Integrity and Ethics Criteria Policy

Document control: Version 1.0 | Effective date 21 October 2026 | Approved by Publisher | Next scheduled review October 2027 | First version.

This policy defines the minimum integrity, ethics and transparency criteria expected from authors, reviewers, editors, editorial board members and publishing staff. It is intended for use across all journals and should be read together with the applicable Author Guidelines, Reviewer Guidelines, Editorial Policy, Plagiarism Policy, Data Policy, Conflict of Interest Policy and Article Processing Charge Policy.

Policy Principles

The journals are committed to protecting the integrity of the scholarly record and to applying fair, transparent and evidence-based editorial practices. Editorial decisions must be based on scholarly merit, relevance, methodological soundness, originality, ethical compliance and the quality of reporting. Decisions must not be influenced by nationality, ethnicity, race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, political beliefs, institutional affiliation, disability, seniority, commercial relationships, advertising, sponsorship, article processing charges or other inappropriate considerations.

• Integrity: research and reporting must be honest, accurate, traceable and free from fabrication, falsification or deceptive practices.

• Transparency: material methods, contributions, funding, competing interests, data availability and limitations must be disclosed clearly.

• Accountability: authors, reviewers, editors and publishers are responsible for their roles in protecting the scholarly record.

• Independence: editorial decisions must remain separate from commercial, financial, political or institutional pressure.

• Fairness and due process: concerns and allegations must be assessed impartially, confidentially and without presuming misconduct before the available evidence is evaluated.

Scope and Applicability

This policy applies to all submitted, accepted and published content, including research articles, reviews, short communications, case studies, methods papers, editorials, special issues, supplements, conference-related content and other scholarly material. It also applies to all participants in the publication process, including authors, reviewers, editors, guest editors, editorial board members and publishing staff.

Together with the Publication Ethics Policy, this document constitutes the journal's public Publication Ethics and Publication Malpractice Statement. It shall be published in full, in English, on each journal website, linked from the journal home page and author guidelines, and its location shall be stated in indexing applications.

Research Integrity Criteria

Fabrication and falsification

Fabrication means making up data, results, records, participants, observations or other information. Falsification includes manipulating research materials, processes, images, methods, analyses or data, or omitting information in a way that misrepresents the research record. Both are prohibited.

Selective or misleading reporting

Authors must report methods and findings honestly, including relevant negative, null or contradictory results where their omission could create a misleading interpretation. Statistical, computational and qualitative analyses must not be presented in a deceptive manner.

Reproducibility and traceability

Authors should retain appropriate research records and, subject to legal, ethical, privacy, confidentiality, intellectual-property or security restrictions, make sufficient data, code, methods and supporting materials available to permit verification or reproducibility where appropriate to the discipline.

Authorship and Contributorship

Authorship must reflect genuine scholarly contribution and accountability. As a general standard, an author should have made a substantial contribution to the work, participated in drafting or critically revising the manuscript, approved the version to be published, and agreed to be accountable for the integrity of the work. Individuals who contribute but do not meet authorship criteria should be acknowledged appropriately.

• Gift, guest, honorary, purchased, coerced and ghost authorship are not acceptable.

• All listed authors must approve the submitted and final versions of the manuscript.

• The corresponding author must ensure that the author list is accurate and that all authors have agreed to submission.

• Changes in authorship after submission require a clear explanation and written agreement from the affected authors; the journal may seek institutional clarification where disputes cannot be resolved.

• For original research, journals should request a contributorship statement, preferably using a recognized taxonomy such as CRediT where suitable.

• Corresponding authors must supply a verified ORCID iD at submission; all co-authors are strongly encouraged to do so. ORCID iDs and current institutional affiliations (at the time the research was conducted) shall be captured in article metadata and displayed on the published article.

• The journal may verify author identities and affiliations (e.g., institutional e-mail, ORCID record, institutional directory) and may decline submissions where affiliations cannot be reasonably verified.

Originality, Plagiarism and Redundant Publication

Submitted work must be original and must properly acknowledge the ideas, words, data, images, software and other intellectual contributions of others. Plagiarism, unattributed paraphrasing, inappropriate text recycling, duplicate submission, redundant publication, salami slicing intended to mislead, and undisclosed substantial overlap are not acceptable.

