Ethics Policy

The COPE Code of Conduct for Journal Editors is designed to provide a set of minimum standards to which all COPE members are expected to adhere. The Best Practice Guidelines are more aspirational and were developed in response to requests from editors for guidance about a wide range of increasingly complex ethical issues. While COPE expects all members to adhere to the Code of Conduct for Journal Editors (and will consider complaints against members who have not followed it), we realise that editors may not be able to implement all the Best Practice recommendations (which are therefore voluntary), but we hope that our suggestions will identify aspects of journal policy and practice that should be reviewed and discussed.

Ethical Responsibilities of Editors

The editor and field editors of JGG should hold the following ethical responsibilities that are based on the guides "COPE Code of Conduct and Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors" and "COPE Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors" published as open Access by Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

General Duties and Responsibilities of Editors

Editors should be accountable for everything published in their journals

This means the editors should;
• strive to meet the needs of readers and authors;
• strive to constantly improve their journal;
• have processes in place to assure the quality of the material they publish;
• champion freedom of expression;
• maintain the integrity of the academic record;
• preclude business needs from compromising intellectual and ethical standards;
• always be willing to publish corrections, clarifications, retractions, and apologies when needed.

Best practice for editors would include:
• actively seeking the views of authors, readers, reviewers and editorial board members about ways of improving their journal’s processes
• encouraging and being aware of research into peer review and publishing and reassessing their journal’s processes in the light of new findings
• working to persuade their publisher to provide appropriate resources, guidance from experts (e.g. designers, lawyers)
• supporting initiatives designed to reduce research and publication misconduct
• supporting initiatives to educate researchers about publication ethics
• assessing the effects of their journal policies on author and reviewer behavior and revising policies, as required, to encourage responsible behavior and discourage misconduct
• ensuring that any press releases issued by their journal reflect the message of the reported article and put it into context

Ethical Responsibilities of Authors

• Authors should refrain from misrepresenting research results which could damage the trust in the journal, the professionalism of scientific authorship, and ultimately the entire scientific endeavour.
• The manuscript should not be submitted to more than one publication for simultaneous consideration.
• Identification of authors and other contributors is the responsibility of the researchers who performed the work based on the criteria of the journal to which the work is submitted. Researchers should determine which individuals have contributed sufficiently, according to the authorship criteria, to warrant authorship. Individuals who contributed to the work but whose contributions were not of sufficient magnitude to warrant authorship should be identified by name in a contributors appendix, a co-investigators appendix, or an acknowledgments section; Authors should also ensure they have notified/obtained permission from those they have named within the Acknowledgements section.
• All individuals who qualify for authorship or acknowledgment should be identified. Every person identified as an author or acknowledged contributor should qualify for these roles.
• Individuals listed as authors should review and approve the final manuscript before publication.
• In addition to being accountable for the parts of the work he or she has done, an author should be able to identify which of their co-authors are responsible for specific other parts of the work.
• Editors should require authors and those acknowledged to identify their contributions to the work and make this information available to readers.
• The ultimate reason for identification of authors and other contributors is to establish accountability for and transparency surrounding the reported work.
• Authors have a responsibility to be forthright when complying with journal submission requirements. This entails disclosure about the originality of the content, a statement of an author’s actual contribution to the study, and financial and conflict of interest disclosures.
• Authors are strongly advised to ensure the author group, the Corresponding Author, and the order of authors are all correct at submission. Adding and/or deleting authors during the revision stages is generally not permitted, but in some cases may be warranted. Reasons for changes in authorship should be explained in detail.

