| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH |
| Author Conduct
| Reviewer Conduct |
Editor Conduct | Staff Conduct |
Allegations of Misconduct |
>>View PDF version for printing
The American Journal of Pathology has developed a formal Scientific
Integrity Policy in an effort to define more clearly issues of scientific
misconduct in journal publishing. This document defines the common issues
relating to appropriate scientific conduct as well as the procedures that will
be followed should misconduct issues arise. In addition the Instructions to
Authors (http://ajp.amjpathol.org/misc/ifora.shtml)
and Instructions to Reviewers (http://jmd.amjpathol.org/misc/reviewer.shtml)
have been updated to reflect these changes.
The policy is based on recommendations from the Uniform Requirements for
Manuscripts Submitted to Biomedical Journals (http://www.icmje.org),
the CSE White Paper on Promoting Integrity in Scientific Journal Publications (http://www.councilscienceeditors.org/editorial_policies/white_paper.cfm),
and the US Department of Health and Human Services’ Office of Research Integrity
(http://ori.dhhs.gov/). It should be noted
that willful misconduct does not include incidents of honest misjudgment or
inadvertent error. Any questions regarding the official policy of the Journal
should be directed to the Editorial Office at 301-634-7959 or
ajp{at}asip.org.
Author Conduct
General Authorship Guidelines
Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts Submitted to Biomedical Journals (http://www.icmje.org)
defines authorship as “1) substantial contributions to conception and design, or
acquisition of data, or analysis and interpretation of data; 2) drafting the
manuscript or revising it critically for important intellectual content; and 3)
final approval of the version to be published. Authors should meet conditions 1,
2, and 3.” When work has been performed by a large, multi-center group, the
group should designate individuals who accept direct responsibility for the
manuscript on behalf of the group. These individuals should fully meet the
criteria above and should disclose conflicts of interest (see below) on behalf
of the group. All members of the group who meet authorship criteria should be
provided for listing as a footnote.
When submitting a manuscript to the Journal, the corresponding author takes
responsibility on behalf of all authors for the authorship, authenticity and
integrity of the research being reported. The email contact information of ALL
authors is required so the Journal may formally contact the authors regarding
any aspect of manuscript submission. If an author is removed during the course
of revision of the manuscript, written explanation and consent by the removed
author (signed letter or personal email) should be provided. Any change made to
the list of authors (addition, removal, change in order) after manuscript
acceptance requires consent of all authors and editorial approval. Authorship
disputes are to be resolved by the authors and/or their institutions, not by the
Journal.
Because inclusion in the Acknowledgments may give the appearance of endorsement
of the manuscript and its findings, authors should obtain permission from all
individuals named in the Acknowledgments who contributed substantially to the
work reported (eg, data collection, analysis, or writing/editing assistance) but
did not fulfill the authorship criteria. Likewise, authors should receive
permission from all individuals named as sources for personal communication or
unpublished data. Such permissions should be affirmed by the corresponding
author in the cover letter.
Ghostwriting
As stated above, all persons contributing to the paper but not meeting
authorship criteria should be listed in the Acknowledgments section. Further,
any funding for writing support should be fully disclosed. If an outside source
funded the assistance, the authors of the paper should also affirm that they are
solely, and independently, responsible for the interpretation of the data and
that they had full and open access to all of the data. It is considered
unethical for any entity (eg, governmental, private, or commercial) with direct
financial or personal interests to restrict the use of data or their
interpretation for the sole purpose of presenting data in a manner that is
favorable to its own interests or those of its affiliates. It is also unethical
for any entity to be responsible for data gathering, interpretation, and/or
presentation and then to solicit outside "authors" for the paper, as a means of
hiding its relationship with the data.
Peer Review Process
The Journal takes great care to secure the confidentiality and integrity of
the peer-review process. It is the practice of the Journal to conduct a blinded
peer-review process. Thus, it is considered a violation of this process for
authors to identify or attempt to communicate directly with peer reviewers or
Associate Editors regarding their manuscript. The Editors will consider any
deliberate ethical violation in either the reported research or the manuscript
preparation and review to be actionable misconduct, the potential results of
which may be manuscript rejection or public article retraction, reporting of
conduct to the authors’ governing institutions, and/or the denial to consider
any future submissions to the Journal.