Similarity-detection software may be used as a screening tool. Similarity scores are indicators only and must not be treated as automatic evidence of plagiarism. Editorial assessment should consider the location, source, context, attribution and nature of the overlap.

Citation and Reference Integrity

• Citations must be relevant, accurate and used to support the scholarly record rather than manipulate citation metrics.

• Authors should not add unnecessary citations solely to increase citations to particular authors, journals, editors or institutions.

• Editors and reviewers must not pressure authors to add citations that are not genuinely relevant to the manuscript.

• Fabricated, nonexistent or materially inaccurate references are unacceptable.

• Retracted literature should not be cited as valid evidence without clearly identifying the retraction and explaining the reason for citation.

• The journal shall not require or encourage citation of its own content, and shall monitor journal self-citation and citation exchange (‘citation stacking’) across titles. Editors and reviewers shall not request citations to their own work or to the journal unless scientifically necessary.

Data, Code and Reproducibility

Authors must accurately describe how data were obtained, processed and analyzed. A Data Availability Statement is mandatory for all research articles and should be provided for other article types where applicable, using the repository's persistent identifier (DOI/accession number) where data are deposited. Data and code should be deposited in suitable repositories when feasible and ethically permissible. Restrictions on access should be explained.

• Raw or underlying data may be requested during peer review or after publication when needed to verify the integrity of the work.

• Data must not be fabricated, altered or selectively removed to create a misleading result.

• Where third-party datasets are used, authors must comply with applicable licenses, permissions, confidentiality and citation requirements.

• Sensitive, confidential or personally identifiable information must not be shared in violation of legal or ethical obligations.

• Data and code deposits should follow FAIR principles (Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, Reusable) and, where possible, use trusted repositories that issue persistent identifiers (e.g., Zenodo, Figshare, Dryad, GitHub with Zenodo archiving, or discipline-specific repositories).

Image, Figure and Multimedia Integrity

Images, figures, audio, video and other visual or multimedia materials must accurately represent the original information. Adjustments intended only to improve clarity may be acceptable when applied consistently and when they do not obscure, remove, move or introduce material features.

• Splicing, duplication, selective enhancement, removal of features, or other manipulations that alter scientific meaning are prohibited unless clearly justified and disclosed.

• Editors may request original, unprocessed files and relevant metadata.

• Reuse of published figures or images requires appropriate permission and attribution where applicable.

Ethical Oversight for Research

Research involving humans

Research involving human participants, identifiable human material or identifiable human data must comply with applicable laws, institutional requirements and recognized ethical principles. Appropriate approval or exemption from a competent ethics committee or institutional review body must be obtained where required. Authors must provide the name of the approving body and approval/reference number when applicable and be prepared to provide documentation on request.

Research involving human participants must have been conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki (current revision) and applicable national guidance (e.g., ICMR National Ethical Guidelines for Biomedical and Health Research Involving Human Participants, 2017, where applicable). Clinical trials must be prospectively registered in a WHO ICTRP-approved primary registry (e.g., CTRI, ClinicalTrials.gov, ISRCTN); the registry name and registration number must appear in the abstract and methods.

Informed consent and privacy

Informed consent for participation and, where necessary, separate consent for publication of identifiable information must be obtained. Identifying information should not be published unless it is scientifically necessary and appropriate consent has been obtained. Authors are responsible for protecting privacy and confidentiality.

Research involving animals

Research involving animals must comply with applicable national and institutional standards and should follow recognized discipline-specific guidance. Authors should identify the approving body and approval/reference number where applicable and describe measures taken to minimize harm and unnecessary animal use.

Other ethical approvals

Depending on the discipline, studies involving archaeological or cultural materials, endangered species, field sampling, biosafety risks, dual-use research, environmental interventions, protected locations, indigenous communities, or other regulated activities may require permits, community permissions or additional ethical oversight. Authors must comply with the relevant requirements and disclose them.

Reporting Standards

Authors should follow recognized reporting guidelines appropriate to the study design and discipline. Where applicable, manuscripts should include the relevant checklist and flow diagram. Examples include CONSORT, PRISMA, STROBE, STARD, CARE, ARRIVE, COREQ, SRQR and other guidelines catalogued by the EQUATOR Network or recognized by the relevant field. Reporting guidelines improve completeness and transparency but do not replace ethical approval or methodological quality.

