General Principles
Science Insights expects research submitted to its journals to be conducted and reported honestly, accurately and responsibly. Authors, reviewers, editors and other participants in the publication process are expected to uphold the integrity of scholarly communication.
Concerns about possible misconduct will be considered on the basis of the available evidence and the circumstances of the case. The existence of an allegation does not itself establish that misconduct has occurred.
Actions taken in response to a concern should be proportionate to the seriousness of the matter and directed towards protecting the integrity of the editorial process and scholarly record.
Research Integrity
Researchers are expected to maintain accurate records, report methods and findings truthfully, acknowledge the contributions and work of others, comply with applicable ethical requirements and avoid practices that could mislead editors, reviewers or readers.
Research results, data, images, figures and other materials should accurately represent the work undertaken. Relevant limitations, uncertainties and methodological information should not be deliberately concealed or misrepresented.
Research Misconduct
Research or publication misconduct may involve conduct that compromises the reliability, authenticity or integrity of research or the scholarly publication process.
Depending on the circumstances, concerns may include fabrication, falsification, plagiarism, inappropriate manipulation of images or data, misrepresentation of authorship, duplicate or redundant publication, manipulation of peer review, undisclosed competing interests or other serious departures from responsible research and publication practices.
Honest error or legitimate differences in scholarly interpretation should not, by themselves, be treated as research misconduct.
Fabrication and Falsification
Fabrication includes the creation or reporting of data, observations, results or other research information that did not genuinely arise from the reported work.
Falsification may include inappropriate manipulation, alteration, omission or misrepresentation of research materials, processes, data, images or results in a manner that causes the research record to become misleading.
Legitimate processing or adjustment of data or images should be consistent with accepted disciplinary practices and should not alter the interpretation of the underlying findings in a misleading manner.
Plagiarism
Authors must appropriately acknowledge ideas, words, data, figures and other material derived from the work of others. Presenting another person's work or intellectual contribution as one's own is unacceptable.
Concerns may include direct copying without appropriate attribution, inappropriate paraphrasing, substantial unattributed reuse of material or other forms of misrepresentation concerning the origin of scholarly content.
Similarity identified by screening software does not by itself establish plagiarism. Where similarity is identified, the context, extent, source and nature of the overlap should be evaluated before an editorial conclusion is reached.
Publication Misconduct
Authors should not engage in practices intended to mislead journals, reviewers, readers or indexing systems regarding the originality, status or provenance of a manuscript.
Potential publication misconduct may include undisclosed duplicate submission, inappropriate redundant publication, deliberate concealment of closely related work, manipulation of citations, submission of fraudulent documentation or other deceptive practices affecting the publication process.
Peer-Review Manipulation
Attempts to compromise the independence or authenticity of peer review are unacceptable. Such conduct may include the use of fabricated reviewer identities, false contact information, impersonation, fabricated review reports, undisclosed inappropriate relationships or other attempts to influence the review process improperly.
Editors may verify reviewer identities, affiliations, contact details or other information where concerns arise about the integrity of the peer-review process.
Further information about peer review is available in the Peer Review Policy .
Reporting Concerns
Concerns about possible research or publication misconduct may be brought to the attention of the relevant journal or Science Insights. A concern should provide sufficient information to identify the work or conduct in question and, where possible, should include supporting information or evidence.
Concerns should be raised in good faith. Submissions that are clearly abusive, threatening, knowingly false or unrelated to publication integrity may not be pursued.
Anonymous concerns may be considered where sufficient information is available to permit a meaningful assessment. The ability to investigate may, however, be limited where essential information cannot be verified.
Assessment and Investigation
When a credible concern is received, an initial assessment may be undertaken to determine the nature of the allegation, its relevance to the journal or published record and whether additional information is required.
Authors, reviewers, editors or other relevant parties may be asked to provide explanations, original data, documentation, correspondence, ethical approvals or other materials necessary to assess the concern.
The extent and form of an investigation will depend on the nature and seriousness of the issue. Science Insights may seek appropriate editorial, technical or subject-specific advice where necessary.
No finding of misconduct should be made solely because an allegation has been raised. Relevant evidence and explanations should be considered before conclusions are reached.
Cooperation with Investigations
Authors and other participants in the publication process are expected to cooperate with reasonable requests for information relating to concerns about the integrity of submitted or published work.
Failure to provide requested information may limit the ability of the journal to resolve a concern and may be taken into account when determining appropriate editorial action.
Information supplied during an investigation should be accurate and should not be deliberately altered, fabricated, withheld or misrepresented.
Institutions and Other Bodies
Journals and publishers are responsible for protecting the integrity of their editorial processes and published records, but they may not have the authority or resources to conduct a full investigation into all aspects of alleged research misconduct.
Where appropriate, Science Insights or the relevant journal may contact an author's institution, employer, research organization, funding body, ethics committee or another appropriate authority and may request that the matter be investigated.
Findings or reliable information provided by an appropriate institution or authority may be considered when determining editorial action.
Possible Outcomes
The outcome of an assessment will depend on the evidence available, the stage of publication and the seriousness of the concern.
Appropriate action may include requesting clarification or correction, rejecting a manuscript, suspending editorial consideration, replacing a reviewer, correcting the published record, issuing an editorial notice, retracting an article or taking other action necessary to preserve publication integrity.
Where a concern is not substantiated, no adverse action should be taken solely on the basis of the original allegation.
Concerns Relating to Published Articles
The publication of an article does not prevent subsequent consideration of credible concerns about its integrity. Post-publication concerns will be assessed according to their nature and potential effect on the reliability of the scholarly record.
Where the published record requires amendment, appropriate action may be taken in accordance with the Corrections and Retractions Policy .
Confidentiality and Fairness
Allegations and investigations should be handled with appropriate confidentiality while allowing sufficient information to be shared with relevant parties where necessary for a fair assessment or to protect the scholarly record.
Individuals whose conduct is questioned should, where appropriate, be given a reasonable opportunity to respond to substantive concerns before significant editorial conclusions are reached.
Science Insights seeks to distinguish genuine research or publication misconduct from honest error, legitimate scholarly disagreement and differences in interpretation.