Publication Ethics

For all parties involved in the act of publishing (the author, the journal editor(s), the peer reviewer and the publisher) it is necessary to agree upon standards of expected ethical behavior. The ethics statements for the journal Management Dynamics in the Knowledge Economy are based on the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors (please see What is publication ethics? | COPE: Committee on Publication Ethics).

GENERAL ASPECTS

Editor responsibilities

Accountability

The editor of a peer-reviewed journal is responsible for deciding which articles submitted to the journal should be published, and, moreover, is accountable for everything published in the journal. In making these decisions, the editor may be guided by the policies of the journal’s editorial board as well as by legal requirements regarding libel, copyright infringement and plagiarism. The editor may confer with other editors or reviewers when making publication decisions. The editor should maintain the integrity of the academic record, preclude business needs from compromising intellectual and ethical standards, and always be willing to publish corrections, clarifications, retractions and apologies when needed.

Fairness

The editor should evaluate manuscripts f or intellectual content without regard to race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy of the author(s). The editor will not disclose any information about a manuscript under consideration to anyone other than the author(s), reviewers and potential reviewers, and in some instances the editorial board members, as appropriate.

Confidentiality

The editor and any 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.

Disclosure, conflicts of interest, and other issues

The editor will be guided by COPE’s Guidelines for Retracting Articles when considering retracting, issuing expressions of concern about, and issuing corrections pertaining to articles that have been published in the journal Management Dynamics in the Knowledge Economy.

Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in an editor’s own research without the express written consent of the author. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage.

The editor is committed to ensuring that advertising, reprint or other commercial revenue has no impact or influence on editorial decisions.

The editor should seek to ensure a fair and appropriate peer review process. Editors should recuse themselves (i.e., should ask a co-editor, associate editor, or other member of the editorial board instead to review and consider) from considering manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or (possibly) institutions connected to the papers. Editors should require all contributors to disclose relevant competing interests and publish corrections if competing interests are revealed after publication. If needed, other appropriate action should be taken, such as the publication of a retraction or expression of concern.

Involvement and cooperation in investigations

Editors should guard the integrity of the published record by issuing corrections and retractions when needed and pursuing suspected or alleged research and publication misconduct. Editors should pursue reviewer and editorial misconduct. An editor should take reasonably responsive measures when ethical complaints have been presented concerning a submitted manuscript or published paper.

 

Reviewer responsibilities

Contribution to editorial decisions

Peer review assists the editor in making editorial decisions and, through the editorial communication with the author, may also assist the author in improving the manuscript.

Promptness

Any invited referee who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its timely review will be impossible should immediately notify the editor so that alternative reviewers can be contacted.

Confidentiality

Any manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. They must not be shown to or discussed with others except if authorized by the editor.

Standards of objectivity

Reviews should be conducted objectively. Personal criticism of the author is unacceptable. Referees should express their views clearly with appropriate supporting arguments.

Acknowledgement of sources

Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors. Any statement that an observation, derivation, or argument had been previously reported should be accompanied by the relevant citation. A reviewer should also call to the editor's attention any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published data of which they have personal knowledge.

Disclosure and conflict of interest

Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage. Reviewers should not consider evaluating manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the submission.

 

Author responsibilities

Reporting standards

Authors reporting results of original research should present an accurate account of the work performed as well as an objective discussion of its significance. Underlying data should be represented accurately in the manuscript. A paper should contain sufficient detail and references to permit others to replicate the work. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behavior and are unacceptable.

Originality and Plagiarism

The authors should ensure that they have written entirely original works, and if the authors have used the work and/or words of others that this has been appropriately cited or quoted.

Multiple, redundant or concurrent publication

An author should not in general publish manuscripts describing essentially the same research in more than one journal or primary publication. Parallel submission of the same manuscript to more than one journal constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable.

Acknowledgement of sources

Proper acknowledgment of the work of others must always be given. Authors should also cite publications that have been influential in determining the nature of the reported work.

Authorship of a manuscript

Authorship should be limited to those who have made a significant contribution to the conception, design, execution, or interpretation of the reported study. All those who have made significant contributions should be listed as co-authors. Where there are others who have participated in certain substantive aspects of the research project, they should be named in an Acknowledgement section.

