Documentation

Version control, corrections, and retractions

Version control is the management of changes to a document, file, or dataset. Versions of a document may include the following:

• Draft
• Preprint - early draft or manuscript shared by researcher in a preprint repository or dedicated channel (outside of a specific journal)
• Pending publication (PP) - a manuscript which has been accepted but has not yet been published online
• Advanced online publication or ahead of print (AOP) - early release of publication which publisher makes available to readers on their platform (prior to typesetting or before final published form)
• Author accepted manuscript (AAM) - accepted version which has been peer reviewed but not typeset or copyedited
• Version of record (VoR) - typeset, copyedited, and published version
• Updated - adding supplementary data or making corrections to the file, or its retraction.

Version control is important for:

• traceability (following the development of the document),
• identifiability (connecting documents to decisions, contributions, contributors, and time),
• clarity (distinguishing between multiple versions of documents, and identifying the latest version),
• reduced duplication (removing out-of-date versions), and
• reduced errors (clearly indicating to readers which is the current version).

Publication stages and DOIs

How do I decide if I should assign a DOI to a work, and at what stage? This table sets out seven publication stages of a research object (a publication such as a journal article, book, or dataset). A work may not go through all of these seven stages, so you only need to consider the stages relevant to your publication.

• A DOI should not be assigned to a draft (unpublished) work.
• A preprint should have its own DOI (DOI A).
• Accepted versions (including PP, AOP, AAM, and VoR) should have a separate DOI (DOI B). Establish a relationship between DOI B and DOI A to show the connection between them, such as DOI B “hasPreprint” DOI A.
• In the case of a significant change to the published version, a notice should be published explaining the correction/update/retraction. The updated version should have a new DOI (DOI C). Updates should only be deposited for changes that are likely to affect the interpretation or crediting of the work (editorially significant changes), and instead of simply asserting a relationship, these should be recorded as updates. See the following section for more information on updates.

Best practices for handling retractions and other post-publication updates

Research can undergo changes after it is published for various reasons. For example, it may be withdrawn, corrected, or retracted. It’s important that these changes are accurately reflected in the scholarly record, so that readers know how to find the most up-to-date work, as well as what research can be relied upon and cited.

When an editorially significant update is made to a document, you should not modify the original document, but instead issue a separate document (such as a correction or retraction notice) which explains the change. This separate document will have a different DOI and different metadata from the document that it updates. This process is complementary to versioning.

×

The metadata for the update should include a link to the item being updated, as well as information on the type of update, as part of the Crossmark section of the metadata:

<updates>
<update type="retraction" label="Retraction" date="2009-09-14">10.5555/12345678</update>
</updates>

A full example of an XML file following best practice can be found here. If you are not comfortable editing XML, you can also register Crossmark metadata using our Web Deposit Form.

Note that you don’t need to use all aspects of Crossmark to register updates. Learn more about the different ways of registering updates in our documentation.

You should also reflect the status of the work in the original DOI’s metadata record by adding “RETRACTED:” in front of the article title. We recommend doing the same for the title listed on the item’s landing page. You may also want to replace the abstract of the work with a retraction statement in both the metadata and on your website or publishing platform.

Finally, if you participate in the Similarity Check service, you should remove the full-text URL from the item’s metadata. To get a retracted work to be removed from the Similarity Check text comparison database, get in touch with Turnitin at [email protected].

Reading list

• COPE guidelines for retracting articles - from the Committee on Publication Ethics
• Communication of Retractions, Removals, and Expressions of Concern: Recommendations of the NISO CREC Working Group (opens .pdf file)
• Journal Article Versions: Recommendations of the NISO/ALPSP JAV Technical Working Group (opens .pdf file)
• Errata, Retractions, and Other Linked Citations in PubMed
• Webinar recording: Crossref and CREC: how publishers can meet the CREC recommendations using open infrastructure (passcode: 1EuTA$7$)