Conflicts of Interest and Funding Transparency

All participants in the publication process must disclose financial and non-financial relationships or activities that could reasonably be perceived to influence their work or decisions. Disclosure does not automatically imply wrongdoing; transparency allows editors and readers to judge potential influence.

• Authors must disclose relevant funding, employment, consultancies, honoraria, patents, equity interests, advisory roles, personal relationships, academic competition or other relevant interests.

• The role of funders or sponsors in study design, data collection, analysis, interpretation, manuscript preparation and the decision to submit should be stated where relevant.

• Reviewers must disclose relevant conflicts and decline assignments when impartial assessment cannot reasonably be assured.

• Editors must recuse themselves when a conflict could affect, or reasonably appear to affect, an editorial decision.

Peer Review and Editorial Integrity

Peer review and editorial evaluation must be conducted fairly, confidentially and independently. Where the journal uses double-blind peer review, the identities of authors and reviewers should be protected to the extent reasonably possible within the journal workflow.

• Reviewers must evaluate manuscripts on scholarly merit and provide respectful, evidence-based comments.

• Confidential manuscripts and unpublished data must not be used for personal advantage.

• Editors should select reviewers on the basis of relevant expertise and independence.

• Editorial decisions must not be influenced by APC payment, waiver requests, sponsorship, advertising, institutional relationships or publication targets.

• Submissions from editors, editorial board members or staff must be handled by an independent editor without involvement of the conflicted individual.

• Each journal shall publish a peer-review statement specifying the review model (e.g., double-anonymised), the minimum number of independent external reviewers for research articles (normally two), the criteria used, indicative timelines, and how appeals are handled.

• Reviewer identities shall be verified before invitation (institutional e-mail, ORCID or publication record). Author-suggested reviewers, if permitted, must be independently verified and shall not be the sole reviewers of a manuscript.

• Peer-review records (reviewer reports, editor decisions, dates) shall be retained in the manuscript system for a minimum of five years or as required by law, and may be provided to indexing services on request.

Use of Artificial Intelligence and Automated Tools

Human authors, reviewers and editors remain responsible for the accuracy, integrity, originality and confidentiality of scholarly work. Artificial intelligence or AI-assisted tools cannot be listed as authors because they cannot take responsibility or accountability for the work.

• Authors must disclose material use of generative AI or AI-assisted tools in manuscript preparation, analysis, image generation or other substantive parts of the work, describing the tool and purpose where appropriate.

• Authors must verify AI-assisted content, references, data, images and claims and remain responsible for plagiarism, copyright and factual accuracy.

• Reviewers and editors must not upload confidential manuscripts or peer-review materials to external AI systems where confidentiality and data protection cannot be assured, unless explicitly permitted by journal policy and appropriate authorization.

• Undisclosed or deceptive AI use that compromises the integrity of the scholarly record may be treated as a publication-ethics concern.

Intellectual Property and Permissions

Authors must respect copyright, database rights, software licenses, patents, trademarks and other intellectual-property rights. Permission must be obtained where required for third-party material. Copyright and licensing terms for accepted articles should be communicated clearly and must not be confused with website copyright.

Misconduct and Questionable Research Practices

Concerns may include, but are not limited to:

• fabrication or falsification of data, results or records;

• plagiarism, serious unattributed overlap or deceptive text recycling;

• duplicate or redundant publication and undisclosed simultaneous submission;

• inappropriate authorship, ghost authorship, purchased authorship or authorship-for-sale;

• citation manipulation or coercive citation;

• peer-review manipulation, fabricated reviewer identities or compromised reviewer accounts;

• paper-mill activity or systematic production of unreliable manuscripts;

• image, figure or data manipulation that misrepresents the research;

• undeclared conflicts of interest or funding where the omission is material;

• unethical research involving humans, animals, communities or sensitive data;

• misrepresentation of approvals, affiliations, credentials or research provenance; and

• other conduct that materially undermines the reliability or trustworthiness of the scholarly record.

Handling Allegations and Investigations

All credible concerns should be taken seriously whether raised before or after publication, including concerns from whistleblowers. The journal will ordinarily follow a proportionate process consistent with recognized publication-ethics guidance.

