Publication Ethics

Ethical Standards of the Committee on Publication Ethics

Adapted from the COPE – COMMITTEE ON PUBLICATION ETHICS guidelines.

Duties and Responsibilities of Editors

Editors are responsible for all content published in the journals under their supervision. Accordingly, editors should:

Act in accordance with the needs and expectations of readers and authors.
Continuously improve the journal.
Ensure the quality of published research.
Support freedom of expression.
Maintain the integrity of the academic record.
Protect intellectual property standards from inappropriate commercial interests.
Be willing to publish corrections, clarifications, retractions, and apologies whenever necessary.

Editors’ Responsibilities toward Readers

Editors should inform readers about the sources of research funding.
Editors should disclose the role of funders in the design, conduct, analysis, and reporting of the research.

Editors’ Responsibilities toward Authors

Editors should take all reasonable measures to ensure the quality of published articles and research.
Editors should recognize that different journals, as well as different sections within a journal, may have different objectives and standards.
Editorial decisions to accept or reject a research article for publication should be based on the importance of the research, the originality or novelty of the work, the clarity of the manuscript, and its relevance to the journal’s aims and scope.
The journal should clearly explain its peer-review process. Editors should also be prepared to explain any deviation from the stated peer-review procedures.
The journal should provide authors with an opportunity to appeal editorial decisions when they disagree with those decisions.
Editors should publish comprehensive instructions for authors covering all matters that authors are expected to understand and comply with.
Author guidelines should be regularly reviewed and updated, and should include appropriate references or links to relevant ethical standards and regulations.
Editors should not reverse a decision to reject a manuscript unless a serious problem is identified in the submission or review process.
A newly appointed editor should not overturn a decision made by the previous editor to reject a manuscript unless there is clear evidence that a serious problem occurred in the earlier decision-making process.

Editors’ Responsibilities toward Reviewers

Editors should publish clear guidance for reviewers covering all matters expected of them.
Reviewer guidelines should be regularly reviewed and updated, and should include references or links to the relevant ethical standards.
Editors should establish systems to protect the personal information and identities of reviewers.
Reviewer identities may be disclosed only when the journal operates an open peer-review system, and both authors and reviewers have been informed of this policy in advance.

Peer-Review Process

Editors should establish systems to ensure that manuscripts submitted to the journal are treated confidentially throughout the review process.
Information or ideas obtained through peer review must not be used for personal advantage or disclosed to other persons without authorization.

Complaints

Editors should follow the procedures described in the flowcharts and guidelines established by the Committee on Publication Ethics.
Editors should respond promptly to complaints.
Complainants should be informed that they may pursue their complaint further if they are not satisfied with the journal’s response.
The journal should clearly describe its complaint-handling procedures.
These procedures should include information on how unresolved matters may be referred to the Committee on Publication Ethics.

Encouraging Academic Debate

The journal should be willing to publish well-founded criticism of articles previously published in the journal unless the editor has a valid and compelling reason not to do so.
Authors whose articles are criticized should be given an opportunity to respond.
Studies presenting findings that contradict previously published research should also be given a fair opportunity for publication.
Studies reporting negative or inconclusive findings should be considered for publication and should not be excluded solely because their findings are negative.

Promoting Academic Integrity

Editors should ensure that every aspect of research published in the journal complies with internationally accepted ethical standards.
Editors should seek appropriate evidence that all research submitted for publication has received approval from a competent authority, such as a research ethics committee, an institutional review board, or another authorized research oversight body.
Editors should nevertheless recognize that formal ethical approval does not automatically guarantee that the research was ethically conducted.

Protection of Personal Data

Editors should protect the confidentiality of personal information, including information arising from relationships such as the physician–patient relationship.
Written informed consent should be obtained from patients when their names, photographs, or other identifiable information appear in a report or article.
An article may be published without written consent only when all of the following conditions are met:
- publication is important to public health or serves another important public interest;
- obtaining consent is impracticable or would involve considerable difficulty; and
- the individual concerned has not objected to publication.
All three conditions must be satisfied before publication without written consent can be considered.

Dealing with Research and Publication Misconduct

Editors have a duty to investigate suspected misconduct involving both published and unpublished manuscripts.
Editors should not immediately reject a manuscript merely because misconduct is suspected.
Editors are responsible for following up on allegations and seeking the relevant facts.
Editors should first request an explanation from the person against whom the allegation has been made.
If the response is unsatisfactory, editors should contact the person’s supervisor, institution, or other relevant authority, which may include a regulatory body, and request an investigation.
Editors should follow the procedures and flowcharts established by the Committee on Publication Ethics whenever appropriate.
Editors should make reasonable efforts to ensure that investigations are conducted fairly, properly, and according to sound reasoning.
If an adequate investigation is not undertaken, editors should continue to seek an appropriate resolution. Although this process may be difficult, it is an important editorial responsibility.

Ensuring the Integrity of the Academic Record

When editors become aware that a published academic article contains inaccurate information, misleading statements, or a distorted presentation of facts, they should issue a prompt and clear correction.
If an investigation confirms fraudulent conduct or serious misconduct, editors should clearly retract the article.
A retraction should be published in a form that is clearly identifiable and verifiable.
Readers and relevant indexing and database services should be informed of the retraction.

Relationship with Journal Owners and Publishers

The relationship between editors, publishers, and journal owners may be complex.
This relationship should nevertheless be based on the principle of editorial independence.
Regardless of the journal’s economic or political circumstances, editors should make decisions about accepting manuscripts for publication based primarily on:
- academic quality;
- scientific merit;
- relevance to the journal; and
- suitability for readers.
Editorial decisions should not be based on financial or political considerations.

