Ethics for Editors
This policy establishes the ethical framework expected of all editorial leadership at the Annals of Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology (ACGH). Editors—whether Editor-in-Chief, Executive Editors, Associate Editors, or Guest Editors—bear the responsibility to uphold principles of fairness, transparency, and impartiality throughout the scholarly publishing process. This document elaborates standards, expectations, and procedures aligned with COPE Core Practices, ICMJE recommendations, and ACGH’s commitment to integrity in scientific dissemination.
1. Editorial Integrity & Independence
All editorial decisions must be taken impartially and solely on the basis of scholarly merit—regardless of an author’s affiliation, reputation, funding source, or any other extraneous factors. ACGH editors must consistently refrain from allowing external influences, institutional pressures, or personal connections to sway manuscript outcomes. Editorial independence is foundational to credibility and must be protected in all circumstances.
Editors must also ensure separation from commercial considerations, including promotion of APC revenue, sponsorship influence, or institutional funding opportunities that may conflict with objective publication decisions.
2. Conflict of Interest (COI) Management
Editors must declare any potential conflicts of interest, formal or informal, including recent collaborations, funding sources, or competitive relationships. COI must be reported and managed proactively to preserve trust.
- Editors must recuse themselves from handling any manuscript where a COI exists.
- If a conflict arises mid-review, the manuscript should be reassigned to a different editor.
- Recent empirical studies show editors may inadvertently favor submissions from collaborators —these behaviors must be actively monitored and mitigated through blind assignment or oversight protocols.
3. Protecting Confidentiality
Editors must maintain strict confidentiality regarding manuscript contents and reviewer identities throughout and after the review process. Sharing or using submission material for personal gain is expressly prohibited.
Confidentiality extends to editorial deliberations, peer review commentary, and any internal communications. Upon publication, reviewers remain anonymous unless the journal explicitly follows an open review model.
4. Managing Peer Review Fairly
Editors oversee reviewer selection and must invite knowledgeable, unbiased experts to evaluate manuscripts. Reviews must be timely, constructive, and based only on scientific criteria—not personal bias or agenda.
If reviewer comments are unprofessional or inadequate, editors must intervene—by providing guidance, requesting additional reviews, or removing flawed assessments.
5. Handling Misconduct
Editors should address suspected misconduct—such as plagiarism, data fabrication, duplicate submission, or unethical experimentation—promptly and diligently. Investigations should follow COPE flowcharts and Core Practices.
Outcomes must be transparent: retractions, corrections, or expressions of concern should be clearly published and linked to original articles.
6. Transparency & Accountability
Editors should communicate reasons for decisions clearly in editorial correspondence and decision letters. This transparency builds trust and aids authors in improving future submissions.
Additionally, editors should engage in periodic editorial self-audits, using tools like those provided by COPE and OASPA to ensure ongoing adherence to ethical standards.
7. Inclusivity & Fair Access
ACGH editors must promote and facilitate equitable publication opportunities, regardless of geographic location or institutional prestige. They should be particularly attentive to avoid inadvertent biases that disadvantage authors from underrepresented regions or languages.
This aligns with ACGH’s broader waiver policy and commitment to global research equity.
8. Guest Editor & Special Issue Integrity
When overseeing Special Issues, editors and Guest Editors must strictly adhere to the journal’s ethical policies. According to ACGH guidelines, Guest Editors should screen manuscripts, ensure no conflict of interest, and proceed with impartial peer review.
Despite delegation, the Editorial Board must retain oversight and final authority for decisions raised in a Special Issue.
9. Continuous Training & Policy Awareness
Editors should stay informed about evolving ethical norms and undergo regular training on COPE, ICMJE, and best publishing practices.
New or rotating editors must be onboarded with a comprehensive orientation—including ethics, COI management, peer review expectations, and misconduct handling procedures.
10. Upholding Transparency in Publication Costs
Editors must ensure the APC model, waivers, and refund policies are transparently communicated and consistently applied—not manipulated to favor specific authors or institutions.
Decisions tied to finances must be clearly separated from editorial considerations, with no conflation of scientific merit and revenue generation.
11. Record-Keeping & Basis for Decisions
Editors should document key decision rationales, changes made during revisions, and correspondence relating to ethical issues. This documentation aids in auditability and accountability in case of appeals or complaints.
12. Final Responsibilities & Leadership
Ultimately, editorial leadership must preserve scientific, ethical, and public trust in the journal—by modeling integrity, mentoring others, and championing transparency at every stage.
Last updated: 2025-09-02