CSE's White Paper on Promoting Integrity in Scientific Journal Publications

2.0 ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES IN PUBLISHING

2.1 Editor Roles and Responsibilities

Some editor responsibilities to authors are listed below.

• Providing guidelines for preparing and submitting manuscripts.
• Establishing and enforcing authorship criteria.
• Treating all authors with fairness, courtesy, objectivity, and honesty.
• Establishing and defining policies on conflicts of interest.
• Protecting the confidentiality of every author's work.
• Establishing a system for effective and rapid peer review.
• Making editorial decisions with reasonable speed and, when the manuscript is potentially appropriate for the journal, with input from peer reviewers who have adequate expertise to judge the manuscript, and communicating these decisions to authors in a constructive and helpful manner.
• Establishing clear guidelines for authors regarding acceptable practices for sharing information before and after publication.
• Establishing a procedure for reconsidering editorial decisions (see 2.1.9).
• Describing, implementing, and regularly reviewing policies for handling ethical issues and allegations or findings of misconduct by authors (see 2.1.10 and part 3).
• Informing authors of solicited manuscripts that the submission will be evaluated according to the journal's usual procedures or outlining the decision-making process if it differs from those procedures.
• Developing mechanisms to ensure timely publication of accepted manuscripts (see 2.1.6).
• Clearly communicating all other editorial policies and standards (see below).

The following are examples of editorial policies and standards that editors may require of submitting authors.

• State all sources of funding for research and include this information in the acknowledgment section of the submitted manuscript.
• State in the manuscript, if appropriate, that the research protocol was approved by the relevant institutional review boards or ethics committees for human (including use of human cells or tissues) or animal experiments and that all human subjects provided appropriate informed consent.
• State in the manuscript, if appropriate, that regulations concerning the use of animals in research, teaching, and testing were adhered to. Governments, institutions, and professional organizations have statements about the use of animals in research. For example, see statements from the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology, the Canadian Council on Animal Care and, for links to other informational sites, the University of California, San Francisco.
• When race/ethnicity is reported, define who determined race/ethnicity, whether the options were defined by the investigator and if so what they were, and why race/ethnicity is considered important in the study.
• List contributors who meet the journal's criteria for authorship and identify other contributors (eg, statistical analyst, writers), with contributors' approval, in the acknowledgment section.
• Reveal any potential conflicts of interest of each author either in the cover letter, manuscript, or disclosure form, in accordance with the journal's policy.
• Include (usually written) permission from each individual identified as a source for personal communication or unpublished data.
• Describe and provide copies of any similar works in process.
• Provide copies of cited manuscripts that are submitted or in press.
• Supply supporting manuscript data (eg, actual data that was summarized in the manuscript) to the editor when requested.
• Share data or other materials needed with other scientists in order to replicate the experiment. As an example, the instructions to authors of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences state: "To allow others to replicate and build on work published in PNAS, authors must make materials, data, and associated protocols available to readers. Authors must disclose upon submission of the manuscript any restrictions on the availability of materials or information."
• Cite and reference other relevant published work on which the submitted work is based.
• Obtain permission from the copyright owner to use/reproduce his or her content (eg, figures and tables), in the submitted manuscript, if applicable.
• Provide written permission from any potentially identifiable individuals referred to or shown in photographs in the manuscript.

Some journals may also request or require the following:

• Copyright transfer statement or licensing agreements.
• Statements from named third parties who are listed as having contributed to the study but who did not meet criteria for authorship.
• Adherence to the CONSORT statement that helps standardize reports of randomized trials.
• STARD flow diagram and checklist for reporting diagnostic tests.
• Registration information for clinical trials. See also CSE's endorsement statement of the ICMJE policy regarding clinical trial registration.)
• Compliance with MOOSE guidelines for reporting meta-analyses and systematic reviews of observational studies.
• Adherence to QUOROM guidelines for reporting meta-analyses and systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials.
• Adherence to the MIAME standards for reporting microarray experiments.

Editors are also responsible for monitoring and ensuring the fairness, timeliness, thoroughness, and civility of the peer-review editorial process.