To aid the review process, authors should be ready to comply with Editors’
requests for copies of any similar works in preparation, copies of cited
manuscripts that are submitted or in press, and/or supporting manuscript data (eg,
data not shown but summarized in the manuscript). Failure to do so may result in
rejection of the manuscript without further review.
Financial Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest
All authors must disclose any current or former affiliations (eg,
employment, consultancies, stock ownership, honoraria, expert testimony) with
any organization or entity having a direct financial or personal interest in the
subject matter or materials discussed in the manuscript. Authors should err on
the side of full disclosure and should contact the Editorial Office if they have
questions or concerns. This information should be provided at the time of
submission and reiterated as part of copyright assignment. Failure to do so may
result in manuscript rejection or editorial retraction of the article.
Ethical Treatment of Research Subjects. If human subjects or samples were used,
authors must affirm that the research protocol was approved by the appropriate
institutional review boards or ethics committees for human (including use of
human cells or tissues) experiments and that all human subjects provided
appropriate informed consent. To protect patient privacy, identifying
information such as names, initials, or hospital numbers should not be published
unless the information is essential for scientific purposes and the patient (or
parent or guardian) gives written informed consent for publication. If
race/ethnicity is reported, authors should state who determined race/ethnicity,
how the options were defined, and why race/ethnicity was important in the study.
Authors should be prepared to provide study protocol number(s) if requested.
Ethical Treatment of Animals
If animal experiments were performed, authors must affirm that the research
protocol was approved by the appropriate institutional review boards or ethics
committees for animal experiments and that regulations concerning the use of
animals in research were adhered to. Authors should be prepared to provide study
protocol number(s) if requested.
Copyright
Copyright of published manuscripts is held by the American Society for
Investigative Pathology, which must receive the assignment of copyright from the
authors of accepted manuscripts. For US government employees, the above
assignment applies only to the extent allowable by law. See
http://www.asip.org/pubs/ajprights.pdf for details. Requests to republish
copyrighted materials, including the planned use, should be directed to the
Editorial Office at 301-634-7959 or ajp{at}asip.org.
Through The American Journal of Pathology’s affiliation with PubMed
Central, articles that arise from NIH-funded research and are properly
attributed as such will be deposited in PubMed Central’s repository by the
Journal, in accordance with NIH’s Public Access to Research Initiative, to be
made available to the public six months after final print publication. Authors
therefore should not complete a separate deposit of their material but will be
contacted by PubMed Central for grant verification once the manuscript has been
received by the NLM submission system.
Contact the Editorial Office regarding permission to deposit manuscripts in
other government-sponsored repositories in cases where The American Journal of
Pathology does not have a system in place to automatically deposit materials on
behalf of their authors. Deposit of accepted or published manuscripts in any
non-AJP repository without prior permission by the Journal is a violation of
copyright.
Embargo Policy
All information regarding the content of submitted or accepted manuscripts is
strictly confidential. Information contained in or about accepted articles
cannot appear in print, audio, video, or digital form or be released by the news
media until the Journal embargo date has passed, not to exceed the publication
date of the article. For detailed information on embargo release dates or for
news media requests for preprint copies of specific articles, contact the
Editorial Office at 301-634-7959 or ajp{at}asip.org.
Scientific Misconduct
According to the US Office of Research Integrity (http://ori.dhhs.gov/),
“fabrication is making up data or results and recording or reporting them;
falsification is manipulating research materials, equipment, or processes, or
changing or omitting data or results such that the research is not accurately
represented in the research record; plagiarism is the appropriation of another
person's ideas, processes, results, or words without giving appropriate credit.”
The Journal has a zero tolerance policy for such matters. For details regarding
how the Journal handles such matters, see the later section on Allegations of
Misconduct.
Fabrication of Data
Any evidence of fraudulent methods, data, or data analysis may prompt the
Editors to request an explanation and access to original data, which the authors
must supply.
