This journal is committed to upholding the highest standards of publication ethics and to following the Core Practices set out by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). This page summarizes the policies and procedures that govern how we handle authorship, complaints, misconduct, conflicts of interest, data integrity, ethical oversight, intellectual property, post-publication discussion, and corrections and retractions.
Editors and the publisher share responsibility for the integrity of the scholarly record. Our policies — and the conduct of our editors — are designed never to encourage misconduct, and never to knowingly permit it to occur. Where allegations of misconduct arise, whether in a submitted or already-published article, we follow COPE guidance (or equivalent international standards) in investigating and resolving them.
1. Authorship and Contributorship
The journal follows internationally recognized authorship criteria (such as those defined by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors, ICMJE) to determine who qualifies as an author. In general, an author must have:
- Made a substantial contribution to the conception, design, data acquisition, or analysis/interpretation of the work;
- Drafted the work or revised it critically for important intellectual content;
- Approved the final version to be published; and
- Agreed to be accountable for all aspects of the work.
Individuals who contributed to the work but do not meet all authorship criteria (e.g., technical support, general supervision, funding acquisition alone) should be listed in the Acknowledgments section rather than as authors.
The corresponding author is responsible for confirming that all listed authors meet these criteria, that the author list is accurate and complete at submission, and for managing any communication regarding authorship changes. Requests to add, remove, or reorder authors after submission must be explained in writing and agreed to by all authors, including any author being removed.
The journal encourages the use of a Statement of Contribution (e.g., following the CRediT taxonomy) to transparently describe each author’s specific role in the work.
2. Complaints and Appeals
Authors, reviewers, or readers who have concerns about an editorial decision or the conduct of the review process may submit a formal complaint or appeal. Our full procedure — including grounds for appeal, submission requirements, review timelines, and possible outcomes — is outlined in our Author Complaints and Appeals Policy.
In brief:
- Appeals must be submitted in writing to the editorial office within a specified window of the original decision.
- Appeals are reviewed by an editor not involved in the original decision, wherever possible.
- Authors receive a reasoned, written response, and in exceptional cases may request a further independent review.
Submitting a complaint or appeal will never negatively affect consideration of an author’s current or future submissions.
3. Allegations of Research Misconduct
The journal takes allegations of research misconduct seriously, including but not limited to plagiarism, citation manipulation, data fabrication or falsification, image manipulation, duplicate or redundant publication, and undisclosed conflicts of interest.
When an allegation arises — whether raised by a reviewer, reader, author, or identified through routine screening (such as plagiarism detection software) — the journal follows this general process:
- The concern is documented and an initial assessment is made by the handling editor.
- If warranted, the editor contacts the author(s) to request an explanation, following COPE’s flowcharts as a guide.
- Where necessary, the author’s institution or employer may be contacted for further investigation, consistent with COPE guidance.
- Outcomes may include a request for correction, a formal expression of concern, or retraction, depending on the severity of the finding.
The journal does not conduct its own formal misconduct investigations beyond editorial fact-finding; substantive investigations of individual researchers are generally the responsibility of their institution. The journal cooperates fully with institutional investigations where relevant.
4. Conflicts of Interest
All parties involved in the publication process — authors, reviewers, and editors — are required to disclose any financial, personal, professional, or institutional relationships that could be perceived to influence, or that could reasonably appear to bias, their work or judgment.
- Authors must disclose relevant conflicts of interest (e.g., funding sources, employment, consultancies, patents, stock ownership) in a dedicated section of the manuscript.
- Reviewers must decline to review a manuscript, or disclose the potential conflict to the editor, if they have a competing interest with the authors or the subject matter (e.g., recent collaboration, institutional affiliation, financial interest).
- Editors must recuse themselves from handling manuscripts where they have a competing interest, including manuscripts authored by close colleagues, collaborators, or themselves.
Disclosed conflicts of interest do not automatically disqualify a manuscript, reviewer, or editor from participating — they are managed transparently to preserve the integrity of the review process.
5. Data Sharing and Reproducibility
The journal encourages and, in many cases, requires authors to make the data underlying their published findings available to readers, subject to appropriate ethical and legal constraints (such as participant privacy or proprietary limitations).
