Publication Ethics Policy | Insights in Biology and Medicine

Insights in Biology and Medicine maintains the highest standards of publication ethics and integrity. This comprehensive policy outlines our commitment to ethical publishing practices, defines the responsibilities of all stakeholders, and establishes procedures for addressing ethical concerns. Our policy aligns with international standards and best practices in scholarly publishing.

Policy Framework and Compliance

Ethical Standards Framework

Our publication ethics policy is built upon internationally recognized guidelines and standards:

Primary Reference Guidelines

COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics): Core practices, flowcharts, and case guidelines
ICMJE (International Committee of Medical Journal Editors): Recommendations for medical journals
WAME (World Association of Medical Editors): Editorial policies and best practices
DOAJ (Directory of Open Access Journals): Standards for open access publishing
Declaration of Helsinki: Ethical principles for medical research
Singapore Statement on Research Integrity: Global standards for research conduct

0 Retractions 2023

100% COPE Compliance

24h Ethics Response Time

99.8% Author Satisfaction

Editorial Responsibilities and Integrity

Editorial Independence and Decision Making

Editors maintain complete independence and make decisions based solely on academic merit:

Editorial Autonomy

Decisions made independently of publisher, commercial, or political interests
Evaluation based exclusively on intellectual content and methodological rigor
Transparent editorial processes with clear communication to authors
Protection against external influence on editorial decisions

Confidentiality and Privacy

Protection of author identities and manuscript content during review
Maintenance of reviewer anonymity throughout the process
Secure handling of personal information and research data
Prevention of unauthorized access to submission materials

Conflict of Interest Management

Editors must declare and manage potential conflicts according to established protocols:

Conflict Category	Examples	Required Action	Documentation
Personal Relationships	Family members, close personal friends, romantic relationships	Immediate recusal from handling	Declaration in conflict log
Professional Collaborations	Current research collaborators, recent co-authors (past 3 years)	Declaration and potential reassignment	Annual disclosure statement
Financial Interests	Stock ownership, consulting relationships, research funding	Mandatory disclosure and recusal	Financial disclosure form
Academic Competition	Direct competitors in same research area, institutional rivalries	Assessment of objectivity, potential reassignment	Case-by-case documentation

Author Responsibilities and Ethical Standards

Originality and Academic Integrity

Authors must ensure the complete integrity of their submissions:

Submit only original work not previously published in any form

Properly cite and acknowledge all sources and influences

Avoid plagiarism, text recycling, and duplicate publication

Disclose any overlap with previous publications or submissions

Obtain written permission for reproduced content

Ensure accurate representation of data and findings

Ethical Violation Example: Submitting the same research to multiple journals simultaneously, republishing previously published work without substantial new analysis, or failing to cite relevant prior work by the authors or others constitutes serious ethical misconduct.

Authorship Criteria and Contributions

We strictly adhere to ICMJE authorship criteria. All authors must meet all four conditions:

Substantial contributions to conception, design, execution, data acquisition, analysis, or interpretation
Drafting or critical revision of the article for important intellectual content
Final approval of the version to be published
Agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work

Best Practice Implementation: All research articles must include an author contributions statement using CRediT taxonomy to clearly describe each author's specific contributions. Corresponding authors must verify that all co-authors meet authorship criteria and have approved the final manuscript.

Data Integrity and Research Transparency

Authors bear ultimate responsibility for research integrity and transparency:

Data Management Standards

Present accurate, complete, and objective interpretation of research findings
Provide sufficient methodological detail to permit replication
Retain raw data for minimum 5 years post-publication
Make data available upon reasonable request for verification
Deposit data in appropriate repositories following FAIR principles
Include data availability statements in all research articles

Reviewer Responsibilities and Ethical Conduct

Constructive and Ethical Peer Review

Reviewers play a vital role in maintaining publication quality and integrity:

Review Standards and Expectations

Provide objective, constructive, and unbiased assessments
Complete reviews within agreed timeframe (21 days standard)
Maintain strict confidentiality of review process and content
Declare conflicts of interest immediately upon invitation
Identify relevant published work not properly cited
Focus criticism on academic content, not personal attributes

Unethical Reviewer Behavior: Using confidential information from unpublished manuscripts for personal research advantage, deliberately delaying review to benefit competing research, making derogatory personal comments about authors, or soliciting authorship in exchange for positive review constitutes serious ethical violations.