Falsification of Data
The results presented in the manuscript must accurately represent the data
obtained in the course of authors’ studies; omission of contradictory or
negative data in an effort to support the main hypothesis is unacceptable. No
specific feature within an image may be enhanced, obscured, moved, removed, or
introduced. The grouping of images from different parts of the same gel or blot,
or from different gels or blots, fields, or exposures must be made explicit by
the arrangement of the figure (eg, using dividing lines) and in the figure
legend. Adjustments of brightness, contrast, or color balance are acceptable
only if they are applied to the whole image, whether experimental or control
image, and as long as they do not obscure or eliminate any information present
in the original (Adapted with permission from the JCB). Any evidence of
inappropriate manipulation may prompt the Editors to request an explanation and
access to original data, which the authors must make available.
Plagiarism
Authors should carefully note that the use of another person’s data or ideas
without permission constitutes plagiarism. Authors may not republish copyrighted
Journal material in whole or in part without the express permission of the
copyright holder, the American Society for Investigative Pathology. Likewise,
copyrighted material previously published in another form may not be published
in the Journal without express permission from the original copyright holder.
These rules cover work previously written by the authors. Authors wishing to
republish images, tables, or text should provide proof of such permission with
their submission and should include the appropriate attribution in the figure or
table legend or in the text.
Redundant Publication
“Redundant (or duplicate) publication is publication of a paper that
overlaps substantially with one already published in print or electronic media,”
as defined by the Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts Submitted to Biomedical
Journals (http://www.icmje.org). Authors must
certify upon submission that the manuscript has not been accepted or published
elsewhere and that it is not currently under review at another journal.
Likewise, manuscripts under consideration by the Journal should not be submitted
or published elsewhere. Publication of short abstracts in meeting proceedings
does not violate this standard. Submissions will be ineligible for review if
previously published in any form (print or online) other than as an abstract.
This includes any public posting of raw manuscripts or pre-reviewed material. If
there is any doubt, the authors should contact the Editorial Office for
guidance.
Reviewer Conduct
Peer Review Process
Reviewers are expected to take their obligation seriously and to consider
carefully the merits of the manuscript being assessed. Any delays in completing
a review should be brought to the immediate attention of the Editorial Office so
that we may assess the situation and make adjustments as needed. It is the
practice of The American Journal of Pathology to conduct a blinded peer-review
process; it is considered a violation of this process for peer reviewers to
identify themselves or attempt to communicate directly with authors regarding
the reviewed manuscript without the express permission of the Editors. The
Editors will consider any deliberate ethical violation during peer review of a
manuscript to be actionable misconduct, the potential results of which may be
reporting of conduct to the Reviewer’s governing institution, dismissal as a
peer reviewer for the Journal, and/or the denial to consider any future
submissions to the Journal.
Confidentiality
The manuscript is considered a privileged communication. When reviewing a
manuscript for the Journal, the peer reviewer takes responsibility for
maintaining its confidentiality. Reviewers should not retain copies of submitted
manuscripts for personal use after completing their review. Reviewers are not
allowed to make any use of the work described in the manuscript or take
advantage of the knowledge gained by reviewing it until and unless it is
published.
If necessary, the manuscript may be discussed with a colleague in an effort to
reach a decision. In such instances, the Reviewer must inform the colleague of
the manuscript’s confidentiality and ask that they disclose any potential
conflicts of interest. Information regarding additional assistance (colleague’s
name and disclosure information as well as a description of the level of
assistance) should be included in the “Confidential Comments to the Editor”
portion of the online reviewer form.
Financial Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest
Reviewers must disclose to the Editors any current or former affiliations (eg,
employment, consultancies, stock ownership, honoraria, expert testimony) with
any organization or entity having a direct financial or personal interest in the
subject matter or materials discussed in the manuscript that could bias their
opinions of the manuscript. Reviewers should also consider potential conflicts
of interest arising from personal relationships or academic competition.
Personal relationships include family members, colleagues (such as
collaborators, mentors, students, or trainees), or associates at a Reviewer’s
institution. At least three years should elapse between the ending of such a
relationship and participation in any review. However, for certain relationships
such as student-mentor, three years may not be sufficient time, especially if
both investigators continue to work in the same field. Thus, Reviewers must err
on the side of caution and decline any assignments in which the suggestion of a
conflict or bias could be raised. By agreeing to review a manuscript, Reviewers
implicitly affirm that any potential conflicts of interest have been disclosed
to the Editors and that they are able to provide an impartial review of the
manuscript.
