Ethics and Malpractice Statement
The Archives of Surgery and Clinical Research (ASCR; ISSN: 2576-9537) is committed to maintaining the highest standards of integrity in scholarly publishing. This statement defines our expectations for authors, reviewers, and editors; our approach to handling concerns; and the safeguards we use to protect patients, research participants, and the scholarly record.
Editorial Independence & Principles
Editorial decisions at ASCR are based on methodological rigor, ethical conduct, and relevance to surgical practice. Editors are independent of commercial considerations; sponsors and advertisers have no role in peer review or acceptance decisions. We strive for fairness and transparency across all stages of the editorial process and publish clear policies on authorship, conflicts, peer review, corrections, and retractions.
Core commitments
- Integrity of the record through clear correction and retraction practices.
- Fair and unbiased review, independent of ability to pay APCs or author affiliation.
- Transparency on policies, fees/waivers, and open licensing, with consistent implementation.
- Protection of patients, participants, and clinical trainees through informed consent and privacy safeguards.
Governance
The Editor-in-Chief has final responsibility for editorial decisions. Associate/Section Editors handle peer review and recommend decisions. Editors recuse themselves when conflicts exist (e.g., shared affiliation within a predefined window, co-authorship, or financial relationships).
Authorship, Contributorship & Changes
Authorship implies responsibility and accountability. Authors should meet widely adopted authorship criteria: substantial contributions to the work; drafting or critical revision; final approval; and accountability for all aspects of the work. We capture contributor roles using the CRediT taxonomy and encourage ORCID iDs for unambiguous attribution. Contributors who do not meet authorship criteria (e.g., funding acquisition only, general supervision, language editing) should be acknowledged with permission.
Conflicts of Interest & Funding Transparency
All authors must disclose relationships or activities that could influence the work, including financial support, consulting, equity, patents, speaker fees, or close professional/personal relationships. Editors and reviewers similarly disclose conflicts and recuse themselves when necessary. The manuscript and metadata should list funders and grant identifiers, with a statement of the funder’s role in study design, data collection/analysis, and publication. If the funder had no role, authors should state this explicitly.
Human Participants, Patient Privacy & Animal Research
Submissions involving humans must identify the approving ethics committee/institutional review board, provide protocol identifiers, and describe informed consent procedures. Clinical trials and prospective interventional studies are expected to be registered in a recognized registry prior to first patient enrollment. Submissions involving animals must state protocol approval and humane care standards and describe methods to minimize pain and distress. Clinical images and case reports require documented consent and de-identification; face and tattoo blurring alone may be insufficient if re-identification remains possible.
Data, Statistics & Image Integrity
Research reports must transparently describe data sources, inclusion/exclusion criteria, and analytical methods. Statistical analyses should justify sample sizes, handling of missing data, and sensitivity analyses. ASCR screens submissions for textual overlap and inappropriate image manipulation. Acceptable adjustments (e.g., uniform brightness/contrast changes) must be applied to the entire image and described in the figure legend. Unacceptable practices include selective enhancement, feature duplication, splicing without demarcation, and the fabrication or removal of data. Authors should retain raw data and original, unprocessed images and be prepared to share them upon request during review or post-publication investigation.
Research Misconduct & Questionable Practices
We consider the following to be misconduct (non-exhaustive): fabrication, falsification, plagiarism (including self-plagiarism/duplicate publication), undisclosed conflicts of interest that materially affect interpretation, peer-review manipulation, guest/ghost/acknowledgment authorship practices, undisclosed data/image manipulation, and unethical research conduct with humans or animals. Questionable practices include inappropriate salami publication, inadequate citation of prior work, and undisclosed prior dissemination when material overlap exists.
| Practice | Definition | Potential action |
|---|---|---|
| Fabrication | Inventing data or cases | Reject; investigate; notify institution; retract if published |
| Falsification | Manipulating data or methods to misrepresent results | Reject or retract; publish notice; inform stakeholders |
| Plagiarism | Using others’ work without appropriate credit | Reject; request corrections; retract for serious cases |
| Duplicate publication | Publishing substantially overlapping work without disclosure | Reject; cross-reference; retract/replace if necessary |
| Peer-review manipulation | Misrepresenting reviewer identity or interfering with review | Reject; ban submissions; notify institutions/funders |
| Image manipulation | Undisclosed or misleading alterations | Reject; request raw data; retract if published |
How We Handle Concerns, Complaints & Appeals
We take all concerns seriously—whether raised by authors, reviewers, readers, or institutions. Reports should include the manuscript/article ID, a description of the issue, and any supporting evidence (e.g., similarity reports, image annotations, dataset discrepancies). We follow a stepwise, documented process that preserves confidentiality while ensuring fairness and the right to respond.