Peer review by external reviewers with the proper expertise is the most common method to check manuscripts for quality. However, editors may sometimes reject manuscripts without external peer review in order to make the best use of the journal's resources. Reasons for this practice usually include the following: the manuscript is outside the scope of the journal, is of poor quality and/or limited scientific merit, lacks originality or novel information, or has been previously published.

Reviewers are chosen by the editors. Many journals follow the practice of keeping reviewer identities anonymous to the authors (single masked), but some journals give reviewers the option to reveal their names and other journals provide authors with the names of all reviewers associated with the manuscript. Some journals attempt to mask the authors' identities for reviewers (double masked), although masking is difficult to maintain. Peer review is usually a gift of uncompensated time from scientists to whom time is a precious commodity. It is therefore important for editors to clearly define the responsibilities of these individuals to implement processes that streamline the peer review as much as possible (see 2.3 for more on reviewer responsibilities).

Some editor responsibilities to reviewers are listed below.

• Assigning papers for review appropriate to the reviewers' areas of interest and expertise.
• Establishing a process for reviewers to ensure that they treat the manuscript as a confidential document and complete the review promptly.
• Informing reviewers that they are not allowed to make any use of the work described in the manuscript or take advantage of the knowledge they gained by reviewing it until it is published.
• Providing reviewers with written, explicit instructions on the journal's expectations for the scope, content, quality, and timeliness of their reviews to promote thoughtful, fair, constructive, and informative critique of the submitted work.
• Requesting that reviewers identify any potential conflicts of interest and asking that they recuse themselves if they cannot provide an unbiased review.
• Allowing reviewers appropriate time to complete their reviews.
• Requesting reviews at a frequency that does not overtax any one reviewer.
• Finding ways to recognize the contribution of reviewers, for example by publicly thanking them in the journal, providing letters that might be used in applications for academic promotion, offering professional education credits, or inviting them to serve on the editorial board of the journal.

Editors have the responsibility to inform and educate readers. Making clear and rational editorial decisions will ensure the best selection of content that contributes to the body of scientific knowledge.

Some editor responsibilities to readers are listed below.

• Evaluating all manuscripts considered for publication to make certain that each manuscript provides the evidence readers need to evaluate the authors' conclusions and that authors' conclusions reflect the evidence provided in the manuscript.
• Providing literature references and author contact information so that interested readers may pursue further discourse.
• Identifying individual and group authorship clearly and developing processes to ensure that authorship criteria are met to the editors' knowledge.
• Requiring all authors to review and accept responsibility for the content of the final draft of each paper or for those areas to which they have contributed; this may involve signatures of all authors or of only the corresponding author on behalf of all authors.
• Maintaining the journal's internal integrity (eg, correcting errors; clearly identifying and differentiating types of content such as reports of original data, opinion pieces such as editorials, letters to the editor, corrections/errata, retractions, supplemental data, and promotional material or advertising; identifying published material with proper references).
• Disclosing sources (eg, authorship, journal ownership, funding).
• Creating mechanisms to determine whether the journal is providing what readers need and want (eg, reader surveys).
• Disclosing all relevant potential conflicts of interest of those involved in considering a manuscript or affirming that none exist.
• Providing a mechanism for a further discussion on the scientific merits of a paper, such as by publishing letters to the editor, inviting commentaries, or soliciting other forms of public discourse.
• Explicitly stating journal policies regarding ethics, embargo, submission and publication fees, and accessibility of content (what is freely available vs what is under a subscription model).

Journals may be owned by professional societies or associations, foundations, universities, hospitals, research institutions, libraries, governmental organizations, or commercial publishers.

Some editor responsibilities to journal owners are listed below.

• Conducting peer review of submitted manuscripts and complying with the guidelines and procedures of the owner organization, including any terms specified in the contract with that organization.
• Making recommendations about improved evaluation and dissemination of scientific material.
• Operating the journal in a fiscally responsible manner.
• Adhering to the agreed-on mission, publication practices, and schedule.

Meeting all the obligations—which sometimes compete with one another—and handling the demands of other individuals and groups (such as the parent society, owners, publishers, funders and sponsors, authors, readers, advertisers, news media, and government agencies) require that the editor have editorial freedom, comprising both authority and autonomy.

