Ethics and Malpractice Statement

Core publication ethics principles

Integrity of the record: Our decisions prioritize accuracy, reproducibility, and clinical usefulness over novelty alone.
Respect for persons: Research must protect the dignity, rights, and privacy of participants and patients.
Fairness and objectivity: Peer review is double-blind; conflicts are disclosed and actively managed.
Transparency: Methods, data availability, funding, and competing interests must be stated clearly.
Accountability: Authors, reviewers, and editors share responsibility for ethical conduct and timely corrections.

Authorship and contributorship

Authorship should reflect substantial intellectual contributions and the ability to take public responsibility for content. Contributors should agree on author order before submission and describe their roles in a Contributor Statement (e.g., conceptualization, methodology, data curation, formal analysis, investigation, writing, supervision, project administration).

Minimum criteria: Material contributions to conception/design or data work, drafting/revising the work, final approval, and accountability for accuracy and integrity.
Acknowledgments: Individuals who contributed materially but do not meet authorship criteria should be named in acknowledgments with their permission.
Group authorship: Specify group name, list members in an appendix or supplementary material, and identify the corresponding author.
Authorship changes: After submission, changes require written agreement from all original and proposed authors and editor approval.

Conflicts of interest and funding

All authors, reviewers, and editors must disclose relationships or activities that could influence—or be perceived to influence—the work. Examples include employment, consultancies, equity holdings, honoraria, patents, equipment or drug supply, and personal relationships with competing stakeholders. Funding sources and the role of funders should be disclosed in the manuscript and on submission forms. Editors recuse themselves from manuscripts where conflicts exist.

Ethics approval, consent, and patient privacy

Research involving humans requires approval by an appropriate ethics committee or IRB; include the committee name and approval number/date where available. When a project is exempt, provide the rationale with reference to local regulations. Authors must describe consent processes and accommodations for language, culture, and disability. Case reports require explicit patient/guardian consent and rigorous de-identification. Images that could reveal identity must have consent; faces and unique tattoos or markings should be obscured unless consent covers identifiable publication.

For research with children, indigenous communities, and other groups with special protections, describe community engagement, data sovereignty considerations, and tailored consent procedures.

Animal research, QI, and service evaluations

Animals: Follow humane care standards; include approval identifiers and describe analgesia, endpoints, and housing as appropriate.
Quality improvement (QI)/service evaluations: Clarify governance approvals, risk assessment, and whether activities constituted research under local definitions. Use SQUIRE or analogous reporting.

Data, materials, and transparency

Every submission must include a Data Availability Statement. Where policy and ethics permit, authors are encouraged to share de-identified data, instruments, and code in trusted repositories with persistent identifiers. At minimum, provide sufficient detail for replication or practical adoption in clinical settings. Respect privacy, confidentiality, and third-party rights for any shared materials.

Preferred practice: Deposit datasets and code with clear licenses; cite DOIs in the manuscript and references.
Sensitive data: Provide controlled access descriptions or synthetic data where necessary; never upload identifiable data to uncontrolled tools.
Image integrity: Do not selectively enhance, obscure, or introduce features; disclose uniformly applied adjustments.

Originality, plagiarism, and text recycling

Submissions must be original and not under consideration elsewhere. We use similarity checking to detect plagiarism, redundant publication, and inappropriate text recycling. Reused methods text should be cited and, where feasible, rephrased. Prior dissemination as a thesis or preprint is allowed but must be disclosed, and authors should update preprints with a link to the version of record upon publication. See the dedicated Plagiarism Policy for process details.

Use of generative AI and automated tools

Authors must disclose any use of AI tools in study design, data collection, analysis, writing, or image generation. AI systems cannot be listed as authors. Authors are responsible for verifying all outputs, ensuring originality, and clearing rights for training-data implications where relevant. Never upload identifiable or sensitive data to third-party tools without appropriate approvals and agreements.

Peer review integrity

CJNCP uses double-blind peer review. Reviewers must keep manuscripts confidential, declare conflicts of interest, and submit evaluations that are constructive, respectful, and evidence-based. Co-reviewing by trainees is welcome with prior editor approval and full attribution within the confidential review system. Reviewer identities remain confidential unless a reviewer explicitly consents to being named. See the Peer Review Policy for details.

Research and publication malpractice

We consider the following behaviors unethical. Confirmed cases may result in rejection, retraction, expressions of concern, or sanctions appropriate to the severity and intent.

