Top

Best Practice Guidelines on
Research Integrity and Publishing Ethics

These guidelines present a further update to the Wiley publishing ethics guidelines first published in 2006 and revised in 2014. Our aim for these guidelines remains to support all those involved in scholarly publishing with a summary of best practice guidance with respect to research integrity and publishing ethics from leading organizations around the world. Our guidelines are written for researchers, in their various roles as editors, authors and peer reviewers; societies; librarians; funders; corporations; publishers; and journalists.

In updating and expanding the guidelines, we worked with members of Wiley's research integrity team with expertise in handling issues in research integrity and publishing ethics. We recognize that different disciplines have different practices and that one size does not necessarily fit all. Where guidelines have particular application to one discipline or group of disciplines, we have aimed to identify this clearly in the text. This version was published on April 17, 2020. It was updated on December 14, 2020 to reflect updates to author name changes and on June 30, 2021 to include a section on Diversity, Equity and Inclusion and guidance for research on plants and geological samples. A further update to guidance on corrections was added September 26, 2022. Reference was included to the NISO Peer Review Terminology Standard on August 10, 2023 and those descriptors were adopted in the text. Updates to include more information on the use of generative Artificial Intelligence tools, Systematic manipulation of the publication process and SAGER guidelines were made on April 11, 2024.

Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and other resources

COPE is a non-profit organization dedicated to promoting integrity in research and its publication. Wiley offers membership to COPE for all of its journal editors. COPE serves more than 12,000 members around the world with practical guidelines, resources, e-learning, seminars, and much more. An overview of COPE’s activities is provided here. COPE have defined a set of recommended core practices that are applicable to all involved in publishing scholarly literature: editors and journal teams, publishers and institutions. The rationale for the development of the core practices is explained here. We have also referred to specific COPE resources, amongst the many ethics resources that are available, where relevant throughout these guidelines. COPE also provides editors with independent advice from other editors about difficult cases via the COPE Forum. Through its case archive, a searchable database of cases from 1997 onwards, COPE enables editors to learn from similar cases. In addition, there are other resources available for use. The US Office of Research Integrity has published “Managing Allegations of Scientific Misconduct: A Guidance Document for Editors”. The European Association for Chemical and Molecular Sciences (EuCheMS) has published “Ethical Guidelines for Publications in Journals and Reviews.”

Publication ethics at Wiley

If you are a Wiley editor, peer reviewer or author seeking advice, please contact the relevant Wiley publisher or journal contact. Otherwise, and if your query relates to matters addressed by or related to these guidelines with respect to a Wiley journal, please contact our Publication Ethics team via this form. Queries received via this form will be directed to the research integrity team or journal contact at Wiley, as appropriate.

Wiley’s research integrity team establishes and implements ethical policies for journals in Wiley’s Research organization and investigates and resolves ethical issues affecting them with support from other areas of the publishing organization as needed. It also approves any amendments to published articles (retractions, withdrawals, Expressions of Concern) and advises on research integrity and publication ethics issues.

For editors, first: speak with your publisher

Journal publishing is always a team effort. Handling research integrity and publishing ethics issues relating to journals is no exception. These issues also may give rise to or involve legal issues. We suggest that journals refer to these guidelines when establishing policies and procedures, and as an initial point of reference when issues arise.

As a first step to addressing any issue we suggest that editors, publishers, and other journal team members discuss the concerns raised. We suggest that these discussions happen before taking any further action, and that legal advice is sought where needed and in particular where issues involve potential defamation, breach of contract, privacy, or copyright infringement.

Initial conversations may indicate the need to carry out further investigation or to widen discussions to:

1. Involve relevant institutions, employers, or funders (which are the appropriate bodies to conduct most investigations of author disputes and alleged misconduct).
2. Consult with other journal editors who are involved (in cases where coordinated efforts may be useful, being mindful of sensitivities around confidentiality).
3. Seek advice from other sources e.g. via COPE Forum.

Journals should facilitate post-publication academic debate either on their site, through letters to the editor, or on an external moderated site. They must have mechanisms for correcting, revising and retracting articles after publication. Journals should encourage correspondence and constructive criticism of the work they publish. If an item of correspondence discusses a specific article, the journal should invite the authors of the work to respond before the correspondence is published. When possible, the correspondence and the authors’ response should be published at the same time. Authors may choose not to respond to this invitation. They do not have a right to veto comments about their work that the editor judges to be constructive. They may advise editors accordingly about unconstructive comments.

Journals should consider establishing and publishing a mechanism for authors to appeal editorial decisions, to facilitate genuine appeals, and to discourage repeated or unfounded appeals.

• Editors should allow appeals to override earlier decisions following appropriate reconsideration of the editorial process and decision making (for example, additional factual input by the authors, revisions, extra material in the manuscript, or appeals about conflicts of interest and concerns about biased peer review). Author protest alone should not affect decisions.
• Editors should mediate all exchanges between authors and peer reviewers during the peer-review process. Editors may seek comments from additional peer reviewers to help them make their final decision.
• Journals should state in their guidelines that the editor’s decision following an appeal is final.

Journals should consider establishing a mechanism for authors and others to comment on aspects of the journal’s editorial management, perhaps via the publisher or a third-party.

Generative Artificial Intelligence tools (GenAI)—such as ChatGPT and others based on large language models (LLMs)—can increase productivity and foster innovation if used appropriately in a safe, ethical and secure manner. STM has general guidance for all stakeholders in scholarly publishing which addresses the role of generative AI technologies. If an author has used a GenAI tool to develop any portion of a manuscript, its use must be described, transparently and in detail, in the Methods section (or via a disclosure or within the Acknowledgements section, as applicable). The author is fully responsible for the accuracy of any information provided by the tool and for correctly referencing any supporting work on which that information depends. GenAI tools must not be used to create, alter or manipulate original research data and results. Tools that are used to improve spelling, grammar, and general editing are not included in the scope of these guidelines. The final decision about whether use of a GenAI tool is appropriate or permissible in the circumstances of a submitted manuscript or a published article lies with the journal’s editor or other party responsible for the publication’s editorial policy.

GenAI tools cannot be considered capable of initiating an original piece of research without direction by humans. Tools cannot be accountable for a published work or for research design, which is a generally held requirement of authorship (as discussed in the Authorship section in these guidelines), nor does it have legal standing or the ability to hold or assign copyright. Therefore—in accordance with COPE’s position statement on Authorship and AI tools—these tools cannot fulfil the role of, nor be listed as, an author of an article.

