.
• COPE Guidance on handling author name change requests post-publication. Committee on Publication Ethics. Current version. publicationethics.org.
• COPE Position Statement on handling author requests to remove their submission. Committee on Publication Ethics. Current version. publicationethics.org.