The corresponding author should ensure that all appropriate co-authors (according to the above definition) and no inappropriate co-authors are included in the author list of the manuscript, and that all co-authors have seen and approved the final version of the paper and have agreed to its submission for publication.

Hazards and human or animal subjects

If the work involves chemicals, procedures or equipment that have any unusual hazards inherent in their use, the authors must clearly identify these in the manuscript.

Disclosure and conflicts of interest

All authors should disclose in their manuscript any financial or other substantive conflict of interest that might be construed to influence the results or their interpretation in the manuscript. All sources of financial support for the project should be disclosed.

Fundamental errors in published works

When an author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in his/her own published work, it is the author’s obligation to promptly notify the journal’s editor or publisher and cooperate with them to either retract the paper or to publish an appropriate erratum.

Publisher’s Confirmation

In cases of alleged or proven scientific misconduct, fraudulent publication or plagiarism the publisher, in close collaboration with the editors, will take all appropriate measures to clarify the situation and to amend the article in question. This includes the prompt publication of an erratum or, in the most severe cases, the complete retraction of the affected work.

 

SPECIFIC ASPECTS

Authorship and contribution

 MDKE recognizes the importance of transparent and accurate authorship and contributorship attribution in scholarly publishing. We expect our authors to align with internationally recognized best practices, including those from COPE, ICMJE, and ANSI/NISO (CRediT).

Ensuring the correct attribution of authors and contributors from the start of the submission process is essential. Incorrect author lists may result in academic or financial implications, misrepresenting who is responsible and accountable for the published work.

Authorship criteria

MDKE follows the ICMJE authorship criteria, which require all authors to have:

• Made substantial contributions to the conception or design of the work; the acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data for the work; the drafting of the work; or revision of the draft critically for important intellectual content.
• Provided final approval of the version to be published.
• Agreed to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved.]
• Agreed to be named on the author list and approved the full author list as well as the order in which they are listed.

The corresponding author has an additional responsibility to:

• Ensure all co-authors meet authorship criteria and have agreed to their inclusion in the author list.
• Keep all co-authors informed throughout the review process.

Contributorship and the ANSI/NISO CRediT taxonomy

Those that meet some but not all of the authorship criteria should be acknowledged in the publication but not listed as authors. Examples that do not qualify for authorship but should be acknowledged are sources of funding, supervision of research groups, administrative support, language editing, and proofreading. We encourage authors to distinguish between authorship and contributorship using the ANSI/NISO CRediT taxonomy, which defines 14 specific contributor roles. Before including anyone in the acknowledgments section, authors should obtain their written permission, as being acknowledged may imply endorsement of the publication.

Key contributor roles (adopted from ANSI/NISO CRediT):

• Conceptualization
• Data curation
• Formal analysis
• Funding acquisition
• Investigation
• Methodology
• Project administration
• Resources
• Software
• Supervision
• Validation
• Visualization
• Writing—original draft
• Writing—review and editing
• Alteration to authorship or contributorship.

Any change in authors and/or contributors after initial submission must be approved by all authors. This should apply to additions, deletions, changes of order to the authors, or contributions being attributed differently. Any alterations must be explained to the editor. The editor may contact any of the authors and/or contributors to determine whether they have agreed to any alteration.

Authorship and AI tools

AI tools do not meet authorship criteria because they cannot be held accountable for any aspect of scholarly work. Therefore:

• AI as authors: AI tools should not be credited as authors.
• Author responsibility: Authors are responsible for all content, including anything generated with AI assistance, and must ensure they have the rights to any AI-sourced material.
• Disclosure: If AI was used beyond basic manuscript refinement (e.g., copyediting), this use must be transparently disclosed in the manuscript, such as in the methods or acknowledgments sections.

For more details on the use of AI tools by authors, please see Use of AI in publishing.

 

Use of AI in publishing

MDKE recognizes the evolving role of generative AI (genAI) tools in academic publishing and establishes transparent guidelines for the responsible use of AI in scholarly publishing. This guidance applies to authors, reviewers, and editorial teams engaging with AI tools during the publication process. We acknowledge that GenAI outcomes can never be fully relied upon, and human oversight is always necessary.