GenAI tools should be used only on a limited basis in connection with peer review. A GenAI tool can be used by an editor or peer reviewer to improve the quality of the written feedback in a peer review report. This use must be transparently declared upon submission of the peer review report to the manuscript’s handling editor. Independent of this limited use case, editors or peer reviewers should not upload manuscripts (or any parts of manuscripts including figures and tables) into GenAI tools or services. GenAI tools may use input data for training or other purposes, which could violate the confidentiality of the peer review process, privacy of authors and reviewers, and the copyright of the manuscript under review. Moreover, the peer review process is a human endeavor and responsibility and accountability for submitting a peer review report, in line with a journal’s editorial polices and peer review model, sits with those individuals who have accepted an invitation from a journal to undertake the peer review of a submitted manuscript. This process should not be delegated to a GenAI tool.

Authors and contributors

Authorship gives recognition and credit for work done, accountability for reported research, confers moral and legal rights (copyright) and plays an important role in shaping academic careers. However, authorship issues remain a common concern faced by editors. COPE’s discussion document on authorship explores the issues in detail and provides practical advice.

COPE recommends that journals and publishers should have clear guidance in place to allow for transparency about who contributed to the work and in what capacity for authorship and contributorship as well as processes for managing potential disputes.

There is no universal definition of authorship, and practices vary by discipline and communities especially when individuals collaborate across subject areas. Different disciplines adopt their own criteria, for example, the ICMJE (International Committee of Medical Journal Editors) guidelines are well-known in the biomedical fields, the APA (American Psychological Association) guidelines are used in Psychology, the EuChemS (European Chemical Society) guidelines are adopted in Chemistry, whereas in the arts, humanities and social sciences, publications by single authors are more common. However, the minimum recognized requirements for authorship are making a substantial contribution to the research and being accountable for the work undertaken (COPE Discussion document: authorship).

Many journals require authors to confirm, on submission, that they and their co-authors meet the requirements for authorship and typically provide an ORCID (Open Researcher Contributor ID). An ORCID provides a persistent digital identifier to distinguish individuals from others with similar names and links individuals to their research outputs.

Journals should notify all authors that they have received a submission and confirm that emails are not invalid. To increase transparency, it is helpful for journals to publish “author contribution statements” that explain how each author contributed to a piece of work. This approach has been recently extended by the CRediT “Contributor Roles Taxonomy” an open standard of 14 item terms that allows for a standardized description of each author’s individual contribution to an manuscript. This information can be captured in author metadata and linked to authors’ ORCID profiles for full transparency of authors’ contributions. See discussion by McNutt et al. (2018).

An individual who does not meet authorship criteria for a specific piece of work but has contributed in some capacity should be acknowledged, with their approval. Minors who have been involved in a piece of research (for example, children using technology) are typically acknowledged as they cannot be fully accountable for all aspects of the research. Journals should encourage authors of intercultural research to consider appropriate attribution for traditional knowledge, to the extent that this attribution does not compromise any agreed assurances of anonymity. This may include “traditional knowledge” notices, or citation of indigenous sources (such as people or community groups) or other cultural sources of knowledge by name within the text. In some fields, such as anthropology, appropriate attribution may require sharing authorship with intercultural collaborators and this may differ from the approach recommended by the ICMJE. More information is at the Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies website.

Deceased authors

If a manuscript is submitted with a deceased author listed, or an author passes away while the manuscript is being peer reviewed, then a footnote or similar should be added to the published article to indicate this. Often journals use a dagger symbol (†) with a footnote explaining the situation. A co-author should vouch for the contribution made by the deceased author and their potential conflicts of interest. If the deceased author was a corresponding author then another co-author should be nominated. Note that copyright is considered personal property under the law. If the author had not yet signed a copyright transfer agreement or license, or granted a co-author the right to do so on his/her behalf in writing, permission would need to be obtained from the author’s inheritor.

Author name changes after publication

In cases where authors wish to change their name following publication, Wiley will update and republish the paper and redeliver the updated metadata to indexing services. Our editorial and production teams will use discretion in recognizing that name changes may be of a sensitive and private nature for various reasons including (but not limited to) alignment with gender identity, or as a result of marriage, divorce, or religious conversion. Accordingly, to protect the author's privacy, we will not publish a correction notice to the paper, and we will not notify co-authors of the change. Authors should contact the journal’s Editorial Office with their name change request.

Authorship disputes

To manage authorship disputes, editors should refer to the flowcharts from COPE and “How to spot authorship problems.” Authorship disputes will often need to be referred to institutions if the authors cannot resolve the dispute themselves.

Editors and journal staff as authors

Editors or board members should not be involved in editorial decisions about their own scholarly work. Journals should establish and publish mechanisms and clearly defined policies for handling submissions from editors, members of their editorial boards, and employees. We recommend that:

• Editors and editorial team members are excluded from publication decisions when they are authors or have contributed to a manuscript.
• A short statement may be useful for any published article that lists editors or board members as authors to explain the process used to make the editorial decision.

While some journals will not consider original research papers from editors or employees of the journal, others have procedures in place for ensuring fair peer review in these instances.

Citation and reference to appropriate and relevant literature is an essential part of scholarly publishing and is a shared responsibility among all involved (authors, editors, peer reviewers). Authors should not engage in excessive self-citation of their own work. Editors and peer reviewers should not ask authors to add citations to their papers when there is no strong scholarly rationale for doing so. The issue of inappropriate citation (including citation stacking and citation cartels) has been discussed by COPE, and COPE have produced a discussion document on citation manipulation with recommendations for best practice.

Commercial considerations

It is impossible to completely insulate editorial decisions from issues that may influence them, such as commercial considerations. For example, editors will know which articles are likely to attract offprint or reprint sales. Even so, we suggest that editors, journal owners, and publishers establish processes that minimize the risk of editorial decisions being influenced by commercial, personal, or political factors.

• Editors should be free to judge all submissions on their scholarly merit and on their potential importance to the community that the journal serves.
• Editorial decisions about individual papers should remain separate from the sale of advertising.
• Journals that publish special issues, supplements, or similar material that is funded by third-party organizations should establish policies for how these are handled. The funding organization should not be allowed to influence the selection or editing of submissions, and all funded items should be clearly identified.
• Journals should establish policies so that editorial decisions cannot be influenced by payment of an open-access-article publication charge or other type of payment made by authors.

Further discussion of editorial independence is presented by the Council of Science Editors in their white paper on research integrity and in COPE’s Core Practices.

Commercial issues, supplements, and other funded publications

Journals may choose to publish supplements, special issues, or similar publications that are funded by a third party (for example, a company, society, or charity). Journals should present readers with the names of the organizations that provided funding, and any conflict of interest statements.