Editor Conduct
Peer Review Process
The Editor-in-Chief, Senior Associate Editor, Associate Editors, and Special
Associate Editor are expected to take their obligation seriously and to maintain
the highest standard of ethics during the peer-review process. Editors should
perform their editorial duties without bias for or against any person or
institution. Any delays in completing the disposition of a manuscript should be
brought to the immediate attention of the Editorial Office so that the situation
may be resolved. It is considered a violation for Editors to communicate
directly with authors regarding their manuscript outside of normal editorial
practices. It is also a violation for the Editors to reveal Reviewers’ names to
authors without Reviewer consent; as the Journal conducts a blinded peer-review
process, such revelations are extremely rare. Any deliberate ethical violation
during peer review of a manuscript is considered to be actionable misconduct,
the potential results of which may be reporting of conduct to the Editor’s
governing institution, dismissal as an Editor for the Journal, and/or the denial
to consider any future submissions to the Journal.
Confidentiality
The Editors are subject to the same confidentiality requirements as
Reviewers. Further, Editors must not disclose information about manuscripts
(including their receipt, content, status in the reviewing process, Reviewers’
comments, or final disposition) to anyone other than the authors, Reviewers, and
Journal staff. Editors should not retain copies of submitted manuscripts for
personal use after completing their disposition. Editors are not allowed to make
any use of the work described in the manuscript or take advantage of the
knowledge gained by reviewing it until and unless it is published.
Financial Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest
Editors must also carefully consider whether there exist any current or former
affiliations (eg, employment, consultancies, stock ownership, honoraria, expert
testimony) with any organization or entity having a direct financial or personal
interest in the subject matter or materials discussed in the manuscript that
could bias their opinions of the manuscript. Editors should also consider
potential conflicts of interest arising from personal relationships or academic
competition. Personal relationships include family members, colleagues (such as
collaborators, mentors, students, or trainees), or associates at the Editor’s
institution. At least three years should elapse between the ending of such a
relationship and participation in any review. However, for certain relationships
such as student-mentor, three years may not be sufficient time, especially if
both investigators continue to work in the same field. Thus, Editors must err on
the side of caution and decline any assignments in which the suggestion of a
conflict or bias could be raised. By agreeing to review a manuscript, the Editor
implicitly affirms that conflicts do not exist. In cases where the
Editor-in-Chief has a conflict of interest, the Senior Associate Editor or
another Associate Editor will handle the full disposition of the manuscript.
Staff Conduct
Peer Review Process
When handling a manuscript for the Journal, the Journal staff is expected to
interact courteously and respectfully with authors, Reviewers, and Editors. They
should not misrepresent the review process to authors or Reviewers. They should
not forge, fabricate, or alter the scientific content of Reviewer comments. They
should ensure timely disposition of reviewed manuscripts and publication of
accepted manuscripts.
Confidentiality
The Journal staff is subject to the same confidentiality standards as
Editors. It is considered a violation of this confidentiality for staff to
reveal Reviewer names or to communicate directly with authors regarding their
manuscript outside of normal editorial practices.
Allegations of Misconduct
Reporting Suspected Misconduct To maintain the integrity and high
standards of the scientific publishing process, the Journal welcomes reporting
of possible misconduct or other concerns related to manuscripts published or
under review by the Journal. Suspected misconduct relating to authors,
Reviewers, or Editors should be reported in writing to the Editorial Office at
The American Journal of Pathology, 9650 Rockville Pike, Bethesda, Maryland, USA
20814-3993 or ajp{at}asip.org. Issues relating to
staff conduct should be directed to the ASIP Executive Officer at American
Society for Investigative Pathology, 9650 Rockville Pike, Bethesda, Maryland,
USA 20814-3993 or mesobel{at}asip.org
Willful misconduct does not include incidents of honest misjudgment or
inadvertent error.
The anonymity of the whistleblower(s) will be maintained throughout these
procedures. With respect to all other communications arising from examination of
misconduct, the ability to effectively investigate and administer an allegation
of scientific misconduct shall be carefully balanced with the need to maintain
confidentiality in order to protect the rights and reputations of all concerned.