Key considerations for AI use in scholarly publishing

We consider the following principles:

• Accountability: GenAI tools cannot be held accountable for their outputs.
• Transparency: Users must declare any use of genAI tools and understand the limitations regarding the transparency of these tools.
• Attribution: AI-generated text often lacks proper attribution and referencing standards.
• Accuracy and trustworthiness: GenAI tools may introduce inaccuracies and biases and cannot verify their sources. Their outputs can blur the line between fact and fiction.
• Copyright, privacy, and confidentiality: GenAI tools may not provide adequate confidentiality, data security, or copyright protection. In the case of publicly available genAI platforms, users should assume there are no controls over any future use of their inputs and responses.

Guidelines for authors

MDKE may permit the use of genAI in manuscript preparation under the following conditions:

• Any use of genAI must be disclosed, ideally in the methods or acknowledgments sections.
• GenAI may be used for manuscript refinement (e.g., language improvement, formatting), but not for creating, altering, or manipulating research data, images, or measurements.
• Authors must ensure they have the necessary rights to all content uploaded to public genAI platforms, considering confidentiality and proprietary rights. It should be recognized by the author that any content uploaded into a publicly available genAI platform could be used in future genAI outputs for other people.
• AI tools do not qualify for authorship, as they can’t be held accountable for all aspects of the work. An AI tool should not be included in the author list of a manuscript [see Guidance on Authorship and Contributorship].

Guidelines for reviewers

Reviews should only be undertaken by the appointed reviewer. The responsibilities and tasks involved in reviewing a paper can only be attributed to and performed by the human submitting the review. Reviewers should not allow the use of genAI tools in peer review due to concerns about accountability, accuracy, trustworthiness, confidentiality, copyright, privacy, and data security.

• Reviews should be written solely by the assigned reviewer. AI-generated reviews are not accountable or verifiable.
• Manuscripts under review must never be uploaded to public genAI platforms, as this may violate confidentiality agreements and intellectual property rights.
• If a reviewer suspects undisclosed genAI use in a submission, they should report it to the handling editor for investigation.

Guidelines for editorial teams

Editors play a crucial role in assessing and managing AI usage in manuscripts. We encourage editors to:

• Evaluate declared AI use on a case-by-case basis, ensuring that it aligns with transparency and ethical standards.
• Prohibit the use of public genAI platforms for integrity checks (e.g., plagiarism detection), as these may compromise confidentiality.
• Ensure AI-generated content does not replace human decision-making in editorial workflows.

Final considerations

As AI technologies continue to evolve, MDKE regularly reviews and updates its policies on AI and research integrity. Transparency and accountability remain fundamental to the credibility of scholarly publishing.

 

Conflicts of interest and competing interests 

MDKE fully commits to transparent and bias-free research and requires all authors, reviewers, and editors to declare any interests that could appear to compromise, conflict, or influence the validity of the publication.

Competing interests (also referred to as conflicts of interest or COIs) can take the form of both financial and non-financial relationships. The declaration of such relationships helps to ensure that academic rigor is maintained and that publications cannot be accused of undue bias or misinformation.

A competing interest must be declared if there is any reason why the information or the interpretation of information being produced may be influenced by a personal or financial relationship with other organizations or individuals or if these relationships could be reasonably perceived by other people as having influenced objective data or decision-making. Everyone involved in the submission, editorial processing, peer review, and publication processes should declare any competing interests they may have as early as possible.

If an undisclosed conflict of interest is identified post-publication, MDKE has a clear policy and workflows for addressing it, including issuing a correction or, if necessary, a retraction [see Guidance on Corrections and Retractions]. Declaring a competing interest is not inherently negative. Instead, it is a positive step to increase transparency and reduce bias (positive or negative) within the publication process, whether the influence is real or perceived, and whether it is identified before or after publication.

Examples of competing interests:

• Financial ties, such as receipt of payment, in any form, from an organization or individual related to the subject matter; ownership of stocks or shares in organizations directly related to the subject matter; receipt of grants or funding; related patents/applied-for patents; commercial interests; or receipt of gifts.
• Political, religious, or ideological beliefs, including commitments to academic approaches or ideas.
• Personal and professional relationships with family, friends, enemies, competitors, or colleagues.
• Institutional affiliations and membership of boards, including links to the journal itself, e.g., an author submitting to a journal on which they also work as an editor or serve on the editorial board. We require reviewers to provide their COI statement prior to returning their review feedback. Reviewers should disclose any past relationships or associations that could influence their impartiality. For example, if a reviewer previously supervised the author’s PhD, this prior relationship should be declared. While specific timeframes for such disclosures may vary, it is advisable to focus on the nature and closeness of the relationship rather than relying solely on a fixed period. To maintain the integrity of the peer review process, reviewers are encouraged to prioritize transparency and declare any past relationships or associations that could be perceived as influencing their judgment, regardless of when they occurred.

