An editorial expression of concern is a notice a journal publishes to flag credible but unresolved doubts about a paper’s reliability, without retracting it. Editors use it instead of a retraction when the evidence is inconclusive, an institutional investigation is ongoing, or a fair resolution will take months rather than weeks.
An editorial expression of concern (sometimes abbreviated EEoC) is defined by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) as a journal notice about potential misconduct or unreliable findings, issued when the available evidence does not yet meet the threshold for a correction or a retraction. It sits deliberately between silence and withdrawal — a middle mechanism the scholarly record uses to signal risk without pre-judging guilt.
- What is an editorial expression of concern?
- Expression of concern vs retraction: what’s the difference?
- When does COPE say editors should issue one?
- Corrigendum vs erratum vs expression of concern: where each notice fits
- Frequently asked questions
- Implications for institutions, publishers and researchers
What is an editorial expression of concern?
An editorial expression of concern is a public, freely accessible notice — linked bidirectionally to the article it concerns — that tells readers a paper’s integrity is in question. Wikipedia’s entry on the topic describes it simply as “a notice issued by a publisher against a particular publication, warning that it may contain errors or be otherwise untrustworthy,” citing Morris, Barnas, LaFrenier and Reich’s Handbook of Journal Publishing (Cambridge University Press, 2013).
Crucially, an expression of concern does not itself amend the scientific record. The original article remains published, unaltered, alongside the notice. It is a flag, not a verdict — and that distinction is precisely why journals reach for it before they reach for a retraction.
Expression of concern vs retraction: what’s the difference?
A retraction is a formal withdrawal: editors have concluded, on clear grounds, that a paper’s findings are unreliable because of fabrication, falsification, plagiarism, an invalidating honest error, or an unresolved ethical breach. COPE’s Retraction Guidelines (Version 3, 2025) set out the timing, content and evidentiary bar for that step. A retraction changes how the article is labelled in perpetuity; it does not usually remove the text, but it marks it as withdrawn from the reliable literature.
An expression of concern makes no such finding. It is an interim or, occasionally, a terminal notice used precisely because the evidence does not yet support — or may never support — a definitive retraction decision. The International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE), in its December 2019 recommendations on “Scientific Misconduct, Expressions of Concern, and Retraction,” acknowledges that a publisher may issue an expression of concern while a misconduct investigation is ongoing, and pending its outcome, rather than waiting in silence or retracting prematurely.
| Feature | Expression of concern | Retraction |
|---|---|---|
| Evidence threshold | Inconclusive or investigation ongoing | Clear grounds established |
| Effect on the article | Article stands, flagged with a linked notice | Article marked withdrawn from the record |
| Typical trigger | Credible allegation, pending institutional inquiry | Confirmed fabrication, falsification, plagiarism or invalidating error |
| Finality | Interim — or occasionally the final outcome if no further update is expected | Final |
When does COPE say editors should issue one?
COPE’s dedicated guideline on expressions of concern gives editors concrete criteria. It states that editors should consider issuing an expression of concern if significant and credible concerns have been raised but the evidence is unclear as to whether the work, or parts of it, are potentially unreliable — whether from error, incorrect analysis, or research-integrity concerns affecting the main findings.
Other qualifying scenarios include:
- An institutional, funding, or other formal oversight investigation is ongoing and may lead to corrections based on the work’s reliability.
- Authors have been asked for additional information to address concerns, and it is not immediately available.
- There is an unresolved breach of journal or publisher policy — for example, data that were available at publication but later withheld.
- A resolution is not expected for some time, typically several months.
COPE is equally clear about when an expression of concern is not appropriate: if the editor can quickly reach a decision, if resolution is only weeks away, if the main findings remain reliable, or if the sole concern relates to authorship rather than the underlying findings. Publishing a notice that will be superseded within weeks risks confusing readers rather than informing them.
Corrigendum vs erratum vs expression of concern: where each notice fits
Expressions of concern sit alongside — but are distinct from — the more routine correction notices journals issue. In standard publishing practice, a corrigendum is a correction initiated by the authors themselves to fix an error they introduced (a wrong affiliation, a miscalculated value, an omitted co-author), while an erratum corrects a mistake introduced by the publisher during production or typesetting — the classic corrigendum vs erratum distinction. Neither implies a reliability concern about the underlying findings; both simply amend the published record.
The National Information Standards Organization’s 2024 recommended practice, NISO RP-45-2024, “Communication of Retractions, Removals, and Expressions of Concern (CREC),” formalises how publishers and indexers should structure and disseminate these various post-publication notices so that the scholarly record — and the systems that index it — stay consistent across platforms.
| Notice type | Who initiates it | What it signals | Effect on the record |
|---|---|---|---|
| Corrigendum | Authors | Author-side error in an otherwise sound paper | Text amended; original findings stand |
| Erratum | Publisher | Production or typesetting error | Text amended; original findings stand |
| Expression of concern | Editors/publisher | Credible, unresolved doubt about reliability | Article stands, flagged pending outcome |
| Retraction | Editors/publisher | Confirmed unreliability or misconduct | Article marked withdrawn |
Related questionable research practices — undisclosed image manipulation, salami-slicing, or selective reporting — often surface first through post-publication scrutiny on platforms such as PubPeer, which can prompt an editor to move from silence toward one of these four notice types.
Frequently asked questions
What is an editorial expression of concern?
An editorial expression of concern is a notice issued by editors or a publisher to draw attention to potential problems in a published paper, without itself constituting a retraction or a correction. It flags unresolved doubt while the article remains part of the published record.
What is an example of when an expression of concern applies?
COPE gives the example of an editor receiving inconclusive evidence of misconduct, or learning that findings appear unreliable but the authors’ institution declines to investigate. In both cases, the concern is credible but not yet provable, so a flag — not a withdrawal — is the appropriate response.
What is the difference between an expression of concern and a retraction?
An expression of concern is a provisional flag issued when evidence is incomplete; a retraction is a final, formal withdrawal issued once editors have established clear grounds — fabrication, falsification, plagiarism, or an invalidating error. One pauses judgement; the other delivers it.
Is Retraction Watch a credible source for tracking these notices?
Retraction Watch is widely cited by researchers, journalists and integrity officers as a tracking resource and maintains a large public database of retractions. It is a secondary aggregator, not a standards body — for authoritative process guidance, COPE, ICMJE and NISO remain the primary reference sources.
Implications for institutions, publishers and researchers
For research administrators and institutional integrity officers, an expression of concern on a faculty member’s paper is not proof of misconduct — but it is a signal that warrants tracking, particularly where funding, promotion, or REF-style assessment exercises depend on the work’s standing. Institutions should distinguish, in their own case-management records, between papers carrying a corrigendum or erratum (routine) and those carrying an expression of concern (an active, unresolved integrity question).
For publishers and journal editors, COPE’s criteria function as a due-process safeguard: they prevent both premature retraction, which can unfairly damage careers, and prolonged silence, which leaves readers citing potentially unreliable findings unwarned. NISO RP-45-2024’s structured communication requirements push this further, aiming to make expressions of concern discoverable wherever an article is indexed, not just on the publisher’s own site.
As post-publication scrutiny — via PubPeer, institutional audits, and journal-side data checks — continues to intensify, expressions of concern are likely to become a more visible, more standardised fixture of the published record, sitting permanently between the routine correction and the definitive retraction.
