Allegations of misconduct

Detection of scientific misconduct usually arises from reports by co-authors, collaborators, reviewers, editors, or readers. Increasingly, however, misconduct is identified through post-publication 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 review 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.

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

Upon receiving an allegation, the editor will:

• Conduct an initial confidential assessment, requesting detailed documentation from the complainant to substantiate the allegation.
• If the allegation appears credible, confidentially contact the corresponding author to request an explanation.
• 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), and will notify the author’s institution.
• If the author’s explanation adequately resolves the concern, 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 authors of this step.

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 this purpose. The journal editor expects timely acknowledgment from these entities, including a clear investigation plan and timeline. Typically, institutions should complete an initial inquiry within 60 days of notification.

Editors must maintain strict confidentiality throughout the process, particularly regarding the identities of involved parties, and 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.

If evidence indicates possible misconduct affecting other journals, editors may confidentially consult with editors of those journals to coordinate responses.

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