Warning: file_exists(): open_basedir restriction in effect. File(/locale/en_US/locale.po) is not within the allowed path(s): (/var/www/vhosts/hspioa.us/:/tmp/) in /var/www/vhosts/hspioa.us/httpdocs/lib/pkp/classes/plugins/Plugin.inc.php on line 519

Warning: file_exists(): open_basedir restriction in effect. File(/locale/en_US/locale.po) is not within the allowed path(s): (/var/www/vhosts/hspioa.us/:/tmp/) in /var/www/vhosts/hspioa.us/httpdocs/lib/pkp/classes/plugins/Plugin.inc.php on line 519
Ethics for Editors | Archives of Surgery and Clinical Research

Editorial Values & Independence

Editorial independence means decisions are made without undue influence from commercial interests, institutional pressures, advertising, or authors’ ability to pay Article Processing Charges (APCs). Editors are accountable for ensuring that acceptance is based solely on research quality, methodological rigor, regulatory and ethical compliance, and fit to journal scope. Independence also includes the confidence to reject high-profile submissions that do not meet standards and to publish corrections or retractions when necessary.

Conflicts of Interest & Recusal

Editors must proactively identify conflicts of interest (COIs) that could influence, or appear to influence, editorial decisions. Conflicts include recent coauthorships with any author, shared grants or employment, institutional proximity (same department/unit), personal relationships, or financial interests in related products and services.

Confidentiality, Data Protection & Patient Privacy

Editors are custodians of confidential information contained in manuscripts, peer reviews, and editorial discussions. They must protect personal data (authors, reviewers, and patients) and ensure that identifiable patient information is never disclosed without explicit publication consent. Editors may not use unpublished information for their own research or share it with third parties.

Fairness, Inclusion & Bias Mitigation in Peer Review

Editors should build reviewer pools that reflect methodological and demographic diversity and should monitor invitation patterns to avoid over-reliance on a narrow group. Critiques must focus on the work, not on identities or affiliations. Editors are responsible for removing ad hominem comments and for ensuring that decisions are grounded in evidence rather than reviewer voting alone.

Integrity Checks & Misconduct Handling

Editors should evaluate similarity reports contextually, request raw images/data when needed, and insist on transparency about image adjustments and data processing. Where misconduct is suspected—fabrication, falsification, plagiarism, undisclosed conflicts, or unethical research practices—Editors follow established flowcharts and keep a complete audit trail.

Transparency, Data Availability & Reproducibility

Editors promote transparent research reporting: registration for interventional trials; appropriate reporting checklists (CONSORT, PRISMA, STROBE, ARRIVE, CARE, SQUIRE); effect sizes with 95% confidence intervals; exact p-values; and specific Data Availability Statements that include repository DOIs or access conditions. Editors should encourage citation of datasets and software with persistent identifiers and ORCID use for authors.

Note: When clinical data cannot be openly shared, editors should verify that access is possible under appropriate governance and that de-identification measures are documented.

Professional Communications & Record-Keeping

Editorial correspondence should be respectful, precise, and refer to policy language. Maintain a clear audit trail within the editorial system: decisions, rationales, deadlines, reminders, conflicts and recusals, and all integrity-related requests.

Post-publication Responsibilities

Ethics for Editors extends beyond acceptance. Editors coordinate with the publisher to update the scholarly record transparently. When new evidence emerges—statistical errors, image concerns, or undisclosed conflicts—Editors should investigate promptly and, where appropriate, publish a correction, expression of concern, or retraction. Notices must be clearly labeled and interlinked via DOIs, and indexers should receive updated metadata through Crossref and OAI-PMH feeds.

Responsible Use of Tools & AI Assistance

Editors may use software tools to improve efficiency (reference checkers, grammar tools, structured review forms), but must not disclose confidential content to services that retain data or train models on user inputs. Where the journal provides integrated tools under a data-processing agreement, use those in preference to external services. Editor-written decision letters should remain the result of human judgment; automated suggestions are aids, not substitutes.

  • Do not upload manuscripts or reviews to external generative tools unless the journal has vetted the service and a suitable data-protection agreement exists.
  • Declare tool use to the editorial office if required by internal procedures; never share author identities or reviewer identities with external tools.

Ethics in Special Issues & Thematic Collections

Guest Editors must follow the same ethical standards as core Editors: double-blind review, conflict screening, and independent decisions. Any discounts, waivers, or sponsorships associated with a collection are administered by the publisher and must not influence editorial outcomes. Proposals should define scope, timelines, conflict management, and reviewer recruitment strategies.

Case Scenarios & Ethical Responses

Editor Ethics Checklists

Frequently Asked Questions

May I handle a paper from my institution?

No. Recuse and transfer to a conflict-free Editor to maintain independence and avoid perceived bias.

Can I share manuscripts with trainees to teach peer review?

Only with prior permission from the Editor-in-Chief and after obtaining reviewer consent; ensure the trainee agrees to confidentiality and is named in the review acknowledgment if appropriate.

Can an author’s inability to pay APCs influence a decision?

Never. Editorial decisions are independent of APCs, waivers, or billing status. Waiver requests are handled separately from editorial workflows.

What if I suspect serious misconduct but lack definitive proof?

Open a confidential assessment; contact authors for explanations; consult institutions or oversight bodies when warranted; consider an expression of concern if readers should be alerted while an investigation proceeds.

Contact

Editorial ethics questions and appeals: editorial@clinsurgeryjournal.com · Technical support: support@clinsurgeryjournal.com