Behavior	Examples	Typical responses
Plagiarism & text recycling	Uncited copying; mosaic plagiarism; duplicate submission; salami slicing	Reject or retract; require corrections; notify institutions as appropriate
Fabrication & falsification	Invented data; manipulated images; undisclosed post-hoc exclusions	Reject or retract; inform institutions/funders; ban future submissions
Peer-review manipulation	Faked reviewer identities; coercive citation; undisclosed co-review	Reject/retract; disable accounts; report to host institutions
Authorship misconduct	Gift/ghost authorship; order disputes; denial of rightful credit	Require authorship correction; may reject or publish notice
Undeclared conflicts	Financial ties or personal relationships not disclosed	Publish correction; retract if conclusions are compromised
Ethics/privacy violations	Lack of IRB approval; missing consent for identifiable images	Reject or retract; remove images; notify relevant authorities

Good practice tips for authors

Register interventional trials prospectively; cite the registry ID in the manuscript.
Use design-appropriate reporting guidelines (CONSORT, STROBE, COREQ, PRISMA, SQUIRE, etc.).
Maintain an organized data and code archive so you can respond quickly to editorial queries.
Explain how privacy was protected, including consent for images and case details.
Provide a clear “Implications for Practice” section to support clinical adoption.

How CJNCP handles concerns and allegations

We take concerns seriously whether raised by readers, reviewers, editors, or institutions. The process below balances fairness, timeliness, and the need to preserve the scholarly record.

Investigation workflow (summary)

Triage: The Editor-in-Chief (or delegate) logs the concern, screens for conflicts, and conducts an initial assessment.
Contact authors: We write to the corresponding author with the allegation and request a response and relevant documentation (e.g., raw data, approvals, image originals) within a defined timeframe.
Independent review: Where needed, we consult statistical/methodological reviewers or editorial board members not involved in the original decision.
Institutional notification: For credible allegations of serious misconduct (e.g., fabrication/falsification), we may contact institutional officials or funders to ensure a formal investigation.
Interim notices: If readers could be misled while an investigation proceeds, we may post an Expression of Concern.
Outcome: Outcomes include correction/clarification, retraction with or without replacement, or dismissal of the concern. We aim to document reasoning transparently.
Recordkeeping: All correspondence and evidence are retained in the editorial system to support accountability and future audits.

Timeframes vary with complexity and responsiveness. We strive to resolve issues promptly and inform affected parties of decisions.

Corrections, expressions of concern, and retractions

When an error or concern affects the interpretation of the scholarly record, we will publish a correction or clarification linked to the original article. If findings are unreliable or ethical standards were breached, we may retract the article and provide a transparent notice explaining the reason. Expressions of Concern signal unresolved or ongoing investigations. See also the journal’s Withdrawal Policy for details on retraction and removal circumstances.

Appeals and complaints

Authors may appeal editorial decisions by providing a reasoned response to specific reviewer/editor points; appeals may trigger additional review at the editor’s discretion. Complaints about process, bias, or ethical matters are handled through the journal’s Grievances board, which sets timelines and escalation pathways to the Editor-in-Chief and, if necessary, the publisher.

Responsibilities of editors and reviewers

Editors

Maintain editorial independence; decisions are not influenced by sponsor or advertiser interests.
Ensure fair, rigorous peer review by qualified reviewers and avoid conflicts of interest.
Protect confidentiality of submissions and participants.
Act on suspected misconduct even if discovered years after publication.
Promote diversity, equity, and inclusivity in editorial practices and reviewer pools.

Reviewers

Provide objective, evidence-based assessments with clear rationales and actionable suggestions.
Declare conflicts and decline reviews where impartiality may be compromised.
Keep manuscripts confidential; do not use unpublished information for personal advantage.
Submit reviews within agreed timelines or inform editors promptly of delays.
Seek permission before involving trainees or colleagues and ensure they are named in the confidential review record.

Sanctions and repeated breaches

CJNCP may apply sanctions proportionate to the severity and recurrence of problems. These can include refusal to consider future submissions for a period of time, removal from editorial or reviewer roles, notice to institutions and funders, and public notices on the article page where appropriate. Sanctions are applied after careful documentation and, when relevant, consultation with institutional processes.

Frequently asked questions

Can I submit a paper that was previously posted as a preprint?

Yes, disclose the preprint server and identifier in your cover letter and manuscript, and update the preprint with a link to the Version of Record after publication.

Are qualitative studies welcome?

Absolutely. Demonstrate rigor (credibility, dependability, confirmability, transferability) and connect insights to actionable clinical implications.

How do you handle contested authorship?

We request written statements from all parties and, when needed, contact institutions for mediation. Disputes may delay review or publication until resolved.

What if my dataset cannot be shared?

Provide a Data Availability Statement explaining constraints (e.g., privacy, legal, or contractual) and describe how others might request controlled access where feasible.

What about images that contain patient identifiers?

Obtain explicit consent that covers identifiable publication or ensure thorough de-identification. If neither is feasible, do not submit the image.

Peer Review Policy • Plagiarism Policy • Open Access Policy • Copyright and Licensing • Withdrawal Policy • Privacy Statement