Guidelines for authors

Read the above examples of competing interests to determine whether these apply to you. All editors and board members associated with the journal must declare their relationship with the journal as a competing interest when listed as an author. We strongly advise you to include a competing interests section at the end of your manuscript, immediately before the reference list. If there are multiple authors, the authors’ initials should be used to denote differing competing interests. For example:

“TW completed paid consultancy work from [company name] as part of the data acquisition for this study. BH has minority shares in [company name], which part-funded the research grant for this project. SM is a member of the editorial board for [journal name] but had no involvement in any editorial processes related to the handling of this submission. All other authors have no competing interests.” If there are no competing interests, we recommend adding the following statement: “The author has no competing interests to declare” for papers with a single author or “The authors have no competing interests to declare” when multiple authors are contributing.

Guidelines for reviewers

Read the above examples of competing interests to determine whether these apply to you, either in your relationship with the content of the article or to the author (if known). If you believe your competing interests mean it is not possible for you to review the paper, please decline the review or discuss this with the editor. To declare your competing interests, provide them during the review process according to instructions received from editors. For example: “I was previously employed by the laboratory that collected this data.” If you do not have competing interests, provide this feedback according to received instructions. During review, if you suspect that the author has an undisclosed competing interest, inform the editor.

Guidelines for editors

All members of the editorial team, and any individuals involved in editorial decisions, should be aware of the above examples of competing interests and consider how this applies to their work on the journal. They are responsible for:

• Identifying how their competing interests could affect their editorial work.
• Checking that authors have included a competing interest statement on submission.
• Being aware of any possible competing interests when assigning peer reviewers and evaluating reviews. In all cases, editors are responsible for ensuring competing interests are identified, made transparent, and acted upon as required. Editors should remove themselves from editorial processes in cases where they have relationships or activities that pose potential conflicts related to articles under consideration. If an editor is listed as an author on a submission, they should also be removed from the editorial process and declare this in a competing interests statement on the paper. For example: “TW is editor-in-chief for [journal name]. She was removed from all editorial processes relating to the handling of this submission.”

Guidelines during review and publication

On submission:

• Check that all submitted papers contain a competing interests statement (unless the article type is exempt), and request one from the author(s) if missing.
• If there is a disclosed competing interest, consider how this could affect the content of the manuscript (e.g., check for bias). During review:
• Think about potential competing interests when inviting reviewers. Given that the journal has a review policy that requires the author to remain anonymous to the reviewer, the editors should be aware of competing interests not known to the reviewer. For example, if a reviewer is from the same institution as the author, that is a competing interest.
• If the reviewer discloses a competing interest in their review, consider this during your evaluation of their review. Depending on the nature of the competing interest, you may need to check for bias, or you might need to find an alternative reviewer.
• If an author has an undisclosed competing interest that becomes apparent during review, follow the instructions in this COPE flowchart.

During publication:

• Ensure that all papers (except where an article type is exempt) contain an accurate competing interest statement.

After publication:

• If an undisclosed competing interest becomes apparent after publication, follow the instructions in this COPE flowchart.

 

Appeals, complaints, and misconduct

MDKE supports ethical publishing practices and upholds integrity in handling appeals, complaints, and allegations of misconduct, including guidance from the Complaints and Appeals | COPE: Committee on Publication Ethics and other relevant bodies.

Handling complaints and appeals

MDKE has a clear, transparent, and accessible process for addressing complaints related to editorial decisions, peer review, or other aspects of the publication process. Individuals with concerns should first contact the journal’s editor-in-chief to request a reasoned response. If further escalation is required, the journal unfolds an internal procedure to address such matters fairly and objectively, aligning its complaint-handling procedures with COPE guidelines. In complex cases, MDKE may consider seeking guidance from COPE or other relevant external organizations for appropriate resolution.