Journals should not permit funding organizations to make decisions beyond which publications they choose to fund. Decisions about the selection and editing of contents to be published should be made by the editor (or co-editors) of the funded publication.

A journal editor may elect to use “guest” or external editors to support the publishing of supplements, special issues, or similar publications. In this case, it is the journal editor’s responsibility to disclose the journal policy and ensure it is implemented by those external editors. Journals should reserve the right not to publish any funded publication that does not comply with their requirements.

Wiley sales teams are not permitted to become involved with peer review and the editorial decision-making process. Our sales teams use editorial information only after editorial decisions are finalized. The extent of editorial information available and the timing of its disclosure are agreed for each journal in consultation with the journal owner and editor. Decisions about what can be sold are also agreed in consultation with the journal owner and editor (for example, the positions available for journal advertising within or adjacent to an article, collected in specific positions within the journal, and online, and whether it is permissible to sell reprints of papers published online prior to print).

Editorial independence

The Council of Science Editors presents discussion of editorial independence in its White Paper on “Promoting Integrity in Scientific Journal Publications.”

The relationship between the editor and the journal owner and publisher should be set out in a formal contract. It may be useful to establish a mechanism to resolve disputes before one is needed in order to help resolve any disagreements speedily.

Journal owners (whether learned societies or publishers) should avoid influencing editorial decisions.

• Editors’ decisions about whether to publish individual manuscripts submitted to their journal should not be influenced by pressure from the editor’s employer, the journal owner, or the publisher. Ideally, the principles of editorial independence should be set out in the editor’s contract.
• It is appropriate for journal owners/publishers to discuss general editorial processes and policies with journal editors (for example, whether or not a journal should publish a particular type of article), but they should not get involved in decisions made by the editor about individual articles, except if legal or ethical issues arise with respect to an article.

Editors, authors, and peer reviewers should disclose interests that might appear to affect their ability to present or review work objectively. These might include relevant financial interests (for example, patent ownership, stock ownership, consultancies, or speaker’s fees), or personal, political, or religious interests.

The International Committee of Medical Journal Editors’ definition of conflicts of interest is as follows: “A conflict of interest exists when professional judgment concerning a primary interest (such as patients’ welfare or the validity of research) may be influenced by a secondary interest (such as financial gain). Perceptions of conflict of interest are as important as actual conflicts of interest.”

Strict policies preventing people with conflicts of interest from publishing might encourage authors to conceal relevant interests and might therefore be counterproductive.

• Journal editors, board members, and staff who are involved with decisions about publication should declare their interests. Journals should consider publishing these on their website and updating them as required, as well as disclosing how conflicts of interest were managed for specific papers.
• Editors should clearly explain what should be disclosed, including the period that these statements should cover (for example, 3 years). Editors should ask authors to describe relevant funding, including the purpose of the funding (for example, travel grant and speaker’s fees), and to describe relevant patents, stocks, and shares that they own.
• Editors should publish authors’ conflicts of interest whenever they are relevant, or a statement of their absence. If there is doubt editors should opt in favor of greater disclosure.
• If authors state that there are no conflicts of interest, editors should publish a confirmation to this effect.
• Editors should manage peer reviewers’ conflicts of interest. An invitation to review a manuscript should be accompanied by a request for the reviewer to reveal any potential conflicts of interest and a request for the peer reviewer to disqualify or recuse themselves when these are relevant.
• When editors, members of editorial boards, and other editorial staff are presented with papers where their own interests may be perceived to impair their ability to make an unbiased editorial decision, they should withdraw from discussions, deputize decisions, or suggest that authors seek publication in a different journal.

COPE has published flowcharts that illustrate a suitable process for investigations of suspected undisclosed conflicts of interest.

The International Committee of Medical Journal Editors has created a uniform disclosure form for conflicts of interest.

It is a legal requirement for an author to sign a copyright agreement of some kind before publication. Some journals ask authors to transfer their copyright to the journal. Others accept an exclusive license from authors. Authors wishing to make their article open access must sign an Open Access Agreement. Wiley has published separate guidance about copyright.

Publishers are legally required to have explicit authority from an author to publish any article. The societies Wiley partners with decide which copyright arrangement they require from the range of options we provide, a brief and abridged description of which is provided below:

Copyright Transfer Agreement (CTA). Under this form of agreement, the author retains certain re-use rights in their article, but transfers copyright to the society or publisher.

Exclusive License Agreement (ELA). This form of copyright agreement grants exclusive rights to the journal owner, but the authors retain copyright in their article.

Open Access Agreement: Wiley requires authors wishing to make their article open access to sign an Open Access Agreement providing for the article to be made available under one of the Creative Commons Licenses in order to meet the terms of open access publication and ensure the widest possible dissemination. The Creative Commons website explains how these licenses work. At the time of writing these guidelines, Wiley uses three Creative Commons Licenses: CC-BY, CC-BY-NC, and CC-BY-NC-ND.

Corrections

Journals should encourage readers and authors to notify them if they find errors. Once notified, journals should work with authors and their publisher to correct significant published errors. A published error is significant when, for example:

• important content is incorrect;
• the error affects the interpretation of data or information presented in the article;
• the article’s funders are not acknowledged in compliance with their rules; or
• the article’s metadata (author list, title, etc.) is wrong, thereby affecting its discoverability on third-party abstracting and indexing sites.

While Wiley welcomes feedback on all errors in order to improve, not all errors require correction after publication. Minor copyediting or typesetting errors that do not affect the meaning or interpretation of an article are generally not corrected after publication, nor is content added to an article that is beyond its original scope, such as additional references or updates to the text based on information not available at the article’s time of publication. The journal’s editor and publisher will determine whether an error is significant enough to merit correction.

When an error is identified:

• Journals should consider retraction if errors are so fundamental that they invalidate the findings.
• Corrections arising from errors within an article should be distinguishable from retractions and statements of concern relating to questionable research practices.
• Corrections should be neutral in tone.
• Corrections should be included in indexing systems and linked to the original article online.
• Corrections should be free to access.

The format the correction will take will depend on the article’s stage of publication. For example, for those articles that have been published in Early View—which is the Version of Record before inclusion in an issue—corrections may be made directly to the article online. In these cases, an audit trail must be added to the article to highlight what changes have been made to the article since its initial publication, as well as the date these changes were made.

For those articles which have been published in an issue, a corresponding correction statement should be published separately and linked to the original article. In these cases, the changes are usually not made directly to the online article. We encourage authors to use this Correction Template when drafting a corrections statement for an article published in an issue. An Accepted Article (the unedited, manuscript version of an article available on Wiley Online Library) is not usually corrected as it is replaced by the Version of Record.