2.1.1 Editorial Freedom

To establish and maintain high-quality journal content, an editor should, prior to accepting a position, receive an explicit, written statement from the journal's owner that defines the editor's responsibilities and autonomy. Regardless of the scientific field, editors should be given full responsibility for editorial decisions on individual manuscripts (see 2.5). The editor's right to editorial freedom may be supported by the following and should be agreed on by both editor and journal owner/publisher:

• A journal mission statement.
• Written editorial priorities, objectives, and measures of success.
• Written editorial policies.
• A written job description, specifically detailing components of editorial freedom. Degree of control regarding editorial content, acceptance and publication, and advertising content should be specified. A sample job description can be found in the Appendix.
• An editorial board, including associate, assistant, and topic editors, that is nominated or appointed by and reports to the editor.
• Sufficient support from the parent society, publisher, owner, or other journal sponsors in both funding and staff to carry out the journal's stated mission.
• A mechanism for regular and objective evaluation of editor performance by the publisher or sponsoring organization based on predetermined and agreed-on measures of success.
• Direct lines of communication with the publisher, owner, and any publication oversight body.
• A mechanism to prevent inappropriate influence on the editor by others and to handle conflicts in an objective and transparent manner with the goal of conflict resolution and maintenance of trust.

2.1.2 Confidentiality

Editors and the publication staff should keep all information about a submitted manuscript confidential and limited to those involved in the evaluation, review, and publication processes. In order to eliminate the potential to influence editorial decisions, many journals have policies not to release content to the publication's sales team until it has been accepted or published. Journals should have a mechanism to safely store, archive, and/or destroy paper and electronic manuscript review files and related content. Confidential information should not be used for editors' own purposes, and editors should take reasonable steps to ensure that such information is not used inappropriately for the advantage of others. In cases of breach of confidentiality by those involved in the peer-review process, editors should contact the involved parties and follow up until satisfactory resolution is achieved.

Generally, editors of journals with embargo policies should enforce them to ensure that publication content remains confidential until the embargo release date, unless the editor is authorized by the copyright owner or required by law to disclose that information. The copyright owner is often the journal owner-usually the society, publisher, or the author. There are 2 general exceptions under which an editor may release manuscript content to others not involved in consideration of the manuscript prior to publication: (1) to an author if a commentary or editorial is being solicited to highlight the manuscript, and (2) to the public when research findings have a major health or societal impact (a rare event). In the latter case, journals often prefer to coordinate release of the peer-reviewed study findings with announcements to the public so that details are clearly presented and widely disseminated. This type of content is often made freely available online prior to print. A good summary of the importance of releasing information to the public and honoring embargoes is described in an editorial about JAMA's plans to coordinate with media to release a report from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute Women's Health Initiative about the use of estrogen-plus-progestin hormone therapy and the consequences of the subsequent embargo break. (see 2.6.)

2.1.3 Conflicts of Interest

Conflicts of interest in publishing can be defined as conditions in which an individual holds conflicting or competing interests that could bias editorial decisions. Conflicts of interest may be only potential or perceived, or they may be factual. Personal, political, financial, academic, or religious considerations can affect objectivity in numerous ways.

Editors should set and regularly monitor a conflict-of-interest policy for editors, reviewers, editorial board members, editorial staff, and authors. These policies should be published in the journal with the date of their adoption or publication and made easily accessible to all readers by a parallel online publication (usually as part of the Instructions for Authors). Editors should strive for fairness and impartiality in their policies and enforcement. The challenge for editors is to recognize the potential for biases arising from conflicts of interest in the publishing process and to take appropriate action when biases are likely. Some specific types of conflict of interest are mentioned below.

• Personal conflicts. Editors should avoid making decisions on manuscripts that conflict with their own interest, such as those submitted from their department or by research collaborators or competitors or those addressing an issue in which they stand to gain financially (eg, holding stock in a company whose product is discussed in the article). If they may have a perceived or possible conflict of interest, editors should delegate handling of any decision to other editors. Also, editors should only submit their own manuscripts to the journal if full masking of the process can be ensured (eg, anonymity of the peer reviewers, lack of access to records of their own manuscript). Editorials are an exception to this rule.

• Financial conflicts. The most evident type of potential conflict of financial interest arises when an individual or organization may benefit financially from a decision to publish or to reject. Financial conflicts may include salary, consulting fees, research grants from a company with an interest in the results, honoraria, stock or equity interests, and intellectual property rights (patents, royalties, and copyrights). Some examples of potential direct and indirect financial conflicts of interest that should be avoided are given below.

  Direct: An editor, author, or reviewer is reporting or considering a study involving a specific commercial product while he or she holds equity positions or stock options in the company making the product and thus has the potential to realize direct financial gain if the assessment is favorable.

  Direct: A reviewer gains key knowledge from evaluating a competing research team's work, and uses it prior to the publication of the work, but does not cite it in his/her own patent application.

  Indirect: An individual involved in the publication process is employed by an organization that would obtain some advantage from a favorable product-related publication or may receive compensation if a product does well as a result of a favorable report published in the journal.

  Indirect: When an investigator studies the product of a commercial enterprise from which the investigator has received monies previously (eg, consulting fees, honoraria, speaking fees), the situation differs slightly. In such case, there is no direct relationship between the evaluation and a personal gain the investigator may anticipate. Nevertheless, previously received payments could conceivably influence the researcher's opinion and must therefore be regarded as a potential conflict of interest that should be disclosed.

  Indirect: An author is being considered for a research grant and publication of an article favorable to the company reviewing the grant may influence the award.

• Non-financial conflicts. Other, non-financial conflicts of interest should also be avoided or disclosed. Some of these include personal, political, academic, and religious conflicts. Examples are listed below.

  A reviewer evaluating a manuscript reporting research results similar to what he or she is preparing to submit for publication might be tempted to delay the review until his or her manuscript is accepted; or the reviewer may be unduly influenced by the concepts or hypotheses in his or her ongoing and unpublished research.

  A reviewer with strong feelings on a controversial topic might be partial to or biased against a manuscript on the topic and want to publish or reject it regardless of scientific merit. An author of an editorial commenting on the importance of a research article may minimize positive findings if he or she has been a consultant to a company selling competing products.

  An editor chairing a department might struggle to reach an objective decision about a manuscript submitted by a member of his or her faculty because of his or her commitment to the academic advancement of those researchers.

2.1.4 Conflict of Interest Disclosure

Journals should require disclosure of all conflicts of interest from everyone involved in the publication process: editors, reviewers, editorial board members, editorial staff, and authors. The intent of disclosure is to allow others to make an informed decision about the existence and impact of potential conflicts of interest or bias, including the necessity for recusal or disqualification under extraordinary circumstances. Editors are better equipped to make informed decisions on potential biases if they have full knowledge of all the circumstances, and readers and reviewers have more information to interpret the work when there is a public disclosure. However, some argue that mandatory disclosure of actual or perceived conflicts does not allow a manuscript to be judged solely on its scientific merits and may introduce prejudice. Under what circumstances a disclosure is needed and how it is handled varies among journals.