Ethical Responsibilities of Reviewers

• Providing written, unbiased, constructive feedback in a timely manner on the scholarly merits and the scientific value of the work, together with the documented basis for the reviewer’s opinion
• Indicating whether the writing is clear, concise, and relevant and rating the work’s composition, scientific accuracy, originality, and interest to the journal’s readers
• Avoiding personal comments or criticism
• Maintaining the confidentiality of the review process: not sharing, discussing with third parties, or disclosing information from the reviewed paper
• Notifying the editor immediately if unable to review in a timely manner and, if able, providing the names of alternative reviewers
• Alerting the editor about any potential personal, financial or perceived conflict of interest and declining to review when a conflict exists
• Complying with the editor’s written instructions on the journal’s expectations for the scope, content, and quality of the review
• Providing a thoughtful, fair, constructive, and informative critique of the submitted work, which may include supplementary material provided to the journal by the author
• Determining scientific merit, originality, and scope of the work; indicating ways to improve it; and, if requested, recommending acceptance or rejection using whatever rating scale the editor deems most useful
• Noting any ethical concerns, such as any violation of accepted norms of ethical treatment of animal or human subjects or substantial similarity between the reviewed manuscript and any published paper or any manuscript concurrently submitted to another journal that may be known to the reviewer
• Double-blind review process has been followed by JGG. Thus, reviewers should refain from direct author contact
• Ensuring that the methods and analysis are adequately detailed to allow the reader to judge the scientific merit of the study design and be able to replicate the study
• Ensuring that the article cites all relevant work by other scientists

Relationship with Readers

Readers should be informed about who has funded research or other scholarly work and whether the funders had any role in the research and its publication and, if so, what this was.

Best practice for editors would include:
• ensuring that all published reports and reviews of research have been reviewed by suitably qualified reviewers (including statistical review where appropriate)
• ensuring that non-peer-reviewed sections of their journal are clearly identified
• adopting processes that encourage accuracy, completeness and clarity of research reporting including technical
• editing and the use of appropriate guidelines and checklists (e.g. MIAME,1 CONSORT2)
• considering developing a transparency policy to encourage maximum disclosure about the provenance of non-research articles
• adopting authorship or contributorship systems that promote good practice (i.e. so that listings accurately reflect who did the work) and discourage misconduct (e.g. ghost and guest authors)
• informing readers about steps taken to ensure that submissions from members of the journal’s staff or editorial board receive an objective and unbiased evaluation

Relationships with Authors

Responsibilities of editors to authors are listed below;
• Editors’ decisions to accept or reject a paper for publication should be based on the paper’s importance, originality and clarity, and the study’s validity and its relevance to the remit of the journal.
• Editors should not reverse decisions to accept submissions unless serious problems are identified with the submission.
• New editors should not overturn decisions to publish submissions made by the previous editor unless serious problems are identified.
• A description of peer review processes should be published, and editors should be ready to justify any important deviation from the described processes.
• Journals should have a declared mechanism for authors to appeal against editorial decisions.
• Editors should publish guidance to authors on everything that is expected of them. This guidance should be regularly updated and should refer or link to this code.
• Editors should provide guidance about criteria for authorship and/or who should be listed as a contributor following the standards within the relevant field.

Best practice for editors would include:
• reviewing author instructions regularly and providing links to relevant guidelines (e.g. ICMJE5, Responsible research publication: international standards for authors)
• publishing relevant competing interests for all contributors and publishing corrections if competing interests are revealed after publication
• ensuring that appropriate reviewers are selected for submissions (i.e. individuals who are able to judge the work and are free from disqualifying competing interests)
• respecting requests from authors that an individual should not review their submission, if these are well reasoned and practicable
• being guided by the COPE flowcharts (http://publicationethics.org/flowcharts) in cases of suspected misconduct or disputed authorship
• publishing details of how they handle cases of suspected misconduct (e.g. with links to the COPE flowcharts)
• publishing submission and acceptance dates for articles

Relationships with Reviewers

• Editors should provide guidance to reviewers on everything that is expected of them including the need to handle submitted material in confidence. This guidance should be regularly updated and should refer or link to this code.
• Editors should require reviewers to disclose any potential competing interests before agreeing to review a submission.
• Editors should have systems to ensure that peer reviewers’ identities are protected unless they use an open review system that is declared to authors and reviewers.

