Ethics for Editors

1) Core principles

  • Integrity of the record: Decisions must prioritize accuracy, transparency, and timely corrections.
  • Respect for persons: Patient privacy, participant dignity, and community harms/benefits matter in editorial judgments.
  • Accountability: Editors are accountable for decisions, reviewer selection, and the fairness of the process.
  • Transparency: Provide clear reasons for decisions and record conflicts, timelines, and deviations from standard workflow.
  • Equity: Ensure inclusion and avoid discrimination based on identity, geography, or institution type.

2) Conflicts of interest & recusals

Editors must proactively identify, disclose, and manage conflicts of interest (COIs). When in doubt, recuse and transfer the manuscript.

Scenario Examples Required action
Personal/Professional Recent co-authorship (<3 years), same department, mentor/mentee, close personal relationship. Immediate recusal; reassign to an unconflicted editor.
Financial Employment, consultancy, advisory roles, stock/royalties related to the topic. Recuse and disclose to EiC; do not advise on reviewer selection.
Intellectual/Advocacy Publicly stated positions, leadership in a competing program, strong prior critiques. Consider recusal; if retained, document mitigation and maintain a balanced reviewer slate.
Institutional Manuscript from your institution or a partner site. Recuse unless EiC approves with safeguards (e.g., external handling editor).

Common pitfalls

“Silent handling” of a trainee’s manuscript; suggesting reviewers while conflicted; relying on informal “it’s fine” assurances. When unsure, disclose and step back.

3) Independence from finances & undue influence

  • APC firewall: Editorial decisions are independent of Article Processing Charges (APCs), waivers, or the payer’s identity. Editors must not access or consider payment/waiver information.
  • No pay-to-publish: Acceptance relies on scholarly merit, ethics, and clinical relevance—not financial capacity.
  • Protection from external pressure: Emails or calls from sponsors, institutions, or public figures seeking influence should be logged and referred to the EiC.

Documentation requirement

Record any attempted influence (date, source, nature of request) in the confidential audit trail. Do not engage substantively; route to the EiC.

4) Fairness, anti-bias & inclusion

Anti-bias expectations

  • Avoid decisions based on author identity, nationality, language fluency, or institution prestige.
  • Value practice-relevant research even when resources constrain sample size, provided methods are sound.
  • Ensure reviewer diversity (geography, sector, career stage) and include bedside/practice voices where relevant.

Language & accessibility

  • Encourage person-first, non-stigmatizing language and culturally respectful framing.
  • Prompt for alt text, captions, and plain-language summaries when feasible.

Editors should challenge citation coercion or unnecessary experiments that impose inequitable burdens on authors.

5) Confidentiality & data protection

  • Keep manuscripts, reviews, and identities confidential; share only with those directly involved in the process.
  • Do not upload confidential content to external tools that store or reuse data; use privacy-preserving systems with access controls.
  • Redact patient identifiers in any internal excerpts; verify explicit consent for identifiable images/audio prior to review circulation.
  • Store audit trails and decision letters securely; restrict access to authorized staff.

Common pitfalls

Forwarding manuscripts to personal email; using public cloud links; quoting reviewer text in unsecured documents; discussing submissions on social media.

6) Use of AI and computational tools

  • Do not input confidential manuscript content into tools that train on or retain user data.
  • Allowed: privacy-preserving internal tools for logistics (e.g., tracking deadlines), similarity checking, or figure forensics—as aids, not substitutes for judgment.
  • Document tool name and settings in the audit trail when used for integrity screening.
  • Editors must critically appraise outputs from AI-assisted checks and avoid over-reliance.

7) Integrity checks and investigations

Editors should apply proportionate integrity checks while respecting author rights.

Check What to look for Typical response
Similarity screening Overlaps suggesting plagiarism or excessive text recycling. Contextual review; request explanation; reject or revise if unresolved.
Image integrity Duplications, splicing, inconsistent backgrounds, altered scale bars. Request originals; escalate if non-benign; consider expression of concern/rejection.
Statistical anomalies Improbable distributions, suspicious p-value patterns. Consult statistical reviewer; request data/analysis logs.
Ethics documentation Missing/insufficient IRB/IEC approval or consent statements. Hold and request; decline if non-compliant for human/animal work.