Expressions of concern

Expressions of Concern may be published if editors have well-founded concerns or suspicions and feel that readers should be made aware of potentially misleading information. See this COPE Forum discussion. Editors should use caution: an Expression of Concern carries the same risks to a researcher’s reputation as a retraction, and it is often preferable to wait to publish a retraction when a definitive judgment has been made by an independent investigation. The full Wiley policy for Expressions of Concern is available online.

The title of an Expression of Concern should include the words “Expression of Concern” as well as information to identify the article that it refers to. It should be published on a numbered page (electronic and print if print versions available) and should be listed in the journal’s table of contents. It should cite the original article and link electronically with the original electronic publication wherever possible. It should explain the editor’s concerns about the contents of the article. It should be in a form that enables indexing and abstracting services to identify and link to original publications and be free to access.

Retractions

Journals should be committed to playing their part in maintaining the integrity of the scholarly record, therefore on occasion, it may be necessary to retract articles. COPE has published guidelines for retracting articles which suggest that journals should consider publishing retractions for articles when:

• They have clear evidence that the findings are unreliable, either as a result of major error (e.g. miscalculation or experimental error), or as a result of fabrication (e.g. of data) or falsification (e.g. image manipulation)
• It constitutes plagiarism
• The findings have previously been published elsewhere without proper attribution to previous sources or disclosure to the editor, permission to republish, or justification (i.e., cases of redundant publication)
• It contains material or data without authorization for use
• Copyright has been infringed or there is some other serious legal issue (e.g. libel, privacy)
• It reports unethical research
• It has been published solely on the basis of a compromised or manipulated peer review process
• The author(s) failed to disclose a major competing interest or conflict of interest that, in the view of the editor, would have unduly affected interpretations of the work or recommendations by editors and peer reviewers.

Wiley’s policy for handling retractions and circumstances under which these options will be considered, is available online. All retractions are reviewed and approved by Wiley's research integrity team.

The title of a Retraction should include the words “Retraction” as well as information to identify the article that it refers to. It should be published on a numbered page (electronic and print if print versions available) and should be listed in the journal’s table of contents. It should cite the original article and link electronically with the original electronic publication wherever possible. It should enable the reader to identify and understand why the article is being retracted. It should be in a form that enables indexing and abstracting services to identify and link to original publications and be free to access.

Withdrawals

There may be circumstances under which an article may be withdrawn following publication. It is Wiley's policy to strongly discourage withdrawal of the Version of Record in line with the International Association of Scientific, Technical and Medical Publishers guidelines on retractions and preservation of the objective record of science. The full Wiley policy for withdrawals is available online.

Data sharing

Open research initiatives, such as sharing “FAIR” data (data that is Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, and Reusable), bring many benefits, including increased transparency and reproducibility of research outputs. Journals should therefore include explicit policies on data availability statements and any requirements for sharing data. Wiley’s four polices on data sharing are explained here.

Wiley endorses the FORCE11 Joint Declaration of Data Citation Principles, a set of guiding principles for data within scholarly literature, another dataset, or any other research object. We recommend the format for data citation proposed in this Joint Declaration, and that data held within institutional, subject-focused, or more general data repositories should be cited.

Reporting guidelines

Accurate and complete reporting enables readers to fully appraise research, replicate it, and use it. Editors should encourage authors to follow their discipline’s guidelines for accurate and complete reporting of research. Editors, working with peer reviewers, should ensure that authors provide the information readers need to evaluate the methods and results, so that readers can reach their own conclusions.

1. In health research, the EQUATOR Network promotes useful reporting tools.
2. In life sciences, useful reporting guidelines are promoted by Future of Research Communications and e-Scholarship (FORCE11). Specific reporting guidance that editors can recommend for animal experiments include the ARRIVE guidelines, the National Research Council’s Institute for Laboratory Animal Research guidelines, and the Gold Standard Publication Checklist from Hooijmans and colleagues.
3. Standards for the comprehensive reporting of sex and gender in research including humans and animals are provided by the Sex and Gender Equity in Research (SAGER) guidelines.
4. Standards for reporting animal studies are discussed in more detail by Landis and colleagues.
5. Further guidelines and standards in bioscience are promoted on the Minimum Information Guidelines from Diverse Bioscience Communities (MIBBI) and by FAIRsharing.
6. Livestock reporting guidelines are provided by the REFLECT statement.

Data protection legislation

Journals should comply with data protection legislation. Editors who work with Wiley that have any concerns about data protection should seek advice from Wiley. Further information on Wiley’s privacy policy is available here.

Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion refer to efforts to create a more welcoming environment for all people and to foster more diverse, inclusive and equitable communities. Diverse perspectives offer new ideas, avenues of discovery and solutions to research problems and scholarly communication. Expanding equity and inclusivity initiatives increases the likelihood that research will benefit everyone in our global communities. Journal editorial teams and publishers therefore have a responsibility to foster these values within the research communities they represent, ensuring diverse representation and an equitable and inclusive experience for all involved.

COPE notes that teams and organisations perform better when they embrace diversity and inclusion in their culture. COPE is developing a discussion document on how matters of diversity, equity and inclusion relate to publication ethics and editorial decision making.

Wiley is among the publishing organizations that are signatories to the Joint Commitment for Action on Inclusion and Diversity in Publishing, which aims to drive positive change within scholarly publishing. The Coalition for Diversity and Inclusion in Scholarly Communications (C4DISC) Joint Statement of Principles outlines principles and practices by which organizations can seek to improve and uphold diversity and inclusive practices.

Wiley is committed to advancing diversity, equity and inclusion. Journals will endeavor to promote diversity, equity and inclusion in the editorial processes and policies, including, but not limited to, ensuring diversity, equity and inclusivity within journals’ editorial team, reviewer pool and authorship base. Wiley does not tolerate harassment or discrimination against an individual on the grounds of age, ancestry, color, religious creed, physical or mental disability, marital status, medical condition, genetic information, military and veteran status, national origin, race, sex, gender, gender identity, gender expression, sexual identity, sexual orientation, political affiliation, or any other category protected by law.

Data fabrication is the intentional misrepresentation of research data by making-up findings, recording, or reporting of results. Data falsification is the manipulation of research materials, equipment, or processes, including omitting and changing data, with the intention of giving a false impression. Changes to images can create misleading results when research data are collected as images. Inappropriate image manipulation is one form of fabrication or falsification that journals can identify. It may, however, be legitimate and even necessary to edit images. For example, the selective enlargement of part of an artwork may be needed to reveal features that would not otherwise be visible and editing of video data may be needed to protect the privacy of participants.

