Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement

Scope and Standards

The Journal of Evidence-Based Medical Research (JEBMR, e-ISSN 3107-1996) is committed to upholding the highest standards of publication ethics. Our policies and procedures follow the Core Practices of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and the Recommendations for the Conduct, Reporting, Editing, and Publication of Scholarly Work in Medical Journals issued by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE). Where a case is not addressed by our published policies, the Editor-in-Chief applies the relevant COPE flowchart.

Duties of Editors

Editorial decisions

Editors are accountable for everything published in JEBMR. Decisions to accept or reject a manuscript are based solely on its scholarly merit, methodological soundness, clarity and relevance to the journal's scope, and are made without regard to the authors' race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, institutional affiliation or political philosophy. Editors evaluate manuscripts independently of any commercial consideration; advertising and sponsorship arrangements exert no influence on editorial decisions.

Confidentiality

Editors and editorial staff must not disclose any information about a submitted manuscript to anyone other than the corresponding author, reviewers, potential reviewers, other editorial advisers and the publisher, as appropriate. Unpublished material disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in an editor's own research without the author's express written consent.

Competing interests and recusal

An editor who has a conflict of interest with respect to a submission — including competitive, collaborative, financial or personal relationships with any of the authors, or affiliation with the same institution — must recuse themselves and transfer handling of the manuscript to another editor. Submissions authored by an editor of the journal are handled entirely by an independent editor with no access to the author-editor's account, and the handling arrangement is stated in the published article.

Integrity of the record

Editors take reasonable steps to identify and prevent the publication of work where research misconduct has occurred, and will not knowingly allow such misconduct to pass unchallenged. Where concerns are raised about published work, the journal responds in accordance with its Corrections, Retractions and Expressions of Concern Policy.

Duties of Reviewers

Contribution to editorial decisions

Peer review assists the editor in making editorial decisions and may assist authors in improving their manuscript. Any invited reviewer who feels unqualified to assess a manuscript, who cannot meet the review deadline, or who identifies a conflict of interest should notify the editor promptly and decline the invitation.

Confidentiality

Manuscripts received for review are confidential documents and must not be shown to, or discussed with, others except as authorised by the editor. Reviewers must not use knowledge of the work before its publication to further their own interests. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential.

Standards of objectivity

Reviews should be conducted objectively. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate. Reviewers should express their views clearly with supporting arguments, identify relevant published work that has not been cited, and draw the editor's attention to any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript and any other published work of which they have personal knowledge. Reviewers must not recommend citation of their own work, or the work of colleagues, primarily to increase citation counts.

Reviewers must not use generative artificial intelligence tools to produce review reports or to process manuscript content, as set out in the journal's Generative Artificial Intelligence Policy.

Duties of Authors

Reporting standards

Authors must present an accurate account of the work performed together with an objective discussion of its significance. Underlying data must be represented accurately. A manuscript should contain sufficient detail and references to permit others to replicate the work. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behaviour and are unacceptable.

Originality and concurrent submission

Authors must ensure that they have written entirely original work, and that the work and words of others have been appropriately cited or quoted. Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal concurrently constitutes unethical publishing behaviour and is unacceptable. See the Similarity Screening and Plagiarism Policy.

Authorship, disclosure and ethics

Authorship must be limited to those who have made a significant contribution in accordance with the Authorship and Contributorship Policy. All authors must disclose financial and non-financial competing interests in accordance with the Conflict of Interest Policy, and must identify all sources of financial support for the work. Research involving human participants, human material, human data or animals must comply with the Research Ethics, Informed Consent and Trial Registration Policy.

Errors in published work

When an author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in their own published work, it is their obligation to notify the journal's editors promptly and to cooperate with the editors to correct or retract the paper.

Handling Allegations of Misconduct

Allegations of research or publication misconduct — including plagiarism, data fabrication or falsification, image manipulation, redundant publication, undisclosed competing interests, authorship disputes and citation manipulation — may be submitted in writing to ethics@jebmr.com. Allegations are investigated regardless of whether the manuscript is under consideration or already published, and regardless of how much time has elapsed since publication.

The journal follows the relevant COPE flowchart in each case. The corresponding author is given the opportunity to respond to any allegation before a decision is reached. Where a matter cannot be resolved with the authors, the journal may contact the authors' institution or funder. Outcomes may include a correction, an expression of concern, retraction, or notification of the authors' institution. The identity of the person raising the concern is treated as confidential unless disclosure is required by law or by due process.

Contact: ethics@jebmr.com