Best Workflow Statement and Prevention of Publishing Violations
The statement outlines the best workflow and prevention of publishing violations. The COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics) set of rules for magazine editors is designed to establish a set of minimum standards expected to be followed by all COPE members. The best practices have garnered widespread support and were formulated in response to editors' requests for guidance on a wide and evolving range of complex ethical issues. While COPE expects all members to adhere to the set of rules related to journal editors (and addresses complaints related to members who do not comply), it is recognized that editors may not be able to implement all voluntary best practice recommendations. However, it is hoped that our suggestions will lead to the identification of journal policies and practices that require review and discussion. In this combined version of documents, a mandatory set of rules for journal editors' standards is written in organized texts with numbered articles.
General Duties and Responsibilities of the Editor-in-Chief
1-1. The Editor-in-Chief must be accountable for any content published in the journal.
This implies that the Editor-in-Chief should:
1-2. Strive to meet the needs of readers and authors.
1-3. Endeavor to continuously improve the journal.
1-4. Adopt approaches to ensure the quality of published content.
1-5. Advocate for freedom of expression.
1-6. Uphold the accuracy and integrity of academic records.
1-7. Meet professional needs through compliance with rational and ethical standards.
1-8. Always be eager to publish corrections, clarifications, apologies, and retractions when necessary.
Best practices for Editors-in-Chief may include:
Actively seeking input from authors, readers, editors, and editorial board members on ways to improve the journal's approaches.
Encouraging and being aware of research on reviewing and publishing, and periodically reassessing the journal's approaches in light of new findings.
Striving to encourage publishers to provide appropriate resources and seek guidance from experts (e.g., designers and legal experts).
Supporting initiatives designed to address existing issues in research and publication.
Supporting initiatives aimed at educating researchers on publication ethics.
Evaluating the impact of journal policies on the behavior of authors and reviewers, and revising policies when necessary to strengthen accountability and address behavioral issues.
Ensuring that any published material by the journal reflects the message of the article and is accurately presented in the text.
2. Engagement with Readers
2-1. Readers should be informed about financial contributors or sponsors and be aware of whether financial contributors played a role in the research and publication, and if so, what role they played.
Best practices for Editors-in-Chief would include:
Ensuring that reports of published research and reviews are conducted by qualified and competent reviewers (including statistical reviews where necessary).
Ensuring that unreviewed sections of the journal are clearly identified.
Adopting approaches that enhance the accuracy, comprehensiveness, and clarity of research reports, including technical editing and the use of appropriate guidelines and checklists.
Focusing on improving transparency policies to maximize transparency regarding the sources of non-research articles.
Implementing systems of authorship or contribution that enhance accountability (e.g., accurate indexing to show who has contributed to the work) and reduce issues (such as ghost and guest authors).
Assuring readers that writings by journal staff or editorial board members are evaluated impartially.
3. Engagement with Authors
3-1. The decision of the Editor-in-Chief to accept or reject a manuscript should be based on the importance, originality, and clarity of the paper, the credibility of the study, and its alignment with the journal's objectives.
3-2. The Editor-in-Chief should not change their decision to accept manuscripts unless serious issues are identified.
3-3. A new Editor-in-Chief should not alter the previous Editor-in-Chief's decisions regarding the publication of manuscripts unless serious issues are identified.
3-4. Descriptions of re-evaluation approaches should be published, and the Editor-in-Chief should be prepared to justify any significant deviation from the stated approaches.
3-5. Journals should define a mechanism for authors to appeal against the decisions of the Editors.
3-6. The Editor-in-Chief should communicate expectations to authors through guidelines. These guidelines should be regularly updated and referred to or linked to in the code.
3-7. The Editor-in-Chief should develop guidelines on the necessary criteria for authorship or who should adhere to such standards in this area.
Best practices for Editors-in-Chief would include:
Regularly reviewing author comments and providing relevant links to these guidelines.
Disclosing relevant conflicts of interest for all stakeholders and publishing corrections if conflicts of interest are identified post-publication.
Ensuring that reviewers of manuscripts are appropriately selected (e.g., individuals capable of reviewing the content and free of disqualifying conflicts of interest).
Respecting requests from authors that acceptable and feasible revisions to their work not be subject to further review.
Referring to COPE guidelines in cases where the reviewer's performance is problematic.
Publishing details of how suspicious authorship or publication issues were resolved.
Publishing the dates of writing and acceptance of articles.
4. Engagement with Reviewers
4-1. The Editor-in-Chief should communicate their expectations of reviewers, including the use of provided materials to ensure confidence, in the form of guidelines. These guidelines should be regularly updated and referred to or linked to in the code.