The six CLIP (Clinical and Laboratory Images in Publications) principles present guidance for documenting and publishing clinical and laboratory images. The Council of Science Editors discusses image manipulation in its white paper on research integrity. The Office of Research Integrity provides forensic tools for examination of images and samples.

Journals can help educate about image manipulation and, where appropriate, might check images. We suggest that journals ask authors to declare where manipulations have been made; we also suggest that journals ask authors to supply original images or be able and ready to supply them on request. We suggest that journals explain the following information in their author guidelines:

• Specific features within an image should not be enhanced, obscured, removed, moved, or added.
• Adjustments to brightness or contrast are only acceptable if they apply equally across the entire image and are applied equally to controls, and as long as they do not obscure, eliminate, or misrepresent any information present in the information originally captured.
• Excessive manipulations, such as processing to emphasize one region in the image at the expense of others, are inappropriate, as is emphasizing experimental data relative to the control.
• Nonlinear adjustments or deleting portions of a recording must be disclosed in a figure legend.
• Constructing figures from different gels, fields, exposures, and experimental series is discouraged. When this is necessary the component parts of composite images should be indicated by dividing lines clearly demarcated in the figure and described in the legend.
• Original unprocessed images must be provided by authors should any indication of the foregoing be identified. It may be helpful for journals to suggest that original unprocessed images be submitted alongside any images that have been processed

These recommendations are based on guidance developed at the Journal of Cell Biology and Rossner and Yamada’s discussion. Cromey discusses image manipulation in “Avoiding twisted pixels: ethical guidelines for the appropriate use and manipulation of scientific digital images”.

Authors are responsible to identify any unusual inherent hazards or risks in a manuscript, include appropriate warnings, and refer to relevant safety precautions. This could be products, chemicals, operations, or technologies posing a threat to public health and safety, the environment, plants, animals, or equipment.

Journals should ask authors to inform them at the time of manuscript submission if their study has potential for both benevolent and malevolent application. This is often referred to as “dual use research.”

Journals should ask these authors for example to conform to the National Science Advisory Board for Biosecurity (NSABB) guidelines for Dual Use Life Sciences Research. The NSABB report presents a useful description and discussion of “dual use research of concern.”

Concerns about questionable research practices may be raised through the use of screening software or by editors, peer reviewers, or third parties. COPE has flowcharts for responding to concerns that have been raised by third parties directly or indirectly. Sometimes further investigation may require disclosing the third party’s identity. If so, the individual should be informed and give approval before their identity is disclosed.

Regardless of whether the concern arose from screening, editors, peer reviewers, or third parties, potentially questionable research practices that have specific, detailed evidence to support the claim or concern should be investigated appropriately, whether they are raised anonymously or otherwise. The international models for responding to allegations of questionable research practices are discussed by the Council of Science Editors in its recommendations for identification of such practices and guidelines for action. The Singapore Statement on Research Integrity, written during the Second World Congress on Research Integrity, presents “principles and professional responsibilities that are fundamental to the integrity of research wherever it is undertaken”.

Journal publishing teams, which include the publisher, the editorial team and/or the society, have an important role to play in addressing potential cases of data fabrication, falsification, plagiarism, image manipulation, unethical research, biased reporting, authorship issues, redundant or duplicate publication, and potential conflicts of interest, each of which is discussed in more detail in other sections.

In instances where an investigation cannot be conducted by a journal’s publishing team, for example, if it relates to issues that may have occurred which would be difficult for the journal to source the necessary information to investigate (i.e. data fabrication, authorship issues, unethical research, etc.), journals should request investigations by research institutions, employers, funders, or the relevant national statutory body. However, for some cases of questionable research practices (for example, plagiarism or image manipulation), which can be assessed by the journal, it is appropriate for these cases to be investigated and acted upon by a journal’s publishing team. However, the journal should ensure that the relevant parties are kept informed; this includes the authors and their institutions and/or funders.

Editors should work with their publisher to consider relevant regulations, and to decide whether and how to refer cases of suspected questionable research practices, and what action to take.

1. Cases of suspected questionable research practices should be handled following established processes, for example, those presented in the COPE Flowcharts.
2. Sample letters from COPE (login required) and Sample Correspondence for Editors from Council of Science Editors may be useful.
3. Cases should be handled at a speed that allows appropriate care to be taken.
4. Investigations may lead to Retractions, Withdrawals, Expressions of Concern, or other outcomes.

Editors seeking advice about suspected questionable research practices should first speak with their publisher.

The merits of different peer-review models (for example, revealing peer reviewers’ identities to authors and/or attempting to mask authors’ identities from peer reviewers) have been the subject of considerable debate and study, for example, as conducted by the Publishing Research Consortium and Sense About Science. However, there is no clear evidence of the superiority of any one peer review model over another. The benefits and feasibility of different models vary between disciplines. Editors should choose a peer-review model that best suits their journal and community. NISO have published a Peer Review Terminology Standard to simplify the communication of peer review roles and practices to foster greater transparency in the peer review process.

	COPE has developed Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers, to which editors and their editorial board can refer for guidance.
	Wiley has developed a Better Peer Review Self-Assessment for journal teams to reflect on the entire peer review publishing process, with findings discussed here.
	Further guidance on the ethics of peer review is available from many sources. For example, Rockwell presents guidance for reviewers and EuCheMS provides guidelines for journals. Hames’s book “Peer Review and Manuscript Management in Scientific Journals: Guidelines for Good Practice” presents useful recommendations and checklists.

• Journals should have clearly defined and communicated policies on the type of peer review model used, for example, single-anonymized, double-anonymized, triple-anonymized, transparent, or post-publication.
• Journals should make it clear to readers whether peer review varies between types of article. For example, readers need to know if editorials and letters are not peer reviewed but original manuscripts and reviews always are.
• Journals should also be clear if they operate a triage process in which submissions that are out of scope or otherwise inappropriate may be rejected or returned to the author without external peer review.
• Editors should apply consistent standards in their peer review processes, including for special issues or supplements, and where peer review has been managed by a guest editor.
• Editors should ensure manuscripts are handled confidentially in accordance with COPE guidelines and the applicable terms and conditions agreed by the author upon submission (including the journal owner’s privacy policy and transfer network terms, if applicable). If discussions between an author, editor, and peer reviewer have taken place in confidence they should remain in confidence unless explicit consent has been given by all parties, or unless there are exceptional circumstances (for example, when they might help substantiate claims of intellectual property theft during peer review).
• Editors should ask peer reviewers to disclose any conflicts of interest when they respond to an invitation to review and also when they submit their review (since conflicts may only be identified after reading the manuscript). Editors should ask that reviewers decline invitations where circumstances might prevent them writing an unbiased review. Examples of potential conflicts of interest include when they have collaborated with the authors recently, when they are based in the same institution as the authors, when they are in direct competition with the authors, when they have personal conflict or close personal relationship or association with the authors, or when they have a financial interest in the manuscript.
• Editors should request that invited peer reviewers inform them if they delegate peer review.