• Author disclosures. Some editors and journals require authors to identify the organizations that provided support for their research and describe the role played by these organizations in the study and in the analysis of the results. Authors may also be required to disclose all personal, financial, and other relationships they may have with the manufacturer of any product mentioned in the manuscript or with the manufacturers of competing products. For example, some journals do not permit consideration of manuscripts describing research involving a commercial product when the research was supported financially by a commercial organization involved in the manufacturing or sale of that product. Others will not permit editorials or review articles to be authored by individuals with potential conflicts of financial interest, feeling that these pieces rely especially heavily on interpretation and objectivity. Many journals follow the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) recommendation to keep disclosed conflicts of interest confidential during the peer review process. This allows the editor to consider the potential conflicts after the scientific merit is assessed. Those journals that request and publish specific conflict-of-interest information are more likely to avoid inconsistent handling but may unnecessarily use editorial space for this purpose. While some journals ask that all potential financial conflicts be provided, others ask authors to identify only if they exceed a certain monetary amount. For example, the journal Neurology states that the corresponding author must obtain the signed Author Disclosure Form from all co-authors and reveal his or her own to co-authors; the journal keeps this information on file for 5 years after the date of submission. It further states: "Corresponding authors are also responsible for disclosing any co-author'(s') potential or real, financial or non-financial conflicts of interest in the manuscript in a 'Disclosure' section on the title page of the submitted manuscript and in writing to the Editor-in-Chief of Neurology." The Disclosure Form specifically asks authors if more than $10,000/year was received from the study's corporate sponsors for (1) anything not reported in the articles, (2) honoraria during the study, (3) expert testimony on the subject of the article, (4) royalties for patents related to the topic of the article, and (5) whether the author has an equity or ownership interest in the sponsoring organization. In addition, if the article is accepted, the corresponding author is required to ensure that any disclosure appears on the page proofs. The ICMJE states: "Editors should publish this information if they believe it is important in judging the manuscript." This approach gives the editor the discretion to decide if the potential conflict is significant enough to reveal. Examples of some disclosure forms and actual disclosures are shown in the following links from the Annals of Internal Medicine and the American Chemical Society. In general, editors should err on the side of too much disclosure.

• Reviewer disclosures. Some journals have established policies that require reviewers to reveal any potential personal or financial conflicts of interest with respect to the authors or content of manuscripts they are asked to review, or to affirm that they have no conflicts. In most instances when such conflicts exist, editors request that reviewers decline to comment on the manuscript. However, if a reviewer is a colleague of the author but believes that he or she can provide an objective review, the editor may allow the practice. Many journals use the same form for conflict of interest disclosures for reviewers as for authors, because the potential pitfalls are very similar.

2.1.5 Editorial Board Participation

The editor-in-chief or principal editor should define the terms and roles of the editors and editorial board members who are appointed by and report to him or her. As mentioned above, the editor-in-chief should require disclosure of any conflicts of interest. Some journals ask potential editors to identify service on other publication boards and may consider inappropriate an editor's role in the editorial and financial decisions of a competing publication.

The editor-in-chief or principal editor should ensure that the journal's editors and board are identified in the journal masthead; receive the necessary training and oversight to adequately perform editorial functions; and actively participate in their responsibilities, such as assigning reviewers or reviewing manuscripts and advising on policy considerations.

2.1.6 Timeliness of the Publication Process

Editors are responsible for monitoring the turnaround times for every publishing stage from manuscript receipt to publication or rejection. Processing data and evaluating trends can help editors scrutinize acceptance and rejection rates of specific types of manuscripts, manage the inventory/backlog of accepted manuscripts, track reviewers' and editors' performance, and assess staffing needs.

Some journals publish annual editorial audits, which include the total number of manuscripts submitted, acceptance rates of solicited and unsolicited manuscripts, and the average manuscript turnaround time. Many journals follow the practice of listing the dates of manuscript receipt and acceptance as part of the published article. This information helps answer questions from readers and potential authors about how long it will take to see their manuscript in print. The editor's responsibility for timeliness extends to providing prompt responses and decisions for all journal-related activities, including responses to authors' queries. Many journals provide an email address or an online feedback form to facilitate communication with authors and readers.

2.1.7 Errata, Retractions, and Expressions of Concern

Editors have a responsibility to maintain the integrity of the literature by publishing errata or corrections identifying anything of significance, retractions, and expressions of concern as quickly as possible (see 3.5). When appropriate, they should provide a forum (eg, letters to the editors) for offering responsible alternative opinions.

Errors in published articles require a published correction or erratum. These corrections should be made in such a way that secondary publication services, such as PubMed, will identify them and associate them with the original publication. Many online journals provide a direct link between the original article and the correction published later.

Editors should monitor the number and types of errors that appear in their journals. This review can be done simultaneously with the evaluation of other journal statistics. Editors should take corrective measures when there is evidence of an increase in preventable errors.