Commercial Considerations

Editors should establish and publish policies concerning advertising.
Advertising policies should consider the relevance of advertisements to the journal’s subject matter.
Editors should also establish policies for the publication of supplements or additional journal content.
Editors must not publish advertisements that may be misleading.
Editors should be willing to publish appropriate criticism of advertisements, applying standards similar to those used for other journal content.
When previously published articles are republished, the original content should remain unchanged, except where clearly identified corrections have been added.

Conflicts of Interest

Editors should establish systems for identifying, declaring, and managing conflicts of interest.
These systems should apply to:
- editors;
- journal staff;
- authors;
- reviewers; and
- members of the Editorial Board.
Individuals involved in editorial decisions should not participate in decisions where they have financial, personal, professional, academic, or other competing interests that could influence their judgment.

Procedures for Handling Complaints against Editors Submitted to the Committee on Publication Ethics

General Conditions

Complaints may be submitted by:
- authors;
- readers;
- reviewers;
- editors; or
- journal publishers.
Complaints may be considered by the Committee on Publication Ethics only when the editor or journal concerned is a member of the Committee on Publication Ethics.
A complaint against a journal editor must first be submitted directly to the editor in writing.
The first stage of the complaint process should therefore involve a formal written complaint to the journal editor.
If the complaint is not resolved satisfactorily, the complainant may submit the matter to:
- the editor’s governing body;
- the editor’s institution;
- the journal owner; or
- an appropriate ombudsman, where available.
A complaint may be referred to the Committee on Publication Ethics only after the journal’s internal complaint procedures have been completed.
All relevant supporting documents must be submitted with the complaint.
The Committee on Publication Ethics will normally accept a complaint within six months after the journal has completed its consideration of the complaint.
In exceptional circumstances, the Committee on Publication Ethics may consider complaints submitted after the six-month period.
The Committee on Publication Ethics will not consider complaints concerning the academic substance of an editor’s publication decision.
The Committee may, however, consider complaints concerning the process by which the editorial decision was made.
The Committee on Publication Ethics will not consider complaints concerning opinions or content expressed in editorials.
The Committee on Publication Ethics will not consider events that occurred before the publication or implementation of these ethical standards.

When a Complaint Is Referred to the Committee on Publication Ethics

The complainant shall submit the complaint to an officer of the Committee on Publication Ethics.
The Committee on Publication Ethics officer shall review the complaint to determine whether:
2.1 The complaint concerns a member of the Committee on Publication Ethics.
2.2 The complaint falls within the scope of responsibility of the Committee on Publication Ethics.
2.3 The complaint has not been satisfactorily resolved after being submitted to the journal through its established complaint-handling procedures.
2.4 The event giving rise to the complaint occurred after these regulations came into effect (1 January 2005).
The complainant shall submit all relevant supporting documents, including evidence demonstrating that the complaint was previously submitted to the journal and acknowledged by the journal, in order to satisfy the Chair of the Committee on Publication Ethics that the journal has been given an opportunity to address the complaint.
The Chair of the Committee on Publication Ethics shall notify the Editor of the journal that the complaint has been referred to the Committee.
The following situations may arise:
5.1 The Editor does not cooperate. In such a case, the Chair of the Committee on Publication Ethics shall inform both the complainant and the journal owner.
5.2 The Editor responds to the complaint. In this case:
5.2.1 The Chair of the Committee on Publication Ethics and one representative nominated by members of the COPE Council shall jointly determine whether the journal has handled the complaint satisfactorily. The decision shall then be communicated to both the complainant and the Editor.
5.2.2 The Chair of the Committee on Publication Ethics and one representative nominated by members of the COPE Council may determine that further investigation is required. They shall notify both the complainant and the Editor and prepare a report for submission to the relevant subcommittee of the COPE Council for further consideration.
The subcommittee responsible for considering the complaint shall consist of one Chair and at least three members of the COPE Council. At least two members of the subcommittee must not be journal editors, and none of the members shall be affiliated with the same publisher or institution as the Editor against whom the complaint has been made.
If the Chair is affiliated with the same publisher or institution as the Editor who is the subject of the complaint, the Chair shall appoint a suitably qualified Deputy Chair to oversee the case and related documentation.
8. Upon receiving the complaint, the subcommittee may take one of the following actions:
8.1 Dismiss the complaint and notify both the complainant and the Editor of the reasons for the dismissal.
8.2 Determine that a breach of the applicable ethical standards or regulations has occurred.

If the subcommittee determines that a breach of the applicable ethical standards or regulations has occurred, it shall prepare a report for submission to the COPE Council. The report shall describe the nature of the breach and include recommendations for appropriate actions. The COPE Council shall review the report and may amend the recommendations as appropriate. The Council shall then notify the complainant, the Editor, and the journal owner or publisher of its final recommendations, which may include one or more of the following:

The Editor shall issue a formal apology to the complainant regarding the matter under complaint.
The Editor shall publish a statement provided by the COPE in the journal.
The journal shall revise and improve its editorial policies and publication procedures.
The Editor shall resign from, or have his or her membership in the COPE suspended or terminated for a specified period.
The Editor shall take any other action that the COPE considers appropriate under the circumstances.

Appeals Process

A complainant may appeal the recommendations of the COPE. Details on the appropriate person or office to contact to submit an appeal may be obtained directly from the COPE.

Reference

Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). Code of Conduct and Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors. Available at: http://www.publicationethics.org/files/2008%20Code%20of%20Conduct.pdf