To create an efficient, effective peer-review process, editors should:

• Establish and maintain a secure database of suitably qualified peer reviewers that is compliant with data protection legislation.
• Monitor the performance of peer reviewers for quality and timeliness. Peer reviewers who repeatedly produce poor quality, tardy, abusive, or unconstructive reviews should not be used again.
• Carefully consider whether it is appropriate for authors to have the option to nominate peer reviewers or to request that particular individuals do not peer review their paper. Editors should remind authors that they should avoid nominating peer reviewers who have a conflict of interest. Editors are under no obligation to accept the authors’ nominations and it is advisable to ensure at least one peer reviewer not suggested by the authors reviews the paper. Editors should check the qualifications of all reviewers before issuing and invitation to review. It is especially important to verify the qualifications of potential reviewers who have been recommended by authors. Editors should use institutional email addresses when inviting reviewers and should request an ORCID (an online digital identifier that distinguishes researchers from one another) from reviewers whenever possible, and avoid using reviewers whose backgrounds and institutional affiliations cannot be determined by a simple web search.
• Aim to ensure timely peer review and publication and should avoid unnecessary delays and consider how best to share information with authors about any delays that occur. Online publication can provide the fastest route to publication and, therefore, to placing peer reviewed research (and other) information in the public domain.
• Give peer reviewers explicit guidance on their role and responsibilities and consider encouraging the use of reporting guidelines to check completeness of reporting in a systematic way.

Peer reviewers can play an important role in identifying potential questionable research practices such as possible data fabrication, falsification, plagiarism, redundant or duplicate publication, image manipulation, unethical research, biased reporting, authorship abuse, and undeclared conflicts of interest.

Editors should remind peer reviewers of this role, and of their requirement to:

• Respect the confidentiality of peer review, and not discuss the manuscript or contact the authors or any other people about the manuscript.
• Declare any conflicts of interest.
• Provide an objective and constructive explanation for their recommendation.
• Not allow their decision on a manuscript to be influenced by its origin or authorship.
• Avoid requesting that the author cites the peer reviewer’s own papers, unless there is a strong scholarly rationale for this.
• Not reproduce information or any part of the manuscript under review in any of their own work prior to publication by the authors.
• Only agree to peer review manuscripts within their expertise and within a reasonable timeframe.
• Not delay publication.
• Not use insulting, hostile, or defamatory language.
• Destroy submitted manuscripts and all related material after they have reviewed them.

Plagiarism

A discussion of plagiarism is provided by the US Office of Research Integrity (ORI) in its policy on plagiarism. Included in this discussion is the general working definition: “ORI considers plagiarism to include both the theft or misappropriation of intellectual property and the substantial unattributed textual copying of another’s work. It does not include authorship or credit disputes.”

Editors can help educate about and prevent plagiarism by screening submitted manuscripts for duplicated text. Journals should explain in their instructions to authors how submitted manuscripts are screened for duplicated text and possible plagiarism. Crossref Similarity Check is one of the screening services available for this purpose. COPE have flowcharts for how to handle cases of potential plagiarism in a submitted manuscript or a published article. A primer for editors handling cases of plagiarism is available here.

Duplicate or redundant publication

The Council of Science Editors incorporates a definition of duplicate or redundant publication into its White Paper on Promoting Integrity in Scientific Journal Publications:

“[A]uthors must avoid duplicate publication, which is reproducing verbatim content from their other publications.”

Wiley has also published information about duplicate publication.

Journals should establish processes to avoid duplicate and redundant publication, including:

1. Screening submitted manuscripts for duplicated text.
2. Reminding authors in the journal’s guidelines that duplicate publication is not acceptable.
3. Requiring that any previously published results, including numerical information and figures or images, are labeled to make it clear where they were previously reported.
4. Papers, particularly medical research papers, that present new analyses of results that have already been published (for example, subgroup analyses) should identify the primary data source, and include a full reference to the related primary publications.
5. Ensuring that the Copyright Transfer Agreement, Exclusive License Agreement or Open Access Agreement – one of which must be signed the corresponding author before publication– includes a warranty that the manuscript is an original work, has not been published before, and is not being considered for publication elsewhere in its final form.

The following types of “prior publication” do not present cause for concerns about duplicate or redundant publication (see also the information in these guidelines on preprints):

1. Abstracts and posters presented as part of conference proceedings.
2. Results presented at meetings (for example, to inform investigators or participants about findings).
3. Results in databases and clinical trials registries (data without interpretation, discussion, context or conclusions in the form of tables and text to describe data/information).
4. Dissertations and theses in university archives.

If a manuscript is published and later found to be redundant, the editor should refer to the COPE Flowcharts and work with the publisher to retract the duplicate paper.

Duplicate submission

Journals should consider how they might detect concurrent or multiple submissions. For example, in cases where journals are part of an editorial group or portfolio with legitimate access to internal information for the whole journal family, detection aids or mechanisms should be put in place for editors to use as part of their editorial office system.

If concurrent or multiple submissions are detected, the editor should work with their publisher and refer to the COPE flowchart on redundant (duplicate) publication.

Text recycling

COPE hosted a discussion about text recycling and has shared Text Recycling Guidelines. Journals may find it useful to establish a policy about how much, if any, and under what circumstances, they consider it acceptable to recycle text and results between manuscripts. This may be important, for example, for authors who wish to communicate results from a research project to multiple audiences. In this instance, full or partial results – with appropriate citation of prior publication(s) – might be recycled for legitimate reasons, although the discussion and conclusions would be different.

Translations

Journals may choose to publish materials that have been accurately translated from an original publication in a different language. Journals that translate and publish material that has been published elsewhere should ensure that they have appropriate permission. They should indicate clearly that the material has been translated and re-published and should identify the original source of the material.

A preprint is a manuscript that is made publicly available via a preprint server usually prior to or simultaneous with submission to a journal. For further information on preprints, see COPE discussion document here.
 
