Research Misconduct

The journal is committed to protecting the integrity of the scientific record and takes all credible allegations of research, publication, peer-review, and editorial misconduct seriously, whether concerns arise before or after publication.

Research or publication misconduct includes intentional or seriously misleading conduct that compromises the reliability, integrity, transparency, or ethical acceptability of scholarly work. It may include, but is not limited to:

  • fabrication of data, participants, observations, results, or research records;
  • falsification of data, methods, analyses, images, or other research materials;
  • plagiarism or serious inappropriate text recycling;
  • duplicate, redundant, or undisclosed overlapping publication;
  • inappropriate, fabricated, purchased, sold, guest, gift, honorary, or ghost authorship;
  • deliberate failure to disclose relevant conflicts of interest, funding, or sponsor involvement;
  • manipulation of peer review, including fabricated reviewer identities or fraudulent reviews;
  • citation manipulation or coordinated citation practices;
  • unethical research involving human participants or failure to obtain required ethical approval or consent;
  • deliberate misuse or misrepresentation of research data, images, code, models, or statistical analyses;
  • deceptive or undisclosed use of artificial intelligence or automated tools;
  • falsification of ethics approvals, consent documents, trial-registration information, funding declarations, or other research documentation;
  • deliberate interference with an investigation into research or publication integrity.

ICMJE recognizes scientific misconduct as including, among other practices, data fabrication, data falsification including deceptive image manipulation, purposeful failure to disclose relevant relationships and activities, and plagiarism. Each case must be assessed individually because different types of concerns are not necessarily equivalent.

Reporting Concerns

Concerns about possible misconduct may be raised by authors, reviewers, editors, readers, institutions, research participants, funders, or other individuals or organizations.

A concern may relate to a manuscript under consideration or to an article already published by the journal.

Reports should, where possible, provide sufficient information to allow the journal to understand and assess the concern, such as:

  • the manuscript or article concerned;
  • the nature of the alleged problem;
  • the relevant data, text, figures, documents, or other evidence;
  • any supporting information reasonably available to the person raising the concern.

The journal will consider concerns regardless of the manner in which they are brought to its attention, including appropriately supported concerns from whistleblowers. Anonymous concerns may be considered when they contain sufficiently specific and credible information to permit assessment.

Good-faith concerns will not be dismissed solely because of the identity, status, affiliation, or anonymity of the person raising them.

Initial Assessment

When a credible concern is received, the journal will conduct a preliminary assessment to determine:

  • whether the issue falls within the journal’s responsibility;
  • whether sufficient information exists to proceed;
  • whether immediate action is necessary to protect participants, confidential information, the peer-review process, or the scientific record;
  • whether the concern appears to involve an honest error, legitimate scientific disagreement, questionable practice, or potential misconduct.

A manuscript will not simply be rejected in order to avoid investigating a credible ethical concern. Where appropriate, the journal may suspend peer review, editorial processing, or publication while the matter is assessed.

COPE states that journals should have a clearly described process for handling allegations regardless of how they are raised and should take allegations seriously both before and after publication, including concerns raised by whistleblowers.

Independent and Fair Handling

Allegations must be handled fairly, objectively, confidentially, and without inappropriate conflicts of interest.

An editor or Editorial Board member who is personally, professionally, institutionally, or financially involved in the matter must not lead the assessment or determine its outcome.

Where a conflict exists, the matter should be assigned to an appropriately independent editor or other qualified person. External expert advice may be obtained when necessary.

Individuals whose conduct is questioned should normally be given an appropriate opportunity to respond to the concerns and provide relevant evidence, except where immediate action is required to protect participants, evidence, confidentiality, or the integrity of an investigation.

No conclusion of misconduct should be based solely on allegation, reputation, or assumption.

Journal and Institutional Responsibilities

The journal is responsible for evaluating the reliability and publication integrity of material that it reviews or publishes. However, a journal is generally not the appropriate body to determine institutional, employment, disciplinary, or legal guilt.

Where formal investigation requires access to laboratory records, clinical documentation, research files, institutional systems, personnel, or other evidence beyond the journal’s authority, the journal may refer the matter to:

  • the authors’ or reviewers’ institution;
  • a research-integrity or ethics office;
  • an institutional ethics committee;
  • a funding organization;
  • a regulatory or other competent authority,

as appropriate.

The journal may request information about the outcome of an institutional investigation when that outcome is relevant to the reliability of a manuscript or published article. ICMJE advises editors to initiate appropriate procedures when misconduct is alleged, consider informing institutions and funders, and seek the outcome of institutional investigations where relevant.

Confidentiality

Information relating to allegations and investigations will be handled confidentially to the extent reasonably possible and consistent with a fair and effective assessment.

Information will normally be shared only with persons or organizations whose involvement is necessary to evaluate or investigate the concern.

The journal cannot promise absolute anonymity where disclosure is required for fair investigation, ethical obligations, institutional procedures, or applicable law.

Evidence and Cooperation

The journal may request relevant evidence from authors, reviewers, editors, or other involved parties, including:

  • original or underlying data;
  • original image files;
  • analysis outputs, statistical files, code, or model documentation;
  • research protocols;
  • ethics approvals and consent documentation;
  • clinical trial registration records;
  • authorship and contributorship information;
  • funding and conflict-of-interest declarations;
  • peer-review records;
  • other documentation reasonably necessary to assess the concern.

All involved parties are expected to cooperate honestly and in a timely manner. Fabricating, altering, destroying, or deliberately withholding relevant evidence may itself constitute a serious integrity concern.

Editorial Actions During an Investigation

Depending on the nature and seriousness of the concern, the journal may:

  • pause editorial consideration or publication;
  • request explanations or additional documentation;
  • obtain independent scientific, statistical, ethical, or image-integrity review;
  • replace a reviewer or editor where independence has been compromised;
  • reject a manuscript when its reliability or ethical acceptability cannot be established;
  • communicate with another journal where overlapping or related publications are involved;
  • refer the matter to an appropriate institution or authority;
  • publish an Expression of Concern when serious unresolved concerns affect an already published article.

Interim measures are not, by themselves, a finding that misconduct has occurred.

Outcomes and the Scientific Record

Following assessment or investigation, the journal will take action proportionate to the available evidence and its effect on the reliability of the scientific record.

Possible outcomes include:

  • no further action where the concern is unsupported;
  • clarification or revision before publication;
  • rejection of a manuscript;
  • correction of a published article;
  • publication of an Expression of Concern while important issues remain unresolved;
  • retraction when the reliability or integrity of the published work is seriously compromised;
  • referral to an institution, funder, ethics body, or other competent authority where appropriate.

Where an institutional investigation confirms misconduct relevant to a published article, the journal will take appropriate action to correct the scientific record. ICMJE states that confirmed scientific misconduct may require retraction and that retracted articles should remain part of the public record while being clearly identified as retracted.

Honest Error and Scientific Disagreement

The journal distinguishes research misconduct from honest error, differences in scientific interpretation, methodological debate, and legitimate disagreement.

An incorrect result does not automatically establish misconduct. Likewise, a scientific disagreement will not be treated as misconduct merely because reviewers, authors, or readers reach different conclusions.

However, honest errors that materially affect a published article will still be corrected in order to maintain the accuracy of the scientific record.

Detailed post-publication actions are governed by the journal’s Editorial Actions and Corrections and Retractions policies.

ISSN 2181-3353 (Print)
ISSN 2181-3353 (Online)