Allegations of Misconduct

The detection of scientific misconduct typically arises from reports by co-authors, collaborators, peer reviewers, editors, or readers. Increasingly, however, misconduct is identified through post-publication forensic statistical analyses and replication studies conducted by independent experts.

When an allegation of scientific misconduct—such as fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism—is raised regarding a manuscript under consideration or already published, the journal editor is responsible for ensuring a prompt, thorough, and confidential preliminary assessment. However, it is not the editor’s role to conduct a formal investigation into the matter.

Our editorial approach adheres strictly to guidelines from the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE), World Association of Medical Editors (WAME), Council of Science Editors (CSE), and the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). We utilize COPE's flowcharts and retraction guidelines, as well as the CSE's resources for handling retractions.

Upon receiving an allegation, the editor will:

  1. Conduct an initial confidential assessment, requesting detailed documentation from the complainant to substantiate the allegation.
  2. If the allegation appears credible, confidentially contact the corresponding author to request an explanation.
  3. Evaluate the author's response:
  • If misconduct is admitted or convincingly confirmed, the editor will request a formal letter of explanation and retraction, signed by the author(s). The editor will also notify the author's institution.
  • If the author's explanation resolves the concern adequately, the editor will inform the complainant that no misconduct was found.
  • If the explanation is unsatisfactory, incomplete, or absent, the editor will contact the relevant institutional authorities for a formal investigation and inform the author(s) about this step.

The formal investigation of alleged misconduct is the responsibility of the author's institution (e.g., dean, research integrity officer), funding agency, or national authority designated for such purposes. The journal editor will expect timely acknowledgment from these entities, including a clear investigation plan and timeline. Typically, institutions should conclude an initial inquiry within 60 days of notification.

Editors must maintain strict confidentiality throughout this process, particularly regarding the identity of individuals involved, and will communicate allegations discreetly, avoiding details that could lead to unintended public disclosure. Communication with authorities should preferably occur via telephone or formally marked confidential documents.

Should evidence indicate possible misconduct affecting other journals, editors may confidentially consult editors of these journals to coordinate responses.

This policy ensures integrity, fairness, and transparency in addressing allegations, thereby safeguarding the credibility of our publication and the scientific community.