Research Integrity and Ethical Compliance

Human Subjects Research Ethics

Research involving human participants must demonstrate comprehensive ethical compliance:

Institutional review board or ethics committee approval

Informed consent from all participants or legal guardians

Protection of participant privacy, confidentiality, and anonymity

Clinical trial registration in approved registry before enrollment

Adherence to Declaration of Helsinki ethical principles

Inclusion of ethical approval statement in manuscript

Animal Research Ethics

Studies involving animals must provide evidence of ethical treatment and compliance:

Requirement	Documentation Needed	Applicable Standards	Reporting Guidelines
Ethical Approval	Institutional animal care committee approval number	AAALAC, national animal welfare guidelines	ARRIVE 2.0 guidelines
Welfare Standards	Description of adherence to 3Rs (Replace, Reduce, Refine)	Animal Welfare Act, EU Directive 2010/63	NC3Rs guidelines
Housing and Care	Details of housing conditions, enrichment, veterinary care	Species-specific care guidelines	Journal-specific requirements
Euthanasia Methods	Description of humane euthanasia procedures	AVMA euthanasia guidelines	Methodology section detail

Comprehensive Conflict of Interest Management

Systematic Disclosure Requirements

All participants in the publication process must disclose potential conflicts:

Financial Conflicts

Employment, consulting, or advisory relationships
Stock ownership, stock options, or equity interests
Patent applications, registrations, or royalties
Research funding, grants, or contracts
Travel grants, honoraria, or speaking fees
Board membership or fiduciary roles

Non-Financial Conflicts

Personal relationships (family, friends, romantic)
Academic competition or rivalries
Intellectual passion or advocacy positions
Political, ideological, or religious beliefs
Institutional affiliations or loyalties
Previous publication disagreements

Ethical Violations Investigation and Sanctions

Comprehensive Investigation Process

1 Complaint Receipt and Documentation

All ethical concerns are formally documented, acknowledged within 24 hours, and assigned a unique case number. Concerns can be submitted via email to [email protected] or through our secure online reporting system.

2 Initial Assessment and Triage

The Editor-in-Chief conducts preliminary assessment to determine validity, severity, and urgency of concerns. Cases are categorized as minor, moderate, or severe based on potential impact.

3 Investigation Committee Formation

For moderate to severe allegations, an ad-hoc ethics committee is formed with relevant expertise, diversity of perspective, and confirmed absence of conflicts. External experts may be consulted for complex cases.

4 Comprehensive Evidence Collection

All relevant documentation is systematically collected, including manuscript versions, communications, original data, reviewer comments, and expert opinions. Digital forensics may be employed when appropriate.

5 Stakeholder Interviews and Responses

All involved parties are provided opportunity to respond to allegations. Interviews may be conducted, and additional evidence may be requested from authors, reviewers, or institutions.

6 Decision Making and Sanction Determination

The committee evaluates all evidence and makes recommendations for appropriate actions, which may include corrections, expressions of concern, retractions, or sanctions against involved parties.

7 Implementation and Communication

Decisions are implemented, all parties are formally notified of outcomes, and public notices are issued when appropriate. Indexing services and databases are updated as needed.

8 Case Closure and Documentation

Cases are formally closed with comprehensive documentation maintained for 10 years. Lessons learned are incorporated into policy updates and staff training.

Structured Sanctions Framework

Level 1: Minor Infractions

Examples: Inadequate citation, minor text overlap, improper quotation, unintentional duplicate submission

Actions: Require citation correction, author education, warning letter, manuscript rejection

Duration: Immediate implementation, no long-term consequences

Level 2: Moderate Infractions

Examples: Substantial paraphrasing without attribution, mosaic plagiarism, undeclared conflicts of interest, data manipulation

Actions: Manuscript rejection, temporary publishing ban (1-2 years), notification to institution, mandatory ethics training

Duration: 1-2 year restrictions, case review for reinstatement

Level 3: Severe Infractions

Examples: Verbatim copying, idea theft, duplicate publication, authorship misconduct, serious data integrity issues

Actions: Immediate retraction, permanent publishing ban, notification to all authors' institutions, reporting to national bodies