2.1.8 Addressing Authorship Disputes

Editors are responsible for promoting the integrity of the literature and fostering good publication practices. Journals should develop and define authorship or contributorship criteria to minimize confusion about expectations. (Authorship is more fully addressed in section 2.2.) Despite current common practice to make authorship or contributorship transparent, authorship disputes continue to persist. Examples include the "honorary" listing of a person who does not meet authorship criteria, submission of a manuscript without the knowledge or consent of an author/contributor, misrepresentation of a contribution, and an ordering of the byline that indicates a greater level of participation in the research than is warranted. A journal's Instructions for Authors should define the criteria for authorship or contributorship, but policies should also be established to mediate authorship disputes. Authorship abuses may be driven by some factors that are beyond the role of the editor (tenure decisions, funding, awards). Editors, however, should collaborate with research institutions and other organizations to determine why these improprieties exist and to work toward solutions.

2.1.9 Appealing Decisions and Reconsideration of Rejected Manuscripts

Despite editors' best efforts to solicit fair and unbiased reviews, disputes may still arise about editorial decisions. Editors should have a policy in place to help resolve these issues.

• Determine whether the decision was clearly explained to the author or whether the decision may have been based on wrong or questionable information, for example, on an incorrect reading of the manuscript or on bad advice from a reviewer.
• Reconsider rejected manuscripts if the author provides good reasons why the decision may have been wrong and is willing to revise the manuscript in response to the valid comments of the reviewers and editors. Many journals allow authors to write a rebuttal letter explaining why their manuscript should be reevaluated.
• Encourage resubmission of manuscripts that are potentially acceptable but were rejected because major revision or additional data were required, explaining precisely what is needed to make the manuscript acceptable.

2.1.10 Addressing Allegations or Findings of Misconduct (see 3.1 through 3.6)

Concerns about possible scientific misconduct are usually expressed first to the editors of a journal about a manuscript that is under consideration or has already been published. Every journal should develop a consistent policy to encourage reporting indications of misconduct, for evaluating the allegations, and for handling the findings. Journals should include a general statement in their Instructions for Authors that allegations of misconduct will be pursued. Although the editor is not solely responsible for monitoring possible failures to meet legal or ethical research and publication standards, it is within his or her responsibilities to create and enforce policies that encourage good publication practices. When allegations and/or findings of misconduct are presented, the editor will be faced with some level of responsibility for investigating, judging, and/or penalizing the author for these lapses. The Council of Science Editors recommends that each journal articulate a specific policy on the editor's responsibility for notifying an author's institution of failure to comply with the journal's ethical standards. Additionally, the editor and the publisher have a responsibility to inform readers and secondary services of work formally proven to be plagiarized, fabricated, or falsified.

(Authorship: Diane Scott-Lichter and Deborah Polly took the lead in writing this section of the white paper on behalf of the CSE Policy Committee. Members of the Policy Committee and the CSE Board of Directors reviewed and commented on it. This section was formally approved by the CSE Board of Directors on September 13, 2006.)

Return to Top

Resources and Case Studies

American Chemical Society. Ethical Guidelines to Publication of Chemical Research. Available at: https://paragon.acs.org/paragon/ShowDocServlet?contentId=paragon/menu_content/newtothissite/eg_ethic2000.pdf. Accessed March 27, 2006.

American Society for Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics. Authorship Responsibility, Financial Disclosure, and Copyright Transfer. Available at: http://jpet.aspetjournals.org/misc/JPET_copyright_form.pdf. Accessed March 30, 2006.

Annals of Internal Medicine. Authors' Professional and Ethical Responsibilities. Available at: http://www.annals.org/shared/author_info.shtml#authorsprofessional. Accessed March 27, 2006.

Biophysical Journal. Copyright Permission Form. Available at: http://www.biophysics.org/publications/copyright.pdf. Accessed March 27, 2006.

Bossuyt PM, Reitsma JB, Bruns DE, et al; for the STARD Group. Towards complete and accurate reporting of studies of diagnostic accuracy: the STARD Initiative. Clin Chem. 2003; 49:1-18.

Brazma A, Hingamp P, Quackenbush J, et al. Minimum information about a microarray experiment (MIAME): toward standards for microarray data. Nature Genetics. 2001;29:365-371.