Wiley believes journals should allow for the submission of manuscripts that have already been made available on preprint servers (for further information see here). Allowing submission does not, of course, guarantee that a manuscript will be considered for peer review; it simply reflects the belief that availability on a preprint server should not disqualify a manuscript from submission. Journals should establish a policy about preprint servers and declare this in their author guidelines. Any previous publication as a preprint should be disclosed in the paper.

For Wiley authors, you can view an individual journal’s policy on preprints via the Author Compliance Tool available on Wiley’s Author Services site.

It is essential practice for journals to adopt publication policies to ensure that ethical and responsible research is published, and that all necessary consents and approvals have been obtained from authors to publish their work.

Research involving animals should be conducted with the same rigor as research in humans. Journals should encourage authors to implement the 3Rs principles of replacement (approaches which avoid or replace the use of animals), reduction (methods which minimize the number of animals used) and refinement (methods which minimize animal suffering and improve welfare).

The International Council for Laboratory Animal Science (ICLAS) has published ethical guidelines for researchers, editors, and reviewers.

Journals should encourage authors to adhere to animal research reporting standards, for example the ARRIVE reporting guidelines, which describe the details journals should require from authors regarding:

1. Study design and statistical analysis.
2. Experimental procedures.
3. Experimental animals.
4. Housing and husbandry.

Journals should ask authors to confirm that ethical and legal approval was obtained prior to the start of the study and state the name of the body giving the approval. Authors also should state whether experiments were performed in accordance with relevant institutional and national guidelines and regulations. For example:

1. US authors should cite compliance with the US National Research Council’s “Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals,” the US Public Health Service’s “Policy on Humane Care and Use of Laboratory Animals” and “Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals.”
2. UK authors should conform to UK legislation under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 Amendment Regulations (SI 2012/3039).
3. European authors outside the UK should conform to Directive 2010/63/EU.
4. Australian authors should conform to the Australian Code for the Care and Use of Animals for Scientific Purposes

Editors may ask authors to describe in their manuscript how discomfort, distress, and pain were avoided and minimized, and to confirm that animals did not suffer unnecessarily at any stage of an experiment.

Editors may request that reviewers comment on the standard of experimental reporting, experimental design, or any other aspects of the study reported that may cause concern. If concerns are raised or clarifications are needed, they may need to request evidence of ethical research approval or question authors.

Bias-free language

For research which includes, or refers to, human participants, it is necessary to detail the study population which requires the use of descriptors. It is important that the language and descriptors used to describe research populations are bias-free. The American Psychological Association have guidelines for eliminating bias in language in relation to gender, age, racial and ethnic background, sexual orientation, disability status, and socioeconomic status. Further guidance on the comprehensive reporting of sex and gender in research including humans and animals are also provided by the Sex and Gender Equity in Research (SAGER) guidelines.

For research related to gender, age, racial and ethnic background, sexual orientation, disability status, and socioeconomic status, there may occasionally be qualitative data from participants (i.e. direct quotes or transcribed interviews) which may include derogatory demographic descriptors. Wherever possible, authors should avoid using derogatory demographic descriptors or offensive language unless it is essential to the research in question. For example, offensive language may be appropriate to include if it is a direct quote (and noted as such) from a participant reporting their own personal experiences of the use of such language.

Cultures and heritage

The US Office for Human Research Protection has a searchable database of independent community institutional review boards that approve research and publication of culturally sensitive materials. More information is provided in “Principles and Procedures: Conducting Research in a Maori Context” from Waikato Institute of Technology and “Community IRBs and Research Review Boards: Shaping the Future of Community-Engaged Research” from Albert Einstein College of Medicine.

There is recognition of increasing innovation in the management of joint copyright in relation to intercultural research, to enable appropriate legal acknowledgment of intellectual property in attribution and acknowledgment.

Editors should consider any sensitivities when publishing images of objects that might have cultural significance or cause offence (for example, religious texts or historical events). In addition:

1. Editors should be conscious of the ethics surrounding publication of images of human remains and should recognize that human remains are perceived differently in different cultures. Images of human remains should not be published without consideration of the views of any demonstrated genealogical descendants or affiliated cultural communities, if feasible. In cases where descendants or affiliated cultural communities cannot be contacted, images of human remains should not be published without consultation with and permission from the curating institution or relevant stakeholder. For more information refer to the British Association of Biological Anthropology and Osteoarchaeology Code of Ethics.
2. Cultural restrictions do exist in some cultures that prevent publication of the names of deceased people. In Aboriginal Australian culture, this often extends to publication of photographs or film footage of deceased persons. Editors are encouraged to consider any sensitivities and, if necessary, confer with the author about appropriate representation of subjects in published work.

Ethnicity and race

When detailing demographic information about a study population, it is advisable to use terms to designate ethnicity (e.g. African American and South Asian) rather than race. The British Sociological Association (BSA) have devised some language guidelines for when referring to ethnicity and race.

For manuscripts reporting studies involving human participants, including but extending beyond medical research, journals should require a statement from authors to confirm that the appropriate ethical approval has been received, along with details of the approving ethics committee, and that the study conforms to recognized standards, see for example, Declaration of Helsinki; US Federal Policy for the Protection of Human Subjects; European Medicines Agency Guidelines for Good Clinical Practice or the Ethical Review Methods for Biomedical Research involving Humans adopted by the National Health and Family Planning Commission of the People’s Republic of China.

Journals should only consider publishing research which includes individual participants’ information and images where the authors’ have obtained the prior informed consent from all participants. The International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) guidance states:

“Non-essential identifying details should be omitted. Informed consent should be obtained if there is any doubt that anonymity can be maintained. For example, masking the eye region in photographs of patients is inadequate protection of anonymity.”

In cases where manuscripts may involve potentially vulnerable groups and, therefore, where informed consent may have required particular attention from the study authors and the institution where the work took place, we recommend particular care from journal teams to ensure expected standards have both been met and are described in the articles they publish. The Icelandic Human Rights Center presents a list containing twelve examples of vulnerable groups: “1) women and girls; 2) children; 3) refugees; 4) internally displaced persons; 5) stateless persons; 6) national minorities; 7) indigenous peoples 8) migrant workers; 9) disabled persons; 10) older adults; 11) HIV positive persons and AIDS victims; 12) Roma/Gypsies/Sinti; and 13) lesbian, gay and transgender people.” The Economic and Social Research Council in the UK provides further advice about research with potentially vulnerable people.

To ensure that informed consent has been obtained, journals should require authors to confirm this upon submission, and require that this information be included in a statement to this effect within their manuscript. Note that consent to participate in research is separate from consent to publish. It is necessary to obtain consent to publish if there is any possibility that information shared may identify an individual person, and document that this has been given within the manuscript. Consent forms do not need to be submitted with the manuscript, but researchers should provide necessary details if requested to do so by the journal. Many journals provide their authors with templated consent forms which they can use to seek informed consent from participants. Wiley has a standard patient consent form available if required.