1. Record the concern and preserve relevant editorial evidence.

2. Conduct an initial assessment to determine whether the concern falls within the journal’s remit and whether further inquiry is warranted.

3. Where appropriate, seek a confidential explanation and supporting documentation from the relevant author, reviewer or editor.

4. Avoid public accusations while facts remain under assessment.

5. Seek expert advice or contact the relevant institution, employer, ethics body or other competent authority where investigation requires access to records beyond the journal’s capability.

6. Take appropriate editorial action based on the available evidence, while distinguishing honest error from misconduct whenever possible.

7. Correct the scholarly record promptly when reliability is materially affected.

The journal is not a substitute for an institutional research-integrity investigation and may refer matters to institutions or other competent authorities when necessary.

Pre-Publication Actions

Depending on the nature and seriousness of the concern, possible actions before publication may include:

• requesting clarification, source data, approvals, permissions or original files;

• returning the manuscript for correction;

• pausing peer review or editorial processing while concerns are assessed;

• changing reviewers or editors where a conflict or integrity concern exists;

• rejecting the manuscript for ethical or integrity reasons;

• informing appropriate institutions or authorities where justified and consistent with due process; and

• restricting future submissions in serious or repeated cases, subject to fair and documented procedures.

Post-Publication Corrections and Retractions

The scholarly record should be corrected when errors or integrity concerns materially affect published content. Depending on circumstances, the journal may publish a correction, addendum, editorial note, expression of concern, retraction, or other appropriate notice. Notices should be linked to the affected article, explain the reason for the action, and preserve the bibliographic record whenever possible.

Retraction is intended to protect the literature, not to punish authors. It may be appropriate where findings are unreliable because of misconduct or major error, where there is substantial plagiarism or redundant publication, where research was unethical, or where other serious problems invalidate the publication.

• Corrections, expressions of concern and retractions shall follow COPE Retraction Guidelines (2019): the notice shall be freely accessible, clearly labelled, published promptly, and linked bidirectionally with the article; the retracted article shall remain online, watermarked ‘RETRACTED’ on every page; and the article title shall be prefixed ‘Retracted:’ in metadata.

• Updated metadata for every correction or retraction shall be deposited with Crossref (and Crossmark where implemented) and notified to indexing and abstracting services within 30 days.

Complaints and Appeals

Authors and other stakeholders may submit a reasoned complaint or appeal concerning editorial procedures, ethical decisions or alleged errors. Appeals should identify the decision being challenged and provide specific grounds and supporting evidence. Complaints and appeals should be reviewed by an editor or authority not directly involved in the disputed decision whenever practicable. Reconsideration is not guaranteed, and disagreement with an editorial judgment alone is not sufficient without substantive grounds.

Whistleblowers and Confidentiality

Good-faith concerns may be raised confidentially. The journal should protect the identity of whistleblowers where reasonably possible and lawful, while also providing fair process to individuals whose conduct is questioned. Anonymous allegations may be considered when they provide sufficiently specific and verifiable information. Retaliation against individuals who raise good-faith integrity concerns is not acceptable.

Special Issues, Guest Editors and Sponsored Content

Special issues, supplements, conference issues and sponsored content must meet the same integrity and ethics standards as regular journal content. Guest editors must disclose conflicts of interest and operate under the journal’s editorial policies. Commercial or institutional sponsorship must not determine acceptance decisions or compromise peer-review independence. Any sponsorship or special funding should be transparently disclosed.

Integrity of Journal Management and Operations

The journal and publisher must maintain reliable editorial systems, accurate website information, transparent contact details and appropriately qualified editorial boards. Editorial-board membership should be genuine and verifiable. The journal should take reasonable measures to prevent compromised peer review, fraudulent identities, paper-mill submissions, fabricated affiliations and other systematic threats to publication integrity.

• Policies, fees, peer-review practices, ownership, licensing and publication schedules should be stated clearly and kept current.

• Editors and staff should receive appropriate guidance or training in research and publication ethics.

• Editorial records should be maintained securely for an appropriate period, subject to privacy and legal requirements.

• The journal should periodically review integrity risks and update procedures as scholarly publishing practices evolve.