Canadian Council on Animal Care. Terms of Reference for Animal Care Committees. Available at: http://www.ccac.ca/en/CCAC_Programs/Guidelines_Policies/POLICIES/TERMS00E.HTM. Accessed August 18, 2006.

The CONSORT Statement. Available at: http://www.consort-statement.org. Accessed March 30, 2006.

The CONSORT Statement. Improving the Quality of Reports of Meta-Analyses of Randomised Controlled Trials: the QUOROM Statement Checklist. Available at: http://www.consort-statement.org/QUOROM.pdf. Accessed March 30, 2006.

DeAngelis CD, Drazen JM, Frizelle FA, et al. Clinical trial registration: a statement from the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. JAMA. 2004;292:1363-1364.

Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology. Statement of Principles for the Use of Animals in Research and Education. Available at: http://opa.faseb.org/pages/PolicyIssues/animalresearch.htm. Accessed August 18, 2006.

Fontanarosa PB, DeAngelis CD. The importance of the journal embargo. JAMA. 2002;288:748-750.

International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. Conflicts of interest. In: Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts Submitted to Biomedical Journals. Available at: http://www.icmje.org/#conflicts. Accessed March 30, 2006.

JAMA. Authorship Responsibility, Financial Disclosure, Copyright Transfer, and Acknowledgment. Available at: http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/data/292/1/112/DC1/1. Accessed March 30, 2006.

Neurology. Authorship, Non-financial, and Financial Disclosure Form. Available at: http://www.neurology.org/misc/AuthorDiscl.pdf. Accessed March 30, 2006.

Society for Conservation Biology. Conservation Biology Editors' Report: turnaround time. Available at: http://www.conbio.org/Publications/Newsletter/Archives/1997-8-August/aug97008.cfm#A14. Accessed March 30, 2006.

Stroup DF, Berlin JA, Morton SC, et al. Meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology: a proposal for reporting. JAMA. 2000;283:2008-2012.

University of California, San Francisco. UCSF Animal Research and Care. Available at: http://www.research.ucsf.edu/arc/index.asp. Accessed August 18, 2006.

Return to Top

APPENDIX

Sample Job Description for an Editor

Reports to journal's Publications Committee and owner's Board of Directors. Makes recommendations pertaining to improved dissemination of scientific material. Oversees journal's publications department staff in regard to the journal.

1. DUTIES
   1. Possess a general scientific knowledge of the fields covered in the journal and be skilled in the arts of writing, editing, critical assessment, negotiation, and diplomacy.
   2. Publish original, important, well-documented, peer-reviewed articles on a diverse range of scientific topics of interest to the readership.
   3. Establish the policies for:
      • Submission of manuscripts and criteria for authorship/contributorship
      • Processes for peer review, evaluation of decisions regarding publication, and methods for reconsideration of rejected manuscripts
      • Identification and selection of theme issues and supplements
      • Conflict of interest and disclosure
      • Handling allegations and findings of scientific misbehavior and misconduct.
   4. Communicate publication guidelines and policies (eg, Instructions to authors, Instructions to Reviewers, Ethical Guidelines, Editorial Board reports, Editorials).
   5. Provide the journal owner, publications oversight committee, and/or editorial board with reports, as requested, on the journal's activities.
   6. Preside at annual meetings of the editorial board and the executive committees.
   7. Receive, review, and act on complaints from those involved in the publication process.
   8. Review and approve the journal's yearly budget, as proposed by the managing editor, for approval by the journal's management committee.
   9. Represent the editorial board in negotiations with the journal's publisher.

2. EDITORIAL FREEDOM

   The editor-in-chief will have complete authority for determining the editorial content within the defined scope of the journal and participate in the development of the advertising policy.

3. TERM OF APPOINTMENT
   1. The individual elected by the editorial board as editor-in-chief is expected to serve in that position for [a defined number of] years.
   2. If a person serving as editor-in-chief is unable to complete the current term, [number] months' notice should be provided. The editor-in-chief may recommend a potential successors to the Society.

Return to the Promoting Integrity in Scientific Journals table of contents page.