Publication Ethics & Integrity Policies
Scholarly Open is committed to upholding world-class editorial integrity. Our framework integrates guidelines from the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) to safeguard research credibility and support author prestige.
COPE Core Practices Framework
We align our editorial workflows with the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) Core Practices. These guidelines ensure systematic, objective, and transparent handling of research integrity matters across our 13 Gold Open Access journals.
By adhering to standardized COPE flowcharts, we ensure impartial resolution of inquiries regarding authorship, data presentation, peer review, and post-publication corrections.
Core Governance Pillars
- Allegations Management: Confidential, flowchart-guided investigations.
- Contributorship & Authorship: Strict ICMJE criteria preventing guest/ghost authorship.
- Appeals & Inquiries: Open, fair appeal channels for all editorial outcomes.
- Conflict Disclosure: Comprehensive competing interest declarations.
- Data Reproducibility: Open data protocols and code availability requirements.
- Record Preservation: Formal errata, corrigenda, and retraction procedures.
Modern Publishing Safeguards
Proactive pre-publication checks that safeguard author credibility and protect the long-term citation impact of published research.
AI-Assisted Technologies & LLMs
Generative AI tools (e.g. ChatGPT, Claude, Copilot) cannot meet ICMJE authorship criteria and cannot be credited as authors. Authors are welcome to use AI for language refinement, formatting, or coding provided it is declared in the manuscript. Authors remain 100% accountable for all content.
Paper Mill & Systematic Misconduct
We enforce multi-factor pre-screening using automated submission pattern analysis, metadata verification, and institutional network checks to prevent paper mill manuscripts, fake datasets, or commercialized submission fraud.
Digital Image Forensics & Raw Data
Figures undergo pre-publication pixel-level forensic screening to detect duplication, selective enhancement, or synthetic generation. Authors must retain and provide raw, unedited data (e.g., uncut gel scans, original microscopic fields) upon editorial request.
Bibliometric & Citation Integrity
Citations are cross-validated against Crossref and PubMed databases to filter out hallucinated AI references. We prohibit manipulative citation practices, including forced editor/reviewer citations or journal citation cartels.
Authorship Trading & Broker Safeguards
Changes to authorship lists post-acceptance are strictly controlled and require written consent from all original authors and institutional verification. Commercial authorship brokers or paid position assignments result in immediate manuscript retraction.
Peer Reviewer Identity Verification
To prevent compromised review rings or reciprocal reviewer pools, peer reviewers undergo institutional identity verification. Reviewers are prohibited from using unverified AI tools to write peer review reports.
How to Declare AI Assistance in Your Manuscript
Scholarly Open supports the transparent use of AI tools (such as ChatGPT, Grammarly, or Claude) for language refinement, copyediting, or coding assistance. Authors should include a brief statement in the Methods, Acknowledgements, or a dedicated AI Statement section prior to publication:
Core Publishing Principles
Foundational standards guiding all manuscript processing and peer review workflows.
Research Integrity
All published research must be conducted ethically and transparently in accordance with global standards. Data must be accurately recorded and presented without fabrication or falsification.
ICMJE Authorship Criteria
All listed authors must make substantial contributions to conception, data acquisition, or analysis, and approve the final manuscript. Ghost, gift, or commercial broker authorship is strictly prohibited.
Originality & Novelty
Submissions must present original research not published or under consideration elsewhere. Textual and conceptual plagiarism in any form is unacceptable.
Competing Interests
All financial, commercial, personal, or institutional conflicts of interest that could influence or be perceived to influence the research must be fully disclosed upon submission.
Double-Blind Peer Review
Peer review is conducted objectively, rigorously, and confidentially by qualified experts. Reviewers must declare competing interests and recuse themselves when appropriate.
Scholarly Transparency
Editorial decisions are based purely on academic merit and scientific quality. We maintain clear, COPE-aligned procedures for post-publication corrections, errata, and retractions.
Stakeholder Responsibilities
Research integrity is a shared effort between authors, reviewers, and editors.
Authors
- Ensure all work is original and properly attributes all sources and prior literature
- Obtain documented ethics committee/IRB approvals for research involving human or animal subjects
- Declare all funding sources, commercial sponsorships, and potential competing interests
- Ensure all listed authors satisfy ICMJE contributorship criteria and approve the final text
- Provide transparent declarations regarding any AI-assisted tools used during manuscript preparation
- Maintain raw experimental data and make it available upon editorial or reviewer request
- Promptly notify the editorial office if significant errors are identified post-publication
Peer Reviewers
- Provide objective, evidence-based, constructive, and timely peer evaluations
- Maintain strict confidentiality of the manuscript and submitted datasets
- Disclose any personal, financial, or intellectual competing interests immediately
- Refrain from using submitted manuscripts or data for personal or institutional gain
- Notify editors of potential overlap, image duplication, or ethical concerns
- Prepare review evaluations independently without uploading manuscript text to public AI models
Editors
- Evaluate manuscripts solely on scientific merit, originality, and validity
- Manage a fair, double-blind peer review process free of commercial or personal bias
- Verify reviewer credentials and maintain strict confidentiality of all submissions
- Investigate allegations of misconduct thoroughly following COPE flowcharts and guidance
- Publish necessary corrections, errata, expressions of concern, or retractions transparently
- Enforce policy compliance regarding open data, AI disclosure, and authorship integrity
Handling Allegations of Misconduct
All complaints regarding research integrity are investigated systematically following COPE guidelines.
1. Confidential Investigation
Inquiries are handled confidentially by senior editorial personnel. Relevant evidence, original data files, and submission metadata are reviewed objectively.
2. Resolution Protocols
Depending on severity, outcomes include manuscript rejection, editorial warnings, requests for formal corrections, or notification to host research institutions.
3. Fair Appeals Procedure
Authors or reviewers may appeal editorial determinations by submitting formal written appeals accompanied by supporting documentation to the editorial office.
Corrections, Errata & Retractions
We preserve the integrity of the permanent scholarly record through published amendments when necessary.
Erratum
Issued to correct significant formatting, typesetting, or production errors introduced during publishing that affect text clarity.
Corrigendum
Issued to correct author errors or omissions that alter technical details without invalidating the overall scientific conclusions.
Retraction
Published following COPE retraction guidelines when findings are determined to be unreliable due to misconduct or honest error.
Report Ethical Concerns
If you have questions or wish to report ethical concerns regarding any manuscript submitted to or published by Scholarly Open, please contact our integrity team.