Addressing allegations of misconduct

MDKE takes all allegations of misconduct seriously, whether they involve research integrity (e.g., conducting studies without ethical approval, data fabrication) or publication integrity (e.g., plagiarism, peer review manipulation, editorial malpractice).

If an allegation is received, the journal carefully assesses the situation and, where appropriate, report the matter to the relevant institution for further investigation. If corrections to the publication record are necessary, MDKE follows transparent correction and retraction policies [see Guidance on Corrections and Retractions] in accordance with industry standards.

Expected process for handling complaints

Complaints should be submitted in writing (e.g., via email) to allow for proper documentation and auditing.

• MDKE acknowledges receipt of a complaint within a reasonable timeframe (e.g., within three working days) and provide updates on the expected process and resolution timeline.
• If a complainant is dissatisfied with the response, the matter should be escalated internally within the journal (e.g., to the head of the editorial team).
• If the complaint involves a potential conflict of interest, an independent party may be consulted to ensure objectivity in the review.

Where complaints concern the editorial or peer review process, MDKE aims for a fair and transparent resolution, ensuring that editorial independence and ethical decision-making are upheld.

Dealing with appeals

If an appeal is submitted regarding an editorial decision, MDKE will review the decision-making procedures to assess whether the appeal is justified, e.g., the editor-in-chief audits the decision-making process to assess whether there are grounds for an appeal. Should the appeal be deemed valid, it may be necessary to consult the editorial board and/or external peer reviewers before a final decision is made.

Escalation to external bodies

If a complainant remains dissatisfied after exhausting the journal’s internal process, the matter may be escalated to COPE or another relevant external body. MDKE will ensure its procedures are exhausted before directing complaints externally, as COPE and similar organizations typically require prior internal resolution attempts.

Maintaining professional conduct

Any individuals engaging with a journal—whether as editors, reviewers, or authors—should adhere to professional communication standards.

MDKE will immediately address abusive behavior or inappropriate correspondence, ensuring that individuals who engage in such conduct may have their contributions withdrawn and future engagement with the journal restricted at the discretion of the editor-in-chief.

 

Corrections and retractions

MDKE establishes clear policies and procedures that align with guidelines from the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). These procedures encompass various aspects, including the handling of corrections and retractions, to ensure a consistent and ethical approach throughout the publication process.

Correction

When errors affect the data, arguments, or conclusions of an article (but not the validity of the findings) or incorrect metadata is used (e.g., author list, title), a formal correction notice should be issued. Corrections are not appropriate for matters of debate, which may be more appropriately addressed elsewhere.

Correction articles should detail the nature of the correction and refer to the original publication. Correction notices should be published as individual articles in the journal's table of contents and delivered to indexing services to maintain the integrity of the academic record.

The text of the correction notice shall be drafted by the publisher and/or the editor/author(s) and, ideally, should be approved by both the editor(s) and author(s) prior to typesetting. The publisher, in collaboration with the editor(s) and author(s), should decide whether the error is to be corrected by a correction article.

In cases where allegations of misconduct arise, it is essential to have a structured and transparent process to address them effectively. The following recommendations outline the expected conduct for MDKE and editors in handling such situations:

• Upon receiving allegations of misconduct, the journal should promptly refer these cases to the relevant institutions or affiliations for thorough investigation. Institutions are typically best equipped to conduct comprehensive inquiries into such matters.
• If the author’s institution does complete an investigation, the editor and publisher will seek to discover the outcome.
• The editor and publisher should update the published record as appropriate.
• In confirmed cases of misconduct, editors should also consider notifying the relevant funding bodies.
• The correction must clearly state the reason for the update and include a complete citation reference to the original article. If some parties do not agree with the outcome, this may also be stated.

Erratum

The term erratum refers to the correction of production errors caused by the publisher or journal rather than by an author. The types of errors to be addressed this way could include typos introduced by a publisher, formatting issues, figures and illustrations placed mistakenly, or affiliation or name mistakes.

It is advised that the editor refer to the pre-publication version of a paper to decide whether an error appears in a submitted manuscript or if it was introduced during production from a publisher’s side. Ideally, the author should be informed about an erratum before it is published and accept it.