Duration: Permanent restrictions, comprehensive institutional notification

Level 4: Egregious Infractions

Examples: Systematic plagiarism, data fabrication, paper mill involvement, serious ethical violations in research conduct

Actions: Comprehensive retraction, permanent ban, reporting to regulatory authorities, legal action consideration, public disclosure

Duration: Permanent ban with widespread notification and potential legal consequences

Corrections, Retractions, and Expressions of Concern

Correction Policy Implementation

We publish corrections when errors affect interpretation but don't invalidate conclusions:

Correction Type	Applicable Situation	Initiation Process	Publication Format
Erratum	Publisher-introduced errors in production or publishing	Journal-initiated, author-notified	Linked to original article, clearly labeled
Corrigendum	Author-introduced errors affecting interpretation	Author-initiated, editor-approved	Linked to original article, author responsibility
Addendum	Additional information, clarification, or update	Author-initiated, editor-reviewed	Supplementary publication, linked to original

Retraction Policy Standards

Articles are retracted for serious ethical breaches or invalid results following COPE guidelines:

Clear retraction statement indicating specific reason for retraction

Precise identification of retracted article with complete citation

Transparency about who is retracting (authors, editors, or both)

Maintenance of original article with prominent retraction watermark

Minimization of barriers to accessing retraction notice

Prompt notification to all indexing and abstracting services

Data and Image Integrity Standards

Image Manipulation and Presentation Ethics

We maintain rigorous standards for image presentation and prohibit inappropriate manipulation:

Permitted Image Adjustments

Minor brightness/contrast adjustments applied equally across entire image
Cropping to remove irrelevant areas while maintaining data context
Color space conversions for consistency across figures
Size adjustments maintaining original resolution and aspect ratio
Grouping of related images with clear demarcation

Prohibited Image Manipulations

Selective enhancement, obscuring, or deletion of specific features
Addition, removal, or moving of elements within images
Cloning, duplication, or splicing without clear indication
Misrepresentation of composite images as single captures
Inappropriate filtering that alters data interpretation
Reuse of images from previous publications without permission

Appeals, Complaints, and Whistleblower Protection

Formal Appeal Procedure

1 Appeal Submission

Authors may appeal editorial decisions or ethical determinations within 30 days by submitting formal appeal with detailed justification, new evidence, and point-by-point response to original decision.

2 Appeal Review Committee

Appeals are reviewed by committee not involved in original decision, including external experts when appropriate. Committee assesses fairness, consistency, and any new information.

3 Additional Investigation

Committee may conduct additional analysis, consult technical experts, employ statistical review, or seek third-party verification of claims.

4 Final Binding Decision

Appeal committee makes binding decision, which may uphold, modify, or overturn original determination. Comprehensive explanation provided to appellants.

Whistleblower Protection and Confidentiality

We provide robust protection for individuals who report ethical concerns in good faith:

Strict confidentiality for whistleblower identities
Protection against retaliation, discrimination, or professional consequences
Independent investigation of all concerns regardless of source
Transparent process while protecting whistleblower anonymity
Legal support and advocacy if retaliation occurs
Secure anonymous reporting channels with encryption

Secure Reporting Channels: Ethical concerns can be reported anonymously through our encrypted online reporting system, directly to the ethics committee, or via secure email. All reports receive prompt, confidential investigation.

Education, Training, and Continuous Improvement

Comprehensive Education Programs

We provide extensive resources to support ethical publishing practices:

Educational Resources and Support

Comprehensive author guidelines and ethical tutorials
Reviewer training materials and best practice guides
Editorial staff ethics training and certification
Case studies, examples, and prevention strategies
Regular policy updates and change communications
Multilingual resources for international authors

Strategic Partnerships: We collaborate with research integrity offices, provide institutional workshops on publication ethics, partner with ethics training organizations, and contribute to global ethics education initiatives.

Monitoring, Compliance, and Quality Assurance

Systematic Compliance Monitoring

We employ multiple systems to ensure ongoing ethical compliance and quality:

Monitoring System	Primary Purpose	Implementation Frequency	Quality Metrics
Plagiarism Detection	Identify textual similarity and potential plagiarism	All submissions, automated screening	Similarity index, match analysis
<