Applying the CrossMark icon is a commitment by Practice in Clinical Psychology to maintain the content published and alert readers to changes if and when they occur.

What is CrossMark?

CrossMark, a multi-publisher initiative from CrossRef, provides a standard way for readers to locate the authoritative version of a document. We recognize the importance of the integrity and completeness of the scholarly record to researchers and librarians and attach the highest importance to maintaining trust in the authority of its electronic archive. Clicking on the CrossMark icon will inform the reader of the current status of a document also provide additional publication record information about the document.

Permanency of Content

All content published in Practice in Clinical Psychology is permanently published, regardless of the outcome of the peer review that follows after publication. All versions of all articles that have passed peer review are permanently archived in PubMed Central.

Practice in Clinical Psychology participates in the CrossMark scheme, a multi-publisher initiative that has developed a standard way for readers to locate the current version of a piece of content. By applying the CrossMark policies, Practice in Clinical Psychology is committed to maintaining the content it publishes and to alerting readers to changes if and when they occur.

Clicking on the CrossMark logo, at the top of each Practice in Clinical Psychology article, will give you the current status of the article and its last updates and direct you to the latest published version.

In order to maintain the integrity and completeness of the scholarly record, we will apply the COPE Policies on Retraction Guidelines when published content needs to be corrected or retracted; these policies take into account current best practices in the scholarly publishing. Based on the COPE guideline, Practice in Clinical Psychology editors consider retracting a publication if:

• there is clear evidence that the findings are unreliable, either as a result of misconduct (e.g. data fabri­cation) or honest error (e.g. miscalculation or experimental error)
• the findings have previously been published elsewhere without proper cross-referencing, permission or justification (i.e. cases of redundant publication)
• it constitutes plagiarism
• it reports unethical research

Practice in Clinical Psychology editors considers issuing an expression of concern if:

• they receive inconclusive evidence of research or publication misconduct by the authors
• there is evidence that the findings are unreliable but the authors’ institution will not investigate the case
• they believe that an investigation into alleged misconduct related to the publication either has not been, or would not be, fair and impartial or conclusive
• an investigation is underway but a judgment will not be available for a considerable time

Practice in Clinical Psychology editors considers issuing a correction if:

• a small portion of an otherwise reliable publication proves to be misleading (especially because of honest error)
• the author/contributor list is incorrect (i.e. a deserving author has been omitted or somebody who does not meet authorship criteria has been included)

Retractions are not usually appropriate if:

• a change of authorship is required but there is no reason to doubt the validity of the findings