• Editorial board membership shall be publicly listed with full name, institutional affiliation, country and role; members shall have confirmed their participation in writing; the board's expertise shall match the journal's aims and scope; and the board shall reflect the international and institutional diversity of the field the journal serves. Board composition shall be reviewed at least every two years.

• The journal shall monitor author distribution (geographic and institutional) against its stated scope and shall ensure that editors, editorial board members and publisher staff do not author a disproportionate share of published content.

• The journal shall guard against ‘hijacked’ journal fraud by publishing only one official website and ISSN record, monitoring for clone sites, and reporting cloned websites to the ISSN International Centre and relevant indexers.

Responsibilities by Role

Role	Core Integrity Responsibilities
Authors	Ensure originality, accurate reporting, ethical approval, valid authorship, disclosure of funding and interests, appropriate consent, reliable data, proper citations and transparent AI use.
Reviewers	Maintain confidentiality, disclose conflicts, assess objectively, avoid misuse of unpublished information, report major ethical concerns and comply with journal AI rules.
Editors	Protect editorial independence, manage conflicts, oversee fair peer review, respond to misconduct allegations, maintain confidentiality and correct the literature when necessary.
Editorial Board / Guest Editors	Support journal standards, disclose conflicts, provide competent oversight and avoid using position or privileged information for improper advantage.
Publisher / Journal Office	Provide transparent policies and operations, preserve editorial independence, maintain secure systems and records, support investigations and post-publication corrections, and keep commercial interests separate from editorial decisions.

Integrity and Ethics Screening Checklist

• ☐ Is the manuscript within scope and presented as a genuine scholarly work?

• ☐ Are authorship and contributorship credible and appropriately disclosed?

• ☐ Are originality and overlap concerns acceptably resolved?

• ☐ Are data, figures, images, references and statistical claims internally consistent?

• ☐ Are ethics approval, consent and relevant permits reported where required?

• ☐ Are funding and competing interests disclosed?

• ☐ Is a suitable Data Availability Statement provided where appropriate?

• ☐ Are reporting guidelines followed where applicable?

• ☐ Are citations relevant and free from obvious manipulation?

• ☐ Is any material use of AI or automated tools transparently disclosed?

• ☐ Are reviewer and editor conflicts appropriately managed?

• ☐ Is the peer-review process independent of APCs and commercial considerations?

• ☐ Are any suspected misconduct or paper-mill indicators documented and escalated?

• ☐ If a concern exists, has the journal followed fair, confidential and proportionate procedures?

• ☐ If published content is affected, is correction, expression of concern or retraction required?

Reference Framework

This policy is informed by widely recognized standards for scholarly publishing and should be reviewed periodically as those standards evolve. Key reference frameworks include:

DOAJ / COPE / OASPA / WAME: Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing.

Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE): Core Practices and related guidance on misconduct, authorship, conflicts of interest, data and reproducibility, ethical oversight, peer review, intellectual property, complaints and appeals, and post-publication corrections.

Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ): Guide to applying and Integrity and Ethics criteria for journal quality and publishing practice.

International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE): Recommendations for the Conduct, Reporting, Editing, and Publication of Scholarly Work in Medical Journals (updated January 2026), where applicable to the relevant discipline.

EQUATOR Network: Discipline- and study-specific reporting guidelines where applicable.

Clarivate Web of Science Core Collection: Editorial Selection Process – 24 quality and 4 impact criteria (journal.clarivate.com).

Elsevier Scopus: Content Policy and Selection – CSAB minimum eligibility criteria and selection criteria; Scopus re-evaluation policy (Radar/outlier monitoring).

COPE: Retraction Guidelines (2019); Guidelines for managing the responsibilities of ethics oversight; Systematic manipulation of the publication process; Position statement on AI tools and authorship (2023).

World Medical Association: Declaration of Helsinki (current revision); WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform.

NISO / Crossref / ORCID: CRediT (ANSI/NISO Z39.104-2022); Crossref metadata best practice and Crossmark; ORCID iD requirements; TOP Guidelines (Center for Open Science).

Policy Review and Updates

This policy should be reviewed periodically and updated when there are material changes in recognized publication-ethics standards, applicable law, journal workflows or emerging integrity risks. The version published on the journal or publisher website should be treated as the current policy.

Integrity and Ethics Criteria Policy | Common Policy for Scholarly Journals