Retraction

Retractions are used to remove a published paper from the scientific record. In accordance with the Committee on Publication Ethics’ guidance (adapted from https://publicationethics.org/guidance/guideline/retraction-guidelines), journals are expected to use retractions when:

• There is clear evidence that the findings are unreliable due to honest errors (e.g., miscalculations or experimental errors) or as a result of misconduct (e.g., data fabrication).
• The article constitutes plagiarism.
• The findings have previously been published elsewhere without proper cross-referencing, permission, or justification (i.e., cases of redundant/duplicate publication).
• The content includes material or data used without authorization or infringes copyright.
• The research violates ethical standards.

Retraction articles are drafted and published in the same way as correction articles. The original article will remain published, but readers need to be alerted about the retraction. This ensures that the integrity and transparency of the academic record are maintained while making it clear that the publication has been retracted.

Should an investigation result in a disciplinary hearing or further institutional investigation, it may be appropriate for an expression of concern to be published in the interim while waiting for the outcome, before then issuing a retraction if necessary.

Retraction and withdrawal

In rare circumstances, articles will need to be removed from the journal site in whole or in part. This is usually for legal reasons, such as copyright infringement or ethical concerns, where leaving the article online may cause harm. The abstract and metadata of the original article can remain, but the article content needs to be removed in whole or in part.

Expressions of concern

In some cases, it may not be possible to issue a correction or retraction notice in a timely manner or at all. In these cases, an expression of concern may be considered. As per COPE’s guidelines, the journal considers an expression of concern in situations such as (but not limited to):

• If they receive inconclusive evidence of research or publication misconduct by the authors (i.e., an investigation is inconclusive but significant concerns remain).
• If there is evidence that the findings are unreliable, but the authors’ institution will not or cannot investigate the case (i.e., an investigation is limited in its ability to fully investigate the issue, but significant concerns have been identified).
• If they believe that an investigation into alleged misconduct related to the publication either has not been, or would not be, fair and impartial.

Expressions of concern should be published as separate notices, in the same fashion as correction and retraction notices, stating the reasons for the concern and appearing in the table of contents. The expression of concern should relate to the original article to alert future readers. If more evidence becomes available, the expression of concern may be followed up by a retraction or correction notice or an exonerating statement, depending on the outcome.

Publisher’s note

In some cases, an investigation into alleged misconduct or publication error may take a very long time to conclude. If the need for an investigation has been established or an investigation is ongoing and it is apparent that the conclusion is likely to take a long time, the journal and publisher may decide to release a publisher’s note, especially if the concerns being investigated cast doubt on the validity of data or results presented. This would notify readers that concerns have been raised and are being appropriately investigated so that potentially problematic data is not used without the readers’ appropriate consideration and assessment.

Authority

Ideally, all post-publication updates are agreed on by all parties (e.g., editors, authors, publisher, and external parties). In some cases, disputes may still be present, and a consensus is not possible. In these cases, the editors or the publisher may correct or retract a publication or issue expressions of concern even if all or some of the authors do not agree or are uncontactable. The retraction notice should clearly identify who is retracting the article to indicate any differences of opinion.

 

 Reproducibility and open research

Implementing comprehensive policies that promote reproducibility, open data, structured methods, and open code is essential for enhancing research transparency and integrity across all journal access models. While these principles are strongly associated with open science and open access journals, we recommend adopting these strategies for subscription-based journals, where transparency is equally important.

Open data

We strongly encourage authors to make all datasets associated with their submission openly available, in alignment with the FAIR principles (Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, and Reusable). Data availability should be clearly described in a Data Accessibility Statement (DAS) accompanying the manuscript. If data cannot be made openly available, a clear justification must be included in the statement (e.g., legal restrictions, privacy concerns, or third-party ownership).

When depositing data, consider the following:

• Repository selection: Deposit data in subject-appropriate repositories with sustainable models. A comprehensive list of recommended repositories is available at http://oad.simmons.edu/oadwiki/Data_repositories.
• Licensing: Use open licenses (e.g., CC0, CC-BY) to permit unrestricted access, unless legal or ethical reasons necessitate more restrictive licenses.
• Data format: Include versions of the data in open, non-proprietary formats.
• Data documentation: Label data clearly (e.g., sensible column headers, descriptions in a readme file) to ensure third-party usability.
• Ethical compliance: For research involving human subjects, comply with ethical standards such as the Declaration of Helsinki, obtain appropriate ethics committee approvals, and ensure informed consent. A data availability statement should be added to the submission prior to the reference list, providing the details of the data accessibility, including the DOI linking to it. If the data is restricted in any way, the reasoning should be given.

