Publication ethics and cases of abuse

JMC adheres to the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) principles. All stakeholders—authors, reviewers, and editors—must uphold standards of integrity, transparency, and fairness. The policies below outline expectations and procedures for handling suspected or confirmed misconduct.

1. Ethical Principles

  • Honesty in data collection, analysis, interpretation, and reporting; no fabrication, falsification, or selective reporting that misleads.
  • Originality and proper attribution; avoid plagiarism and text recycling without quotation and citation.
  • Transparency regarding methods, data, materials, funding, and competing interests.
  • Respect for human/animal subjects, environmental stewardship, and laboratory safety.

2. Plagiarism and Text Recycling

All submissions undergo similarity screening. As a guideline, the overall similarity index should be ≤20% (excluding references and standard methods), and no single source should exceed 5%. Duplicate publication, self‑plagiarism, or unattributed text reuse may lead to rejection or retraction.

3. Image and Data Integrity

  • Image adjustments are limited to uniform changes in brightness/contrast for clarity; do not add, remove, move, or enhance features.
  • Gel/blot images must show full, uncropped views or clear demarcations; provide raw data on request.
  • Statistical reporting must include n, measures of central tendency/dispersion, and exact P values where appropriate.

4. Authorship and Contributorship

  • Gift, guest, or ghost authorship is prohibited.
  • All authors must meet authorship criteria; contributorship via CRediT must be provided.
  • Authorship changes after submission require written consent of all authors and justification.

5. Conflicts of Interest

Authors, reviewers, and editors must declare financial and non‑financial competing interests that could influence judgment (e.g., funding, employment, consultancies, stock ownership, patents, personal relationships).

6. Human, Animal, and Environmental Ethics

Manuscripts involving humans/animals must include institutional ethics approval and informed consent (as applicable). Environmental and chemical safety considerations must be explicitly addressed.

7. Peer Review Ethics

  • Double‑anonymized review; reviewer identities are confidential.
  • Reviewers must decline when conflicts exist or expertise is insufficient, and