In the case of technical images (for example, radiographs or micrographs), editors should ensure that all information that could identify the subject has been removed from the image. For voices or images of any human subject, permission according to applicable national laws must be sought from research participants before recording or distributing. In many jurisdictions, it is a requirement that formal copyright clearance is obtained to publish any video or audio recordings. When publishing genetic sequences or family genograms editors may need consent from more than just the index case. The CARE guidelines are useful for editors who publish case reports.

Jurisdictional neutrality

We recognize that the global research community includes diverse perspectives on many issues, including the legal status of certain countries/regions. We believe the best way to respect those diverse views is for authors and editors to be able to identify their own institutional and country/region affiliations. We achieve this by being neutral on any jurisdictional claims. This means that the geographical designations and institutional affiliations in published materials do not represent Wiley’s opinion about the legal status of any country or region.

Local laws and regulations

We publish material on behalf of partner organizations located in many different countries/regions. While we publish for a diverse global audience, we also respect our partners’ responsibility to comply with their local laws and regulations related to published works.

The World Health Organization and Declaration of Helsinki both recommend that clinical trials should be registered prospectively, before participants are enrolled. The International Federation of Pharmaceutical Manufacturers and Associations also requires its members to register trials. Legislation varies. For example, the US Food and Drug Administration Amendments Act of 2007 does not require registration for Phase 1 studies.

Journals that publish clinical trials should make prospective registration in suitable recommended registries (e.g. ClinicalTrials.gov) a requirement for publication of such trials. They should also follow the CONSORT (CONsolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) guidelines. Clinical trial registration numbers should be included in all papers that report their results. A suitable statement about this in journal instructions for authors might read: “We require that clinical trials are prospectively registered in a publicly accessible database. Please include the name of the trial register and your clinical trial registration number at the end of your abstract. If your trial is not registered, or was registered retrospectively, please explain the reasons for this.”

Research on plants and geological samples

Research on plants and geological samples, including their collection, must comply with the appropriate institutional, national, or international guidelines. Journals should ask authors to confirm that field research has been conducted in accordance with local legislation, with evidence that the appropriate licences and/or permissions have been obtained. The Geological Society includes helpful guidance on samples and data collection in their Publishing Ethics guide here.

Journals should request that authors list all funding sources in their manuscript, for example, in the Acknowledgments section. If there is no specific funding this should be stated. The role of the research funder beyond providing funding itself should also be described. It may be important to disclose, for example, if a commercial organization funded the study, designed the study, and also recruited the investigators.

Other sources of support should be clearly identified in the Acknowledgments section of the manuscript. For example, these might include funding for open access publication derived from a grant or from an author’s institution, or funding for writing or editorial assistance, or provision of experimental materials.

Sanctions imposed by journals for questionable practices

The purpose of making amendments to a published article (for example a correction or a retraction) is to maintain the integrity of the published literature. Amendments are not to be construed as punitive in any way or to be used as a sanction towards the authors involved. In cases of potentially questionable research practices it is the role of the institution to investigate and provide resolution.

However, on rare occasions it may be necessary for a journal to impose sanctions on researchers who have engaged in questionable research practices or publishing ethics malpractice: for example, a time-bound ban against publishing any further articles in the journal when doing so puts the journal’s reputation demonstrably at risk; or refraining from allowing a researcher to serve as a reviewer or editor. We suggest that any bans of this nature should be reviewed at the end of the allotted time period and revoked or extended if necessary. There should also be a means for any sanctions to be appealed by writing to the journal and/or publisher.

1. Before considering sanctions, editors must consult with their publisher, particularly for legal advice, and also with the journal owner (for example, a scholarly society).
2. Sanctions should be applied consistently and only after careful consideration.
3. Before imposing sanctions, journals should formally define the conditions in which they will apply (and remove) sanctions, and the processes they will use to do this.

Sanctions imposed by governments—Office of Foreign Assets Control (US) and other bodies

While journal editors should welcome contributions from all over the world, they must follow sanction laws and regulations. As of the date of this update, sanctions measures imposed by the United States, United Nations, European Union and Australia are currently in place against Cuba, Crimea, Iran, North Korea, and Syria. Journal editors should treat with caution any submission from a sanctioned country with regard to the subject matter and seek legal advice if necessary.

Systematic manipulation of the publication process is when an individual or group of individuals aim to publish a manuscript or series of manuscripts by dishonest or fraudulent means. This may involve subverting or unduly influencing the peer review process, engaging in inappropriate practices for authorship or by the publication of fabricated research (see also sections above on Citation manipulation and Fabrication, falsification and image manipulation). COPE’s guidance on systemic manipulation of the publication process explores these issues in detail.

Systematic manipulation may often be associated with paper mill activity i.e. “the process by which manufactured manuscripts are submitted to a journal for a fee on behalf of researchers with the purpose of providing an easy publication for them or to offer authorship for sale” - see this research report on paper mills from COPE and STM for further information. Systematic manipulation is an ongoing concern for all involved in scholarly publishing. Wiley has discussed findings from a broader investigation involving manipulation at scale in this white paper including the need for vigilance against bad actors and the need for all stakeholders to work together to tackle the root causes. Initiatives such as United2Act and the STM Integrity Hub are bringing stakeholders together to work collaboratively on these challenges. Wiley will continue to reject manuscripts or retract published articles that have been implicated in systematic manipulation and/or paper mill activity. In such cases, detailed findings of internal investigations will not necessarily be shared with all parties involved in an effort to limit sharing of intelligence with potential bad actors.

Author Contributions: Lindsey Mathews, Elizabeth Moylan, Ulf Scheffler, Michael Streeter, Leah Webster updated the second edition of these guidelines that was written by Lisa Deakin, Martine Docking, Chris Graf, Jackie Jones, Sue Joshua, Tiffany McKerahan, Martin Ottmar, Allen Stevens, Edward Wates and Deb Wyatt in 2014.

Acknowledgements: We would like to acknowledge those who contributed to the first edition of the ethics guidelines in 2006: Lise Baltzer, Caroline Black, Alyson Bowman, Suzan Fiack, Andrew Robinson, Diane Scott-Lichter and Elizabeth Wager. We are also grateful to David Hewes, Chris Graf, Joyce Griffin, Tamaryin Godinho, Helen McLean, Deirdre Silver and Michael Willis for all their suggestions and input for the 2020 revision.

Read more about Wiley’s research integrity team here