Structured methods

As the traditional methods section often includes insufficient detail for readers to wholly assess the research process, we encourage authors to publish detailed descriptions of their methods in open, online platforms such as protocols.io. By providing a step-by-step description of the methods used in the study, the chance of reproducibility and usability increases, while also allowing authors to build on the work via versioning or making derivatives of it. This allows the methods to evolve over time but retains a static version that is attached to published research output. Submissions can include images and videos and include the functionality to converse with other researchers who may wish to comment on the methods provided. Protocols.io also allows the complete, step-by-step methodology to be cited, providing researchers with an easy route to finding the information they need while crediting the author each time it is used. We believe that publishing such structured methods increases the value, impact, and transparency of the research, as well as contributing to open science as a whole.

Although the term protocol is more commonly used in clinical research, the benefits that protocols.io provides are equally applicable to any structured methods section across all disciplines. Publication of the methods in protocols.io releases the information under a CC-BY license. The choice of whether to make the methods public prior to publication is entirely up to the author. It is also completely free to use.

The protocol/methods site is very easy to set up and incorporate into a manuscript being prepared for submission. To publish your methods on protocols.io, simply:

1. Register at protocols.io and create your protocol.
2. Select “Get DOI” on the menu tab.
3. Include the DOI in the Methods section of your manuscript, for example, https://doi.org/10.17504/protocols.io. [protocol number].

Editors and reviewers will be able to see your protocol with this DOI, but it will not be publicly visible unless you opt to make it open. If your article is published, this referenced link will automatically make your protocol publicly available, enabling readers to view your detailed methods.

Open code

If research includes code, statistical analyses, or algorithms, we recommend that authors upload a working instance of their code and data to Code Ocean (or other repositories). Code Ocean is an online computational reproducibility platform that provides researchers with an easy way to share, validate, and discover code published in academic journals. Code Ocean will mint a DOI for the submitted code, thereby allowing for attribution and citation tracking.

The platform provides free and open access for users to view and download published code, data, metadata, and computational environments. Upon registration, readers can execute all published code online without needing to install anything, making the reproduction of results simple and painless.

Upload to Code Ocean using the following steps:

• Sign up or log in to Code Ocean.
• Upload and submit the code and data associated with your article.
• Configure your environment, run your code, and submit.
• Code Ocean will verify the code is operational and help with any issues.
• Your executable code will be published on Code Ocean. It will be assigned a unique URL you can share, as well as a DOI that can be used to cite it.
• Add the DOI that has been provided into your journal submission so there is a direct link for the editors, reviewers, and readers to access.

 

Special issues and collections

We welcome and support researchers interested in publishing special collections, such as special issues or special collections of papers. We believe these collections play an important role in advancing scholarly discourse by focusing on emerging topics and fostering collaboration within research communities. To ensure the highest standards of quality and integrity, we expect adherence to established best practices and ethical guidelines in the development and management of these collections.

We adhere to the following guidelines, based on the DOAJ requirements for special issues and collections:

• The editor-in-chief is responsible for the content of the entire journal, including all special issues, which must fall within the scope of the journal.
• Special issue articles must have the same editorial oversight as regular papers, including external review where appropriate, and be clearly labelled.
• Guest editors must be made aware of and follow all journal policies.
• Journals must ensure that guest editors’ credentials are checked and approved.
• The editor-in-chief or dedicated board members must oversee the guest editors.
• Papers submitted to a special issue by guest editors must be handled under an independent review process and constitute no more than 25% of the issue’s total content.

Ethical considerations

To uphold ethical standards, we recommend:

• Conflict of interest disclosure: Guest editors and authors must disclose any potential conflicts of interest to maintain transparency.
• Avoiding undue influence: Contributions from guest editors and their close associates should be limited to prevent bias and maintain the collection’s credibility.
• Adherence to ethical guidelines: All participants should familiarize themselves with and follow COPE and STM joint guidelines for guest-edited collections to ensure ethical integrity (https://publicationethics.org/news-opinion/new-resources-best-practices-guest-edited-collections).