8) Handling allegations of misconduct

Process

  1. Record the concern with date, source, and evidence in the audit trail.
  2. Preliminary review by the handling editor and EiC to determine credibility and scope.
  3. Author contact with specific questions and a defined timeframe for response; request data, images, or approvals as needed.
  4. Escalation to institution/funder when warranted; cooperate with formal investigations.
  5. Outcome proportionate to findings: correction, expression of concern, retraction/replacement, or no action.

Maintain neutrality; avoid accusatory language. Share only necessary details with reviewers or external experts under confidentiality.

9) Whistleblower protection

  • Protect the identity of individuals who raise concerns in good faith whenever possible.
  • Prohibit retaliation in editorial communications; treat complaints promptly and respectfully.
  • Encourage specific, evidence-backed reports (e.g., figure panels, line numbers, data files).

10) Corrections, expressions of concern, and retractions

Proportionate actions

  • Correction: Honest errors that do not alter main conclusions.
  • Expression of Concern: Serious but unresolved doubts pending investigation.
  • Retraction: Unreliable findings or egregious ethical breaches (fabrication, falsification, plagiarism).
  • Replacement: When a corrected version supersedes the original with transparent linkage.

Implementation standards

  • Publish visible notices; crosslink between article and notice in HTML/PDF.
  • Notify indexing services and update DOIs to propagate status.
  • Preserve the scholarly record (e.g., watermarks on retracted PDFs).

11) Gifts, hospitality & undue influence

  • Editors must not solicit or accept gifts, favors, or hospitality from authors, sponsors, or vendors that could reasonably be perceived to influence decisions.
  • Speaking honoraria or travel support connected to a submission under consideration must be declined or disclosed and followed by recusal.
  • Any offers received should be documented and reported to the EiC.

12) Advertising, sponsors & special issues

  • Editorial decisions are fully independent from advertising sales, sponsorships, or partnerships.
  • Special/thematic issues must follow the same ethical standards; guest editors declare conflicts and are supervised by an unconflicted CJNCP editor.
  • Sponsored supplements, if any, require explicit labeling, independent peer review, and separation from marketing content.

Transparency

Clearly state the role of any sponsor in calls for papers and published content. Sponsors have no control over editorial decisions, peer review, or article acceptance.

13) Templates & checklists

Editor COI self-check (quick)

  • Have I co-authored with any author in the last 3 years?
  • Do I share a department, grant, or advisory role with the authors?
  • Could my public statements suggest strong prior alignment/opposition?
  • Do I have any financial relationships related to the topic?

If “yes” or “unsure” to any item, disclose and recuse.

Reviewer fairness checklist (for invitations)

  • Two or more reviewers with complementary expertise (e.g., clinical + methods).
  • Diverse geographic/career representation where possible.
  • No recent co-authorship or institutional overlap with authors.
  • Consider bedside/practice reviewers when clinically relevant.

Short templates (excerpts)

Recusal notice to EiC: “I am recusing from MS-2025-123 due to [relationship]. Please reassign.”

Influence attempt log: “On 29 Sep 2025, [Name/Org] contacted me requesting expedited acceptance of MS-2025-123. I did not engage; escalated to EiC.”

14) Training, wellbeing & calibration

Continuous development

  • Participate in regular training on research ethics, statistics/qualitative methods, and image/data forensics.
  • Review anonymized exemplary decision letters to align tone and expectations.
  • Share emerging concerns (e.g., AI-generated images) for collective guidance.

Wellbeing & boundaries

  • Set realistic response windows; avoid out-of-hours pressure except for public-interest cases.
  • Seek support for challenging cases; avoid unilateral decisions under stress.
  • Maintain professional, courteous tone; do not respond while upset—draft, pause, and review.

15) Governance & updates

  • This page complements Editor’s Guidelines, Editorial Responsibilities, Confidentiality and Ethics for Editors, and the Publication Ethics Policy.
  • Editors must review policy updates and confirm annually that their conflict declarations are current.
  • Any deviations from this policy must be recorded, justified, and approved by the EiC.

16) Contact

Questions about editorial ethics or challenging cases should be directed to the Editor-in-Chief via the editorial office. Include the manuscript ID, a concise summary of the issue, any relevant documentation (e.g., IRB approval, image originals), and your proposed next steps.