All authors are expected to review and assess any questions or concerns raised about their preprint or publication, including issues related to underlying data, figures, or analyses. Such questions or concerns may be raised through a variety of channels, including public comments on journal platforms, correspondence to the journal, post-publication peer review forums, or other public or professional discussions. This process should be approached objectively and transparently, with a focus on preserving research integrity. 

Key steps may include:

1. Re-examining Original Data and Materials

• Revisit raw data, lab notebooks, code, and analytical workflows.
• Confirm that results were accurately reported and that no errors occurred in data handling, analysis, or interpretation.
• Verify that all figures, tables, and supplementary materials correctly reflect the underlying data.

2. Reassessing Methods and Analyses

• Evaluate whether the methodology was applied as described.
• Check for computational, statistical, or procedural errors.
• Consider whether alternative interpretations of the data may be valid.

3. Consulting Co-authors and Contributors

• Notify all co-authors of the question or concern.
• Collaboratively review the issue and agree on an appropriate course of action.
• Ensure that all perspectives are considered and documented.

Taking Appropriate Action

If the review identifies an error or issue that affects the preprint or publication, authors should act promptly and responsibly:

• Errors that do not affect the overall conclusions may warrant a formal correction (erratum or corrigendum). 
  • Examples include typographical mistakes, labeling errors, or the inclusion of an incorrect or duplicated image in a main or supplementary figure.
• Substantive issues that impact results or interpretations may require more significant amendments or, in some cases, retraction.
  • Examples include errors in data analysis that alter key findings, use of incorrect or incomplete datasets, image manipulation or misrepresentation that affects the validity of results, methodological flaws that undermine the study’s conclusions, or failure to disclose critical information (e.g., conflicts of interest or key experimental conditions) that changes how the findings should be interpreted.

When a correction or clarification is warranted, please contact the journal or preprint server for guidance on the appropriate process for correcting any errors or issues that are identified.

Commitment to Transparency

All authors are expected to:

• Respond to concerns in a timely and professional manner.
• Be transparent about errors and corrective actions.
• Prioritize the integrity of the scientific record.

Timely engagement with post-publication questions or concerns is essential to maintaining the integrity of the scholarly record. 

If such concerns are not reviewed and addressed in a timely manner by the authors, they may be escalated by the individuals who raised them to the institution or, where relevant, to the sponsor(s) of the research.

When research integrity concerns are escalated to the institution, they may be assessed in accordance with Brown’s Policy on Handling Allegations of Research Misconduct, Brown’s Standard Operating Procedures for Handling Allegations of Research Misconduct, and applicable sponsor policies, which can involve a formal assessment, inquiry and/or investigation process.

When errors are flagged on public websites or forums, researchers should refrain from including or referencing publications containing flagged but uncorrected errors in applications or progress reports to federal or other external funders. This is to protect against compliance risks related to pending and active research awards.

Please reach out to ori-admin@brown.edu with any questions related to author responsibilities for preprints and post-publication review.