- Receipt & logging: We acknowledge receipt, assign a case ID, and limit visibility to staff with a need to know.
- Preliminary assessment: A handling editor screens the concern and decides whether to proceed, request more information, or close with an explanation.
- Author response: Corresponding authors are invited to respond with clarifications and supporting materials; deadlines are set to keep cases timely.
- Investigation: We may run additional checks, consult independent experts, and request raw data or approvals. Where institutional oversight is required, we contact the relevant office.
- Outcome: Actions may include no change, correction, expression of concern, retraction, or rejection (for in-review manuscripts). We document reasoning and interlink notices with DOIs.
- Appeal: If authors disagree, they may appeal with a concise, evidence-based rationale. Appeals are handled by a senior editor not involved in the initial decision.
Corrections, Retractions & Expressions of Concern
Post-publication updates follow established definitions. Corrections address substantive errors that do not invalidate findings; retractions are issued when findings are unreliable due to error or misconduct; expressions of concern may be used while investigations are ongoing. Notices are assigned DOIs, linked bidirectionally with the affected articles, and include a clear reason for the change. We do not remove the original article except in rare legal or safety circumstances; instead, we watermark or banner the version of record and maintain a complete history of changes.
Preprints, AI-Assisted Tools & Transparency
Preprints are welcome when fully disclosed at submission (include server and DOI). Authors should describe substantive changes between the preprint and the version of record when relevant. Authors may use AI-assisted tools for language editing or analysis, but must verify all outputs, disclose tool use in the manuscript, and accept full responsibility for accuracy and integrity. Confidential manuscript content must not be entered into systems that store or reuse data. Generated images must not mislead readers and should never simulate clinical findings.
Advertising, Sponsorship & Supplements
Commercial relationships do not influence editorial decisions. Sponsored supplements or thematic collections—if commissioned—must undergo the journal’s standard peer-review process, adhere to all policies, and disclose sponsorship and conflicts transparently. Editors overseeing sponsored content must be free of conflicts and apply the same standards as for regular submissions.
Sanctions & Remedial Actions
When malpractice is confirmed, we may apply one or more of the following, proportional to the severity and context: rejection; publication of a correction, expression of concern, or retraction; submission bans for a defined period; notification of institutions, funders, and other journals; and, where applicable, withdrawal of reviewer or editorial privileges. Our goal is to correct the record and deter future misconduct while maintaining fairness and due process.
Practical Examples
Example: Undeclared industry relationship
During review, a device evaluation reports unusually favorable outcomes. A reviewer identifies a recent consulting relationship between the senior author and the manufacturer. We request an updated disclosure. If the relationship is material and undisclosed, we may reject or, if published, issue a correction detailing the relationship. Persistent nondisclosure may lead to sanctions.
Example: Duplicate images
Image screening reveals duplicated microscopy panels across two figures. Authors must provide raw images and an explanation. If duplication stems from error and is correctable without changing conclusions, we may publish a correction with replaced panels. If intent to mislead is evident or results are invalidated, we retract the article.
Example: Unregistered trial
A prospective trial lacks prior registration. We assess whether ethical approvals and patient consent were appropriate and whether registration is legally required in the jurisdiction. If transparency is insufficient, we may reject the manuscript or, for published work, issue an editorial note describing limitations and corrective steps.
Frequently Asked Questions
Do you accept papers posted as preprints?
Yes, if fully disclosed with the preprint DOI and any major differences described. We encourage linking the version of record in the preprint upon publication.
May I suggest or exclude reviewers?
Yes. Suggest qualified, conflict-free reviewers and indicate non-preferred reviewers with reasons. Editors make final selections to ensure expertise and avoid conflicts.
How long do you keep editorial and peer-review records?
We retain records for a reasonable period to support audit and investigations, consistent with privacy and legal requirements (see our Privacy Statement for typical retention ranges).
What if I discover an error after publication?
Contact the editorial office with details and your proposed correction. If changes are warranted, we will issue a notice with a DOI and link it to the article.
Contact
Ethics concerns, appeals, or corrections: ethics@clinsurgeryjournal.com · Editorial queries: editorial@clinsurgeryjournal.com