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.

Editors commit to

Apply journal policies consistently, documenting the rationale for decisions in the editorial system.
Disclose and manage conflicts of interest promptly (see Recusal section).
Respect the dignity, autonomy, and privacy of research participants.
Promote open science practices that improve transparency and reuse.

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.

COI self-check (quick list)

Coauthored with any author in the last 36 months?
Shared a grant, contract, or employment relationship within 3 years?
Same department or reporting line as any author?
Any equity, consultancy, or honoraria tied to the topic?
Any personal relationships that could reasonably be perceived as biasing?

Recusal protocol

Cease handling the file immediately upon recognizing a COI.
Reassign to a conflict-free Editor or the Editor-in-Chief’s delegate.
Record the recusal and reassignment in the editorial history.
Avoid access to reviewer identities and deliberations post-recusal.

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 Editors may not use unpublished information for their own research or share it with third parties.

Practices that protect confidentiality

Use the journal’s systems for all communication; avoid forwarding manuscripts via personal email or insecure tools.
When using productivity tools, do not upload manuscripts or reviews to external services lacking data processing agreements, and never share files with generative tools that retain data.
Ensure reviewer anonymity in a double-blind process; redact identity-revealing text before sharing comments.
For clinical materials, verify de-identification and confirm that any publication of identifiable images has explicit consent.

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.

Reviewer selection ethics

Choose reviewers with complementary expertise; avoid close collaborators and recent coauthors of the authors.
Screen for financial and institutional conflicts; invite reviewers to self-declare any potential conflicts.
Encourage constructive, respectful feedback supported by citations and transparent reasoning.

Inclusive practices

Broaden search beyond familiar networks; consider early-career experts with strong methodological skills.
Use clear, bias-aware language in decision letters and requests for revision.
Invite authors to suggest diverse, qualified reviewers while retaining final editorial choice.

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.

Expected outcomes

Corrections for honest errors that do not undermine conclusions.
Retractions when findings are unreliable or ethical approvals are invalid.
Expressions of concern for unresolved or ongoing investigations.

All notices must be citable items with their own DOIs and bidirectional links to affected articles. Article pages and PDFs should display current status badges and links.

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.

Templates (snippets)

Request for ethical documentation: Please upload IRB/IACUC approval [protocol ID, date] and confirm written informed consent procedures. For interventional trials, include registry name and identifier registered prior to first participant enrollment.

Request for raw images/data: Please provide original, unprocessed images/data for Figures [X–Y], with acquisition details. Disclose any global adjustments; delineate splices with visible demarcations.

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.

Guest Editor responsibilities

Disclose conflicts for each handled manuscript and recuse as needed.
Ensure at least two qualified, independent reviewers per paper.
Maintain respectful, policy-referential communications with authors and reviewers.

Case Scenarios & Ethical Responses

Scenario: Reviewer identifies author

A reviewer deduces authorship from self-citations. The Editor redacts identity-revealing phrasing in the feedback and reminds reviewers to focus on methods and results. Future revisions should minimize self-identifying text where feasible.

Scenario: Undisclosed company funding

Post-acceptance, an undisclosed company sponsorship is reported. The Editor requests a correction to add the funding and conflicts statements; if concerns extend to bias or data integrity, an investigation is opened with the authors’ institutions.

Scenario: Image manipulation concern

Inconsistencies are spotted in a Western blot. The Editor requests original images, acquisition details, and an explanation. Depending on the response, outcomes range from a correction with clearly labeled images to retraction if data are unreliable.

Scenario: Appeal of rejection

Authors appeal a rejection citing methodological misunderstandings. A senior Editor uninvolved in the original decision reviews the file and, if warranted, seeks an adjudicating review. All steps are recorded; the decision letter summarizes reasons clearly.

Editor Ethics Checklists

Before handling a submission

COI self-check completed; recusal if needed.
Blinded files verified; sensitive data appropriately handled.
Required ethics statements present (IRB/IACUC, consent, registration).

During review

At least two independent reviewers; conflicts screened.
Civility enforced; ad hominem comments removed before sharing.
Integrity checks applied (similarity, images/data as warranted).

At decision & beyond

Decision grounded in evidence and policy; rationale recorded.
Appeals handled by an independent senior Editor.
Post-publication updates issued and linked via DOIs when needed.

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: [email protected] · Technical support: [email protected]