Authors are expected to:
- Provide a Data Availability Statement indicating where and how supporting data can be accessed, or explaining why data cannot be shared.
- Deposit data in a recognized public repository where appropriate to the field, rather than relying solely on “available upon request” arrangements.
- Ensure sufficient methodological detail is reported so that findings can, in principle, be reproduced or replicated by other researchers.
- Retain raw data and records for a reasonable period after publication in case questions arise.
Where a study involves code, software, or computational analysis, authors are encouraged to share these materials alongside the manuscript to support transparency and reproducibility.
6. Ethical Oversight
For research involving human participants, human tissue, or animals, authors must confirm that the study was conducted in accordance with relevant ethical guidelines and legal requirements.
Manuscripts must include:
- A statement confirming approval by an appropriate institutional review board (IRB), ethics committee, or equivalent body, including the approval/protocol number.
- Confirmation that informed consent was obtained from human participants (or their legal guardians), including consent for publication of identifiable information or images where applicable.
- Confirmation that animal research complied with relevant institutional and national guidelines for the care and use of laboratory animals.
Where a study was exempt from formal ethical review, authors must explain the basis for that exemption. The journal reserves the right to request documentation of ethical approval and may decline to publish or may retract work found to have been conducted without appropriate oversight.
7. Intellectual Property
The journal respects the intellectual property rights of authors, contributors, and third parties.
- Copyright and licensing. Authors retain or transfer copyright as specified in the journal’s publishing agreement, and are informed of the applicable license (e.g., a Creative Commons license for open-access content) at the time of submission or acceptance.
- Permissions. Authors are responsible for obtaining and providing documentation of permission to reproduce any previously published material, including figures, tables, images, or substantial text, and for appropriately crediting the original source.
- Plagiarism. All submissions are expected to be original work. Manuscripts may be screened using plagiarism-detection software, and any instance of textual overlap, uncredited reuse of ideas, or self-plagiarism will be addressed according to the journal’s misconduct procedures.
- Third-party claims. Any disputes regarding intellectual property ownership or infringement will be handled in accordance with applicable copyright law and, where relevant, COPE guidance.
8. Post-Publication Discussion
The journal supports open scholarly discussion after publication as a legitimate and valuable part of the scientific record.
Readers who wish to raise a substantive question, correction, or critique regarding a published article may do so through:
- A formal Letter to the Editor or comment, subject to editorial review and, where appropriate, a right of reply from the original authors.
- Direct correspondence with the editorial office, which may be considered alongside any relevant corrections process.
All post-publication comments are expected to be constructive, evidence-based, and professionally worded. The journal will not publish comments that are defamatory, unsubstantiated, or that violate the privacy of individuals involved in the research.
9. Corrections and Retractions
The journal is committed to maintaining an accurate and reliable published record, and will issue corrections or retractions in accordance with COPE guidelines when necessary.
- Corrections (Erratum/Corrigendum). Issued when an honest error by the author(s) or the journal (e.g., a data entry error, incorrect figure, or omitted funding statement) affects the scholarly record but does not undermine the overall validity or conclusions of the article.
- Expressions of Concern. Issued when there is credible but as-yet-unresolved evidence of a serious issue with a published article (e.g., an ongoing misconduct investigation), to alert readers while the matter is investigated.
- Retraction. Issued when the article’s findings are no longer considered reliable due to major error, data fabrication or falsification, plagiarism, duplicate publication, unethical research, or other serious violations of publication ethics.
All corrections, expressions of concern, and retractions are:
- Clearly linked to the original article and, where feasible, made freely available regardless of the original access model;
- Published promptly once a determination has been made, following a fair process that gives the author(s) an opportunity to respond;
- Retained in the published record — retracted articles remain accessible, but are clearly watermarked or labeled as retracted, along with the reason for retraction.
These policies are reviewed periodically to remain consistent with evolving best practices in scholarly publishing and with guidance issued by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). Questions about any of these policies can be directed to the editorial office at mary@innovisionhm.com.