Statement on Malpractice
Statement on Malpractice and Procedures
Malpractice in scientific publishing covers conduct that compromises the integrity of knowledge and the trust of the academic community. The journal identifies the following:
| Conduct | Description | Applies to |
|---|---|---|
| Direct or paraphrased plagiarism | Reproduction or rewording of another author’s work without attribution. | Authors |
| Self-plagiarism / duplicate publication | Substantial reproduction of one’s own published work without declaring it. | Authors |
| Data fabrication | Presenting non-existent data, results or references. | Authors |
| Falsification | Altering real data to change conclusions. | Authors |
| Fictitious or ghost authorship | Including or excluding authors without respecting the authorship criteria. | Authors / Editors |
| Simultaneous submission | Submitting the same manuscript to two or more publications at once. | Authors |
| Citation manipulation | Citing sources not consulted, or excessive self-citation. | Authors |
| Undeclared AI use at Level 2 or 3 | Omitting the declaration of AI use as a methodological or collaborative tool. | Authors |
| Using AI to evade Turnitin | Paraphrasing others’ text with AI to artificially lower the similarity index. | Authors |
| Breach of confidentiality in review | Sharing or using the content of a manuscript under evaluation. | Reviewers / Editors |
| Editorial decision under conflict of interest | Making editorial decisions without declaring or abstaining from a conflict. | Editors |
Procedure for allegations of malpractice
The journal follows the procedures and decision flowcharts of COPE. The general process is:
- Receipt of the allegation in writing, with documented evidence. Anonymous accusations without adequate evidence do not trigger an investigation.
- Contact with the author, editor or reviewer concerned so that they can respond or comment. Good faith is presumed until the evidence shows otherwise.
- Evaluation of the evidence by the Editorial Team, distinguishing honest error from deliberate fraud.
- Editorial decision in line with COPE: correction, expression of concern, retraction, or closure of the case without consequences.
- Written notification to all parties involved and, where appropriate, to affiliated institutions and indexing services.
People accused are protected against false or anonymous accusations. An investigation starts only when there is sufficient, documented evidence to justify it.
Consequences according to when the conduct is detected
| Moment | Possible consequence |
|---|---|
| Detected during preliminary review | Immediate rejection. Notification to the author. Possible exclusion from future submissions. |
| Detected during peer review | Rejection of the manuscript. Editorial investigation. Notification in line with COPE. |
| Detected after acceptance | Retraction before publication. Notification to the author and, where appropriate, the institution. |
| Detected after publication | Public retraction with an explanatory note on the article page and its DOI record. Notification to indexing services. Institutional communication in line with COPE. |
The journal reserves the right to retract published articles in which substantial errors, plagiarism, data fabrication or ethical violations are identified, always following COPE procedures.