Best practice for editors would include:

• encouraging reviewers to comment on ethical questions and possible research and publication misconduct raised by submissions (e.g. unethical research design, insufficient detail on patient consent or protection of research subjects (including animals), inappropriate data manipulation and presentation)
• encouraging reviewers to comment on the originality of submissions and to be alert to redundant publication and plagiarism
• considering providing reviewers with tools to detect related publications (e.g. links to cited references and bibliographic searches)
• sending reviewers’ comments to authors in their entirety unless they contain offensive or libelous remarks
• seeking to acknowledge the contribution of reviewers to the journal
• encouraging academic institutions to recognize peer review activities as part of the scholarly process
• monitoring the performance of peer reviewers and taking steps to ensure this is of high standard
• developing and maintaining a database of suitable reviewers and updating this on the basis of reviewer performance
• ceasing to use reviewers who consistently produce discourteous, poor quality or late reviews
• ensuring that the reviewer database reflects the community for their journal and adding new reviewers as needed
• using a wide range of sources (not just personal contacts) to identify potential new reviewers (e.g. author suggestions, bibliographic databases)
• following the COPE flowchart in cases of suspected reviewer misconduct

Relationships with Editorial Board Members

Editors should provide new editorial board members with guidelines on everything that is expected of them and should keep existing members updated on new policies and developments.

Best practice for editors would include:
• having policies in place for handling submissions from editorial board members to ensure unbiased review identifying suitably qualified editorial board members who can actively contribute to the development and good management of the journal
• regularly reviewing the composition of the editorial board
• providing clear guidance to editorial board members about their expected functions and duties, which might include:
o acting as ambassadors for the journal
o supporting and promoting the journal
o seeking out the best authors and best work (e.g. from meeting abstracts) and actively encouraging submissions
o reviewing submissions to the journal
o accepting commissions to write editorials, reviews and commentaries on papers in their specialist area
o attending and contributing to editorial board meetings
• consulting editorial board members periodically (e.g. once a year) to gauge their opinions about the running of the journal, informing them of any changes to journal policies and identifying future challenges.

References:

1. MIAME (Minimum information about a microarray experiment): http://www.mged.org/Workgroups/MIAME/ miame.html
2. CONSORT statement (and other reporting guidelines) can be found at: www. equatornetwork.org
3. BMJ transparency policy: http://resources.bmj.com/bmj/authors/editorialpolicies/transparency-policy
4. Marusic A, et al. How the structure of contribution disclosure statements affects validity of authorship: a randomized study in a general medical journal. Curr Med Res Opin 2006;22:1035-44
5. ICMJE (International Committee of Medical Journal Editors) uniform requirements for manuscripts submitted to biomedical journals: http://www.icmje.org/urm_main.html
6. Responsible research publication: international standards for authors (Position statement developed at the 2nd World Conference on Research Integrity, Singapore, July 2010) In press, 2011)
7. World Association of Medical Editors statement on the relationship between journal editors-in-chief and owners: http://www.wame.org/resources/policies
8. World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki: http://www.wma.net/e/ethicsunit/helsinki.htm
9. American Educational Research Association ethical standards: http://www.aera.net/AboutAERA/Default. aspx?menu_id=90&id=222
10. American Psychological Association ethical principles: http://www.apa.org/ethics/code/index.aspx
11. British Educational Research Association ethical guidelines http://www.bera.ac.uk/publications/guidelines/
12. Good Clinical Practice: http://www.emea.europa.eu/pdfs/human/ich/013595en.pdf
13. US Department of Health and Human Services Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals: http://www.nap.edu/readingroom/books/labrats/
14. COPE flowcharts: http://publicationethics.org/flowcharts
15. COPE retraction guidelines: http://publicationethics.org/files/u661/Retractions_COPE_gline_final_3_Sept_09__2_.pdf
16. De Angelis C, et al. Clinical trial registration: a statement from the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. Lancet 2004; 364:911-2
17. PubMed Central: http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/ WWW.PUBLICATIONETHICS.ORG
18.https://www.councilscienceeditors.org

This revision was developed after wide consultation with COPE Members and approved by the COPE Council on 7th March 2011.