4-2. Editors should have potential conflicts of interest disclosed by reviewers before referral.
4-3. The Editor-in-Chief should have a system in place to ensure that reviewers' identities are kept confidential unless explicit disclosure occurs that authors and reviewers are informed.
Best practices for Editors-in-Chief would include:
Encouraging reviewers to challenge ethical and potential research questions and problems arising from writings about publication (e.g., unethical research design, insufficient information for consent or support of research topics, such as animals).
Encouraging reviewers to challenge the authenticity of writings and awareness of the publication of materials with plagiarism and literary theft.
Providing the necessary tools to reviewers for identifying relevant publications (e.g., providing links to cited sources and searching the book list).
Announcing reviewer comments to authors with complete integrity unless the statements are insulting or defamatory.
Ensuring that reviewers cooperate with the journal.
Encouraging academic institutions to accept review activities as a research approach.
Reviewing the performance of reviewers and taking steps to ensure their high standards.
Developing and maintaining a suitable and updated database of reviewers based on their performance.
Using a wide range of sources (not just personal contacts) to identify potential new reviewers (e.g., author recommendations, databases related to the book list).
5. Engagement with Editorial Board Members
5-1. The Editor-in-Chief should consider new members of the editorial board and provide them with guidelines based on expectations from them, keeping them up-to-date with policies and new developments.
Best practices for Editors-in-Chief would include:
Having the necessary policies for managing the writings of editorial board members to ensure impartial reviews.
Identifying editorial board members with the competence to actively collaborate in the development and good management of the journal.
Regularly reviewing the composition of the editorial board.
Providing clear guidance to editorial board members on expected roles and responsibilities, which may include:
Acting as an executive member of the journal
Supporting and enhancing the journal
Seeking the best authors and best works (e.g., from leaked abstracts) and actively enhancing writings
Editing writings for the journal
Accepting responsibility for editing, reviewing, and commenting on articles in their field of expertise
Joining and participating in editorial board meetings
Periodically consulting with editorial board members (e.g., annually) to review feedback on journal management, inform them of any changes in journal policies, and identify challenges ahead.
6. Relations with Journal Owners and Publishers: 6-1. The relationship between the editor-in-chief and the publisher is often complex but must fundamentally be based on the principles of editorial independence. 6-2. The editor-in-chief should decide on the publication of articles based on their quality and relevance to the journal, without interference from the owner or publisher of the journal. 6-3. The editor-in-chief should have a written agreement regulating their relationship with the owner or publisher of the journal. 6-4. The provisions of this agreement should align with the Code of Conduct for Journal Editors.
Best practices for the editor-in-chief include:
Establishing mechanisms for resolving conflicts with owners or publishers with legal formalities.
Maintaining continuous communication with the owner and publisher of the journal.
7. Editorial Approaches and Review: 7-1. The editor-in-chief must ensure that the review process in their journal is fair, impartial, and timely. 7-2. The editor-in-chief should have a system in place to ensure that the materials presented in the journal remain confidential during the review process.
Best practices for the editor-in-chief include:
Ensuring that editorial staff, including themselves, undergo sufficient training and stay updated on the latest guidelines and evidence regarding review and journal management.
Staying informed about research on reviewing and technological advancements.
Adopting the most appropriate review methods for the journal and its research community.
Periodically reviewing the performance of the review process for potential improvements.
Referring problematic cases to the COPE, especially when questions arise that cannot be addressed in the normal course of the COPE process or when new issues about the journal emerge.
Conducting meetings to arbitrate complaints that could not be resolved.
8. Quality Assurance: 8-1. The editor-in-chief must take reasonable steps to ensure the quality of the content published, considering that journals and journal sections will have different goals and standards.
Best practices for the editor-in-chief include:
Having a system for identifying incorrect information (e.g., misplaced images or plagiarized texts) when suspicions arise.
Making decisions about the journal's layout based on evidence related to factors that enhance the quality of reports, rather than relying on aesthetic or personal preferences.
9. Protection of Personal Information: 9-1. The editor-in-chief must adhere to principles of confidentiality in their judgments. Regardless of internal rules, they must always keep personal information obtained during research or professional interactions confidential (e.g., between doctor and patient). Therefore, written consent for disclosure should always be obtained from individuals who may be identifiable or recognized by others (e.g., through reports or images).
Best practices for the editor-in-chief include:
Publishing their policy on the publication of personal information (e.g., information or personal images) and providing a comprehensive explanation to authors.
Noting that consent to participate in research or related matters, similar to consent for the publication of information, images, or personal quotes, is not the same.
