Skip to main content
v2026.11,772 entries · CC-BY 4.0
Dictionary termTrack DProposedv2026.2

Expression of concern

An expression of concern (EoC) is a formal editorial notice, published by a journal and attached to a specific article, alerting readers to credible, unresolved doubts about the reliability of that article's data, methods, or conclusions. It is distinct from a retraction: an EoC does not remove the article's standing in the literature, and it is issued specifically when the available evidence does not (yet) meet the bar for retraction, or when conclusive evidence cannot be obtained within a reasonable time.

ByCASRAI Editorial Board
· Last updated 22 Aug 2026
Share this

Ask CASRAI · included with Regulatory Radar

Ask about Expression of concern

Ask CASRAI answers research-administration questions and cites the passages behind every claim — and says so when the corpus does not cover something, instead of guessing. It comes with a Regulatory Radar subscription at $29 a month, alongside the daily digest of regulatory changes and the dashboard of what changed.

150 questions a day, on this site, over the API, or inside your own tools through the CASRAI MCP server.

Everything CASRAI publishes — this page, the dictionary, the guides and the news — stays free to read, with no account and no card.

Examples

Worked examples

  • Is an instance

    A journal issues an EoC while an institutional research-integrity office investigates reported image duplication in the paper.

Counter-examples

Looks similar, but isn't

  • Not an instance

    A minor, acknowledged error that doesn't affect the paper's conclusions gets a correction, not an EoC.

Editorial commentary

An expression of concern (EoC) is a formal editorial notice, published by a journal and attached to a specific article, alerting readers to credible, unresolved doubts about the article’s reliability. Per COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics) guidance, an editor typically issues an EoC rather than proceeding straight to retraction when: an investigation into the concern (institutional, funder, or journal-led) is still ongoing and its outcome will take time; the editor has been unable to obtain the information needed from authors or their institution to reach a conclusion; or there is a clear breach of publication or research-integrity policy that cannot be resolved through a simple correction, but the underlying data or findings have not (yet) been shown to be unreliable enough to warrant retraction.

Expression of concern vs. retraction

The two notices sit at different points on the same spectrum. A correction addresses a discrete, non-fundamental error. A retraction is COPE’s mechanism for removing an article’s standing when the findings or conclusions can no longer be relied upon — for confirmed data fabrication, falsification, plagiarism, or unresolvable authorship/ethical breaches. An EoC sits between the two: it does not withdraw the paper’s conclusions, it flags that readers should treat them with caution pending resolution. COPE’s own guidance frames it explicitly as an interim measure, not a permanent endpoint — the expectation is that an EoC is eventually replaced by either a correction (if concerns are resolved without invalidating the work) or a retraction (if they are not).

What it means for the paper

An article under an EoC remains part of the published literature and remains citable, but the EoC itself should always be cited alongside it — indexers (Crossref, PubMed) link the EoC and the original article bidirectionally, and a reader or citing author should treat the flagged concerns as material to how the findings are used. In practice, COPE and outside observers (including Retraction Watch’s ongoing reporting) have noted that many EoCs remain unresolved for years, because the institutional investigations they are waiting on stall or are never transparently reported back to the journal. COPE’s more recent guidance has pushed toward tighter language discouraging journals from leaving an EoC open indefinitely simply because an institutional process has stalled — see CASRAI’s COPE overview for how this fits into COPE’s broader Retraction Guidelines.

Example: A journal publishes an EoC on a paper after an institutional research-integrity office opens a formal inquiry into image duplication reported by third-party sleuths, while that inquiry is ongoing.

Counter-example: A paper with a minor, acknowledged unit-conversion error that does not affect its conclusions receives a correction, not an EoC — the underlying reliability of the work was never in credible doubt.

References

  • COPE Retraction Guidelines, v2 (November 2019), DOI 10.24318/cope.2019.1.4
  • COPE, Expressions of concern guidance
  • ICMJE Recommendations on corrections, retractions, and expressions of concern

Also known as

EoC · editorial expression of concern

Machine-readable encodings

Use in your systems

JATS XML <role> element
xml
<role vocab="credit"
      vocab-identifier="https://casrai.org/dictionary/"
      vocab-term="Expression of concern"
      vocab-term-identifier="https://casrai.org/dictionary/term/expression-of-concern" />
Schema.org DefinedTerm (JSON-LD)
json
{
  "@context": "https://schema.org",
  "@type": "DefinedTerm",
  "@id": "https://casrai.org/dictionary/term/expression-of-concern",
  "name": "Expression of concern",
  "identifier": "https://casrai.org/dictionary/term/expression-of-concern",
  "description": "An expression of concern (EoC) is a formal editorial notice, published by a journal and attached to a specific article, alerting readers to credible, unresolved doubts about the reliability of that article's data, methods, or conclusions. It is distinct from a retraction: an EoC does not remove the article's standing in the literature, and it is issued specifically when the available evidence does not (yet) meet the bar for retraction, or when conclusive evidence cannot be obtained within a reasonable time.",
  "inDefinedTermSet": "https://casrai.org/dictionary/domain/research-integrity#set",
  "url": "https://casrai.org/dictionary/term/expression-of-concern",
  "sameAs": [
    "EoC",
    "editorial expression of concern"
  ],
  "license": "https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/",
  "publisher": {
    "@id": "https://casrai.org/#organization"
  },
  "author": {
    "@id": "https://casrai.org/#editorial-team"
  },
  "datePublished": "2026-05-21T02:22:52",
  "dateModified": "2026-08-22T12:39:51",
  "inLanguage": "en-GB",
  "isAccessibleForFree": true
}

Referenced across the research world

University of Cambridge logoColumbia University logoCrossref logoUniversity of Edinburgh logoHarvard University logoUniversity of Oxford logoPrinceton University logoStanford School of Medicine logoUniversity College London logoORCID logoUniversity of Cambridge logoColumbia University logoCrossref logoUniversity of Edinburgh logoHarvard University logoUniversity of Oxford logoPrinceton University logoStanford School of Medicine logoUniversity College London logoORCID logo
  • University of Cambridge logo
  • Columbia University logo
  • Crossref logo
  • University of Edinburgh logo
  • Harvard University logo
  • University of Oxford logo
  • Princeton University logo
  • Stanford School of Medicine logo
  • University College London logo
  • ORCID logo

View CASRAI adoption →

Regulatory Radar

Stop finding out after the fact

$29/month, cancel anytime. Daily digest updates from our analysis, a dashboard holding the same items, and a cited assistant for everything they raise.

  • Federal Register, Federal Register+, Grants.gov, Regulations.gov, NSF News, UKRI, plus CASRAI’s own published content.
  • 72,264 indexed passages, and every answer cites the ones it drew on.