Procedures for Suspected Author Misconduct
Upon written notification of possible author misconduct, the Editors and
Editorial Office will first perform a preliminary evaluation to determine if
there is merit to the claims. The Editors reserve the right to involve the
Publications Committee, Executive Officer of ASIP, and/or legal counsel as
deemed appropriate. If the manuscript is currently under review, the review
process will be put on hold pending resolution. If the claims appear to have
merit, the next step is to contact the authors.
The Editor-in-Chief will contact all authors, and the corresponding author will
be asked to respond formally to the Editors’ concerns, and may be asked to
provide source data, within 30 days. Authors are expected to cooperate fully and
in good faith. Upon review of said data and explanation, the Editors and
Editorial Office will determine whether an innocent error was committed
(requiring publication of a Correction or Retraction) or whether further
reporting or investigation is warranted. If needed, the authors’ institutions
and/or funding agencies will be contacted, as it is not the responsibility of
the Journal to perform such an investigation. During the investigation, the
Journal will not receive or review new manuscripts from authors named in the
disputed manuscript.
The appropriate authorities at the authors’ institutions and/or funding agencies
will be notified of the original complaint and may be asked to conduct an
independent investigation. Once an investigation has begun, the Editors may
choose to publish a Note of Concern informing the scientific community that an
investigation is underway regarding the manuscript in question. The
investigation is expected to proceed in a timely manner, and upon completion of
an investigation, the institution should quickly notify the Journal of its
findings.
If an institution or funding agency declines to conduct an investigation on a
timely basis, or if an author does not have such an affiliation, the Journal may
conduct its own investigation.
If all authors are cleared of any wrongdoing, an unpublished manuscript may
re-enter the review process. If a Note of Concern was published, the Journal
will publish a Correction to rectify the matter in the public record.
Upon receiving final determination of misconduct (including final appeal), the
Journal may publish a Correction, Note of Concern, or Retraction, depending on
the findings of the investigation and the effect on the paper as a whole. If
misconduct is determined by the authors’ institutions, then the Editors may
request that the authors retract their paper. If the authors refuse, the Journal
will notify all authors of the intent to publish a Retraction, to which the
authors have 30 days to respond. The final Retraction will describe the reason
for retraction as well as a list of authors agreeing (and if necessary those
disagreeing) with the retraction. For unpublished manuscripts, the manuscript
may be rejected or acceptance may be rescinded.
At any point during the course of the investigation, the authors may withdrawal
their unpublished manuscript or request a Retraction. If this occurs prior to
formal investigation, the Editors may still determine to inform the authors’
institutions and/or funding agencies.
These procedures do not supersede or diminish the general authority of the
Journal to reject a manuscript as part of the review process.
Procedures for Suspected Editorial Misconduct (Reviewers, Editors, Staff)
Upon written notification of possible editorial misconduct, the Editors and/or
Editorial Office will first perform a preliminary evaluation to determine if
there is merit to the claims. If the complaint involves an Editor or Journal
staff, that person will be excluded from any review. The Editors reserve the
right to involve the Publications Committee, Executive Officer of ASIP, and/or
legal counsel as deemed appropriate. If the claims appear to have merit, the
next step is to contact the person involved.
The Editor-in-Chief or Executive Officer of the Society will contact the person
involved, requesting a formal response to the concerns within 30 days. Upon
review of said explanation, the Editors and Editorial Office will determine
whether an innocent error was committed or whether further investigation or
reporting is warranted. If needed, the person’s institution and/or funding
agency will be contacted, as it is not the responsibility of the Journal to
perform such an investigation. During the investigation, the Editor or Reviewer
will be excluded from reviewing or submitting new manuscripts.
The appropriate authorities at the person’s institution will be notified of the
original complaint and may be asked to conduct an independent investigation. The
investigation is expected to proceed in a timely manner, and upon completion of
an investigation, the institution should quickly notify the Journal of its
findings.
Upon receiving final determination of misconduct (including final appeal), the
Journal may publish a Note of Concern if the disposition of a manuscript(s) was
affected. Depending on the severity of the misconduct committed, the Editor,
Reviewer, or Journal staff may be relieved of all future Journal-related duties.
These procedures do not supersede or diminish the general authority of the
Journal to dismiss an Editor, Reviewer, or Journal staff.
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH |