Publication Ethics and Research Integrity

  1. Purpose and Scope

AMG Transcend Association is committed to maintaining the integrity, reliability, and transparency of the scholarly record across the journals it publishes.

This policy establishes publisher-level principles for preventing, identifying, assessing, and addressing concerns relating to publication ethics and research integrity. It applies to authors, editors, reviewers, Editorial Board members, and other participants in the editorial and publication process.

Individual journals may maintain more detailed policies and procedures appropriate to their scope, disciplines, and types of published content.

  1. Core Principles

Research submitted to or published in AMG Transcend Association journals must be reported honestly, accurately, and transparently.

Authors remain responsible for the integrity of their work and must not fabricate, falsify, manipulate, conceal, or materially misrepresent data, methods, results, authorship, ethical approvals, funding, competing interests, or other information relevant to the scholarly record.

Editors and reviewers must perform their responsibilities objectively, confidentially, and without using their roles to manipulate editorial outcomes or obtain inappropriate personal, professional, financial, or scholarly advantage.

Concerns relating to publication ethics or research integrity must be assessed fairly, impartially, and proportionately. The presence of an error or disagreement does not by itself establish research misconduct.

  1. Forms of Publication and Research Integrity Concern

Concerns requiring editorial assessment may include, but are not limited to:

  • fabrication or falsification of data, results, analyses, or research records;
  • inappropriate omission, alteration, exclusion, or selective reporting of data;
  • plagiarism or unattributed use of text, ideas, data, figures, images, or other material;
  • inappropriate text recycling, redundant publication, duplicate publication, or unjustified fragmentation of substantially overlapping research;
  • inappropriate manipulation, duplication, alteration, or misrepresentation of images, figures, or graphical data;
  • misrepresentation of authorship, contributorship, affiliations, funding, ethical approval, informed consent, or competing interests;
  • research conducted without required ethical approval, consent, permissions, or other applicable safeguards;
  • manipulation of peer review, including fabricated reviewer identities, false contact information, compromised reviewer independence, or other interference with the integrity of the review process;
  • inappropriate citation practices or coordinated citation manipulation;
  • misuse of artificial intelligence or generative tools in ways that compromise authorship responsibility, transparency, confidentiality, data integrity, or the reliability of the scholarly record;
  • submission or publication of materially false, misleading, or fabricated content;
  • interference with editorial independence or inappropriate attempts to influence editorial decisions; and
  • other conduct that materially compromises the reliability, provenance, transparency, or integrity of published or submitted scholarly work.

The nature and seriousness of a concern must be assessed in context rather than determined solely by automated screening results, numerical thresholds, or isolated indicators.

  1. Responsibilities of Authors

Authors must take responsibility for the accuracy, originality, and integrity of the work they submit.

Authors are expected to:

  • report methods, data, analyses, and results accurately and sufficiently transparently for appropriate scholarly evaluation;
  • retain relevant research records and supporting documentation in accordance with applicable ethical, legal, institutional, and disciplinary requirements;
  • provide reasonable clarification, underlying data, original files, approvals, or other supporting documentation when legitimately requested during editorial assessment;
  • appropriately acknowledge and cite sources and previously published material;
  • disclose relevant funding, competing interests, ethical approvals, consent, and other required declarations;
  • ensure that authorship and contributorship information accurately reflects responsibility for the work;
  • promptly inform the journal when they become aware of a significant error or integrity concern affecting a submitted or published work; and
  • cooperate with legitimate editorial inquiries and post-publication assessments.

Failure to provide relevant information or documentation may be taken into account when the journal assesses whether the reliability of a manuscript or published article can be established.

  1. Responsibilities of Editors

Editors are responsible for addressing credible publication-ethics and research-integrity concerns that arise during submission, peer review, publication, or after publication.

Editors must approach such concerns objectively and without prejudging whether misconduct has occurred.

Depending on the circumstances, editors may:

  • request clarification from authors;
  • request original or underlying data, images, documentation, ethical approvals, consent documentation, or other relevant records;
  • seek additional peer review or independent expert advice;
  • consult other editors or appropriately qualified advisors;
  • evaluate related publications or submissions where relevant to the concern;
  • suspend editorial processing while a serious issue is being assessed;
  • reject a manuscript where unresolved integrity concerns prevent confidence in the work; or
  • initiate appropriate post-publication procedures.

Editors must disclose and manage their own competing interests and must not investigate or decide a matter where their impartiality could reasonably be questioned.

  1. Responsibilities of Reviewers

Reviewers should confidentially inform the responsible editor of suspected plagiarism, duplicate publication, data or image irregularities, inappropriate research practices, undeclared competing interests, peer-review manipulation, or other integrity concerns identified during review.

Reviewers should provide sufficient information to allow the editor to assess the concern but are not expected to conduct independent misconduct investigations.

Allegations concerning authors or other participants must not be included as personal accusations in reviewer comments intended for authors. Potential integrity concerns should be communicated confidentially to the editorial team.

Reviewers must also comply with confidentiality, conflict-of-interest, citation-integrity, and applicable artificial-intelligence requirements.

  1. Preliminary Assessment of Concerns

When an integrity concern is raised, the responsible journal should first assess whether the concern is sufficiently specific and relevant to warrant further examination.

A preliminary assessment may consider:

  • the nature and seriousness of the allegation;
  • the reliability and specificity of the information available;
  • whether the concern affects the validity, reliability, originality, ethics, or interpretation of the work;
  • whether additional documentation or expert assessment is required; and
  • whether the matter falls within the journal’s editorial responsibilities or requires involvement of another organization.

At this stage, the purpose is to determine what further action, if any, is appropriate. A preliminary concern must not be represented as a confirmed finding of misconduct.

  1. Author Response and Due Process

Where a concern requires further assessment, the authors or other individuals concerned should normally be given an appropriate opportunity to respond and provide relevant explanations or evidence.

Requests should identify the substantive issue sufficiently clearly to permit a meaningful response.

Responses and supporting documentation must be evaluated on their substance and in the context of the available evidence.

Failure to respond, inability to provide relevant documentation, or provision of materially inconsistent information may affect the editorial assessment but must not automatically be treated as proof of misconduct.

Editorial actions must be based on the reliability and integrity of the scholarly record and on the evidence reasonably available to the journal.

  1. Distinguishing Error from Misconduct

AMG Transcend Association recognizes that not every error, inconsistency, methodological limitation, or reporting problem constitutes research misconduct.

Concerns should be evaluated according to their nature, extent, context, and effect on the reliability of the work.

Where a problem results from an honest error and can be adequately corrected without invalidating the principal findings, correction of the scholarly record may be appropriate.

Where available evidence indicates fabrication, falsification, plagiarism, deliberate deception, systematic manipulation, or another serious breach of research integrity, additional editorial or institutional action may be necessary.

The primary objective of editorial action is to protect the reliability and transparency of the scholarly record rather than to impose punitive measures.

  1. Data, Images, and Supporting Evidence

Where concerns involve data, images, figures, analyses, or other research materials, editors may request relevant original or underlying materials necessary to assess the reliability of the published or submitted work.

Such requests may include, where appropriate:

  • underlying or raw data;
  • original image files;
  • metadata or acquisition information;
  • data-processing or analytical documentation;
  • statistical information;
  • research protocols;
  • relevant ethical approvals or consent documentation; or
  • explanations of how figures, datasets, or analyses were generated.

Requests must be proportionate to the concern under assessment and subject to legitimate confidentiality, privacy, legal, ethical, and data-protection restrictions.

Detailed requirements are addressed in the applicable Data Integrity and Reproducibility, Image Manipulation, Research Ethics, and related journal or publisher policies.

  1. Plagiarism, Overlap, and Redundant Publication

Potential plagiarism or inappropriate overlap must be evaluated contextually.

Similarity-detection software and other screening methods may support editorial assessment but must not be used as automatic evidence that plagiarism has or has not occurred.

Assessment should consider the source, nature, extent, location, attribution, and scholarly significance of overlapping material.

Duplicate or redundant publication, inappropriate reuse of previously published data or content, and unjustified fragmentation of substantially overlapping research may also constitute publication-integrity concerns.

Detailed requirements may be established in journal-specific similarity and plagiarism policies.

  1. Peer-Review and Editorial Manipulation

AMG Transcend Association does not tolerate manipulation of peer review or editorial processes.

Potential manipulation may include fabricated reviewer identities, falsified reviewer contact information, undisclosed conflicts designed to influence reviewer selection, unauthorized interference with reviewer reports, coordinated attempts to influence editorial decisions, or other practices intended to compromise independent editorial assessment.

Where manipulation is suspected, the journal may verify reviewer identities, affiliations, contact information, editorial records, or other relevant information.

Cases affecting more than one journal published by AMG Transcend Association may be assessed in a coordinated manner where necessary to identify the extent of the problem, while editorial decisions concerning individual manuscripts remain with the appropriately authorized journal editors.

  1. Citation Integrity

Citations must be selected for legitimate scholarly reasons and should accurately support the statements or context for which they are used.

Authors, reviewers, editors, and other participants in the publication process must not engage in inappropriate citation practices intended primarily to increase citations to particular authors, journals, organizations, or publications.

Editors and reviewers may recommend additional references where they are genuinely relevant to the scientific or scholarly evaluation of the manuscript.

Citation requests must not be used to manipulate journal metrics or personal citation indicators.

  1. Artificial Intelligence and Research Integrity

Use of artificial intelligence and generative tools must not remove human responsibility for the accuracy, originality, transparency, or integrity of scholarly work.

AI tools must not be used to fabricate or falsify data, images, references, results, analyses, or other research content; conceal plagiarism or inappropriate reuse; misrepresent authorship or contributions; or compromise confidential editorial or peer-review materials.

Where AI or generative tools are used in circumstances requiring disclosure, authors must provide the information required by the applicable journal policy.

More detailed requirements are established in the AI and Generative Tools policy and relevant journal-level procedures.

  1. Institutional Cooperation and Referral

Journals are responsible for evaluating issues affecting manuscripts, editorial processes, and the reliability of the scholarly record. Journals are not necessarily the appropriate bodies to make formal determinations of research misconduct within an institution.

Where a serious concern requires access to evidence or investigative authority beyond the journal’s reasonable capacity, the journal or publisher may refer the matter to an author’s institution, research organization, funder, ethics body, or other appropriate authority.

Such referral may be appropriate where concerns involve possible fabrication, falsification, serious ethical violations, systematic manipulation, or other conduct requiring formal investigation.

Where appropriate, AMG Transcend Association and its journals may cooperate with legitimate institutional investigations and may provide or request information subject to applicable confidentiality, privacy, legal, and ethical requirements.

Editorial action concerning the scholarly record does not necessarily need to await completion of an external investigation where sufficient information is available to determine that action is required to protect readers or maintain the integrity of the record.

  1. Editorial Actions Before Publication

Where an integrity concern arises before publication, actions may include:

  • requesting clarification or supporting documentation;
  • requiring correction or revision;
  • obtaining additional review or specialist assessment;
  • pausing editorial consideration while significant concerns are assessed;
  • rejecting the manuscript where the work does not comply with applicable ethical or integrity requirements or where its reliability cannot reasonably be established; or
  • referring serious concerns to an appropriate institution or authority where warranted.

Actions must be proportionate to the nature and seriousness of the issue.

  1. Post-Publication Concerns

Publication does not end the journal’s responsibility to consider credible concerns affecting the reliability or integrity of an article.

Post-publication concerns may be raised by authors, readers, editors, reviewers, institutions, researchers, or other parties and should be assessed according to their substance and relevance.

Depending on the findings and the effect of the issue on the scholarly record, appropriate action may include:

  • no further action where the concern is not substantiated;
  • clarification or correction;
  • an expression of concern;
  • retraction; or
  • other action necessary to maintain an accurate and transparent publication record.

Detailed procedures are established in the Corrections, Retractions and Expressions of Concern policy.

  1. Confidentiality, Fairness, and Proportionality

Publication-integrity concerns must be handled with appropriate confidentiality.

Information concerning allegations, responses, supporting evidence, and investigations should be disclosed only where necessary for appropriate assessment, expert consultation, institutional cooperation, legal obligations, or transparent correction of the scholarly record.

Editors and the publisher must avoid public allegations of misconduct before there is an adequate basis for such statements.

Actions should be proportionate to the seriousness of the concern and its effect on the reliability and integrity of the work.

The identity, status, institutional affiliation, reputation, or seniority of the individuals involved must not determine whether a legitimate concern is assessed.

  1. Concerns Involving Editors or Publisher Representatives

Where a publication-integrity concern involves an Editor-in-Chief, editor, Editorial Board member, publisher representative, or another individual who would normally participate in handling the matter, that individual must not control the assessment or decision.

Responsibility must be transferred to another appropriately qualified and impartial person with sufficient authority to assess the matter independently.

Where publisher-level and journal-level roles are held by the same individual, the same requirements for disclosure, recusal, and independent handling apply.

  1. Accountability and the Scholarly Record

AMG Transcend Association and its journals will take reasonable editorial action when credible evidence indicates that published content requires correction, clarification, expression of concern, retraction, or other appropriate action.

Authors, reviewers, and editors are expected to cooperate with legitimate integrity assessments relevant to their responsibilities.

Editorial actions must be directed toward preserving an accurate, transparent, and trustworthy scholarly record and must not be determined by reputational, commercial, institutional, or citation-related considerations.

  1. Relationship with Other Policies

This policy should be read together with applicable AMG Transcend Association and journal policies concerning:

  • Editorial Independence and Governance;
  • Peer Review Principles;
  • Conflict of Interest and Competing Interests;
  • Authorship and Contributor Responsibilities;
  • Research Ethics;
  • Human and Animal Research Ethics;
  • Informed Consent and Clinical Trials;
  • Data Integrity and Reproducibility;
  • AI and Generative Tools;
  • Corrections, Retractions and Expressions of Concern; and
  • Complaints and Appeals.

Journal-specific policies may provide additional requirements and procedures appropriate to the research and content published by the journal.