Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement

This statement follows the principles set out by the Committee on Publication Ethics for editors, reviewers, authors and publishers. It applies to everyone involved in the journal, without exception and without regard to seniority.

Duties of the editors

Publication decisions. The Editor in Chief decides which manuscripts are published, on the basis of scholarly quality, importance and fit with the journal’s scope. Decisions are never influenced by the author’s nationality, gender, caste, religion, institutional standing, seniority or ability to pay, and never by any commercial consideration.

Confidentiality. Editors disclose nothing about a submitted manuscript to anyone other than the reviewers, and only what the review requires. Manuscript files are not used for the editors’ own research.

Conflicts of interest. An editor who has any personal, professional, financial or institutional interest in a manuscript withdraws from the file, and another editor takes it over. Manuscripts by editors follow the procedure set out in the peer review policy.

Fairness of process. Editors ensure that review is timely, that reports reach the author, that the reasons for every decision are recorded in writing, and that authors have a route of appeal.

Vigilance. Editors take reasonable steps to identify plagiarism, duplicate publication, data fabrication, image manipulation, undisclosed conflicts and authorship disputes, and act on credible allegations whether or not the article is already published.

Duties of the reviewers

Contribution to decisions. Reviewers assist the editors in reaching decisions and assist the author in improving the work. A review that offers a verdict without reasons is of no use to either and will be returned.

Promptness. A reviewer who cannot complete a review within the agreed period must say so at once so the manuscript can be reassigned.

Confidentiality. Manuscripts under review are confidential documents. They are not shown to colleagues, not discussed with others, not fed into any external tool or system that retains data, and not used to advance the reviewer’s own work before publication.

Objectivity. Reviews address the manuscript, never the author. Personal criticism is unacceptable. Reviewers state their reasoning so that the author can act on it.

Acknowledgement of sources. Reviewers identify relevant published work the author has missed, and alert the editor to any substantial similarity with work they know of.

Disclosure. Reviewers declare any conflict of interest and withdraw where one exists.

Duties of the authors

Reporting standards. Authors present their work accurately, with an objective discussion of its significance and its limits. Data, method and sources must be reported in enough detail for another researcher to follow and test the work. Statements known to be false, and selective reporting that misleads, constitute unethical behaviour.

Originality and citation. Work must be the authors’ own. All material taken from others, including the authors’ own earlier publications, must be quoted or paraphrased with citation. Reference lists must be accurate: fabricated, unread or padded references are misconduct.

Data access and retention. Authors must retain the underlying data for at least five years after publication and provide it to the editors on reasonable request. Where data cannot be shared for legal, ethical or patient confidentiality reasons, this must be stated at submission with the reason.

Multiple submission. A manuscript may not be under consideration at more than one journal at a time, and substantially the same work may not be published more than once. Prior publication of an abstract or a preprint is not a bar, provided it is disclosed at submission.

Authorship. Authorship is limited to those who made a substantial contribution to the conception, design, execution, analysis or interpretation of the work, who approved the final version, and who agree to be accountable for it. Everyone who meets these conditions must be listed, and no one who does not may be added, whether as a favour, as courtesy to a supervisor or in exchange for anything. All authors must approve the author list and its order before submission. Others who helped belong in the acknowledgements.

Ethics approval and consent. Research involving human participants, patients, patient records, minors, or identifiable communities requires prior approval from a properly constituted ethics committee, and the approval must be named with its reference number. Informed consent must be obtained and, where individuals could be identified in text or images, written consent to publish is required. Research involving animals must state the approval obtained.

Conflicts of interest and funding. All sources of funding, all financial and non financial interests that could be seen to influence the work, and all relationships with organisations affected by the findings must be disclosed on the title page and will be published with the article.

Errors after publication. An author who discovers a significant error in published work must notify the editors promptly and cooperate in correcting or retracting it.

Use of generative artificial intelligence

Generative tools may be used to improve language and readability, and this use must be disclosed at submission naming the tool and the purpose. Such tools must not be used to produce data, results, analysis, images or references. No such system may be listed as an author, since authorship requires accountability. Authors remain fully responsible for every word of the manuscript, including any part a tool helped to phrase. Undisclosed use that materially affects the content is treated as misconduct. Reviewers may not upload manuscripts to any external system that retains or trains on submitted text.

Handling allegations of misconduct

1. An allegation may be raised by anyone and is considered whether the work is submitted, under review or published. Anonymous allegations are considered where they come with verifiable evidence.
2. The Managing Editor records the allegation and gathers evidence, including similarity reports, source documents and correspondence.
3. The corresponding author is informed of the substance of the allegation and invited to respond in writing within twenty one days.
4. Where the response resolves the matter, the file is closed and the author is informed. Where it does not, the Editor in Chief refers the matter to two board members with no connection to the parties.
5. The panel may dismiss the allegation, require correction, reject the manuscript, retract a published article, or in serious cases inform the author’s institution.
6. Decisions and their reasons are recorded permanently in the editorial file, and the outcome is communicated to the complainant and the author.

Confidentiality is maintained throughout for all parties. The journal does not publish the identity of a complainant, and does not treat an allegation as proof.

Corrections, expressions of concern and retractions

• A correction notice is published where an error affects the record but not the conclusions. The original article remains available and is linked to the notice.
• An expression of concern is published where a serious question is unresolved, for example where an institution’s inquiry is pending.
• A retraction is published where findings are unreliable through error or misconduct, where the work is plagiarised or duplicated, where ethics approval or consent was absent, or where authorship was misrepresented.

Retracted articles are not deleted. The article remains at its original address, clearly marked as retracted on every page, with the reason and the date, so that the record stays intact and citable. This is the practice of every journal that takes the scholarly record seriously, and it is the practice here.

Complaints about the journal

Complaints about editorial process, conduct, timeliness or a decision should be sent to the Editor in Chief, who will acknowledge within five working days and respond substantively within four weeks. Complaints concerning the Editor in Chief are handled by the Managing Editor together with a board member unconnected to the matter. Every complaint and its outcome are recorded, and the journal reports the number of complaints received and resolved in its annual editorial note.