10. Encouraging Ethical Practices (e.g., Human and Animal Research): 10-1. The editor-in-chief must ensure that the research they publish is conducted in accordance with internationally accepted ethical guidelines (e.g., the Declaration of Helsinki for clinical research and the AERA and BERA guidelines for educational research). 10-2. The editor-in-chief should seek assurance that all research has been approved by the competent authority (e.g., ethics review committee). However, the editor-in-chief should be aware that such approvals do not guarantee the ethical conduct of the research.
Best practices for the editor-in-chief include:
Being prepared to request evidence of the ethical approval of research and questioning authors about ethical aspects (e.g., how participant consent was obtained or the method used to minimize animal harm) in case of concerns or the need for clarification.
Ensuring that reports of clinical trials are based on the Declaration of Helsinki, Good Clinical Practice, and other relevant guidelines for ensuring participant safety.
Ensuring that reports of experiments or studies on animals comply with the World Health Organization's guidelines for the care and use of laboratory animals or other relevant guidelines.
Appointing a consultant or ethical board for advice on specific issues and conducting periodic reviews of the journal's policy.
11. Dealing with Potential Misconduct: 11-1. The editor-in-chief is obligated to take action upon observing misconduct or signs of potential misconduct, covering both published and unpublished articles. 11-2. The editor-in-chief should not simply reject articles suspected of misconduct. Ethically, they must investigate such cases. 11-3. The editor-in-chief should follow the COPE guidelines wherever possible. 11-4. Initially, the editor-in-chief should seek a response from the parties involved in suspected misconduct. If a satisfactory response is not obtained, the matter should be addressed by staff, the institution, or other qualified individuals. 11-5. The editor-in-chief must make every effort to ensure that appropriate action is taken regarding the misconduct. If this does not happen, the editor-in-chief must make every effort to find a solution to the problem. This task is challenging but crucial.
12. Assurance of Academic Record Accuracy: 12-1. Errors or mistakes in writings must be corrected promptly based on their significance. 12-2. The editor-in-chief should use COPE guidelines to rectify errors.
Best practices for the editor-in-chief include:
Moving towards reducing inflammatory content in publications (e.g., ensuring that all clinical cases are documented).
Ensuring that published content is securely archived (e.g., in permanent repositories like PubMed Central).
Having a system to provide authors with an opportunity for open presentation of research articles.
13. Intellectual Property: 13-1. The editor-in-chief must be aware of intellectual property issues and collaborate with their publisher to manage the ability to violate intellectual property laws and commitments. Best practices for the editor-in-chief include:
Adopting a system to detect literary theft (e.g., software for searching similar titles) in submitted articles.
Supporting authors whose copyrights have not been respected or who have been victims of literary theft.
Being prepared to collaborate with the publisher to defend the rights of the author and take action against offenders (e.g., by requesting retractions or removal from websites), regardless of whether the journal adheres to copyright or not.
14. Encouraging Discussion: 14-1. The editor-in-chief should be eager to address convincing criticisms of works published in the journal. 14-2. The author of the criticized article should be given an opportunity to respond. 14-3. Reading negative results in work reports should not be overlooked.
Best practices for the editor-in-chief include:
Freedom to investigate cases where published content is challenged in the journal.
15. Complaints: 15-1. The editor-in-chief must promptly address complaints and understand that unresolved complaints lead to more complaints. The mechanism and process for referring unresolved issues to COPE should be clearly outlined in the journal. 15-2. The editor-in-chief should follow the procedure outlined in the COPE for handling complaints.
16. Economic Considerations: 16-1. Journals must have policies and systems to ensure that economic considerations do not interfere with editorial decisions (e.g., the advertising department should operate independently of the editorial department). 16-2. The editor-in-chief should have a clear advertising policy regarding the content of the journal and the approaches needed for sponsorship.
Best practices for the editor-in-chief include:
Publishing a general explanation of the journal's income sources (e.g., the share of income from advertising, sales, sponsorship requirements, etc.).
Ensuring that the sponsorship review process is similar to the journal's own sponsorship.
Ensuring that items included in sponsorship are based solely on academic merit and appeal to readers and that decision-making on these requirements does not interfere with commercial considerations.
17. Conflict of Interest: 17-1. The editor-in-chief must have a system to manage their own conflict of interest and that of staff, authors, reviewers, and editorial board members. 17-2. Journals must have a transparent policy for resolving writings from editors, staff, or editorial board members to ensure unbiased review.
Best practices for the editor-in-chief include:
Publishing a list of common interests (financial, academic, or other types) of editorial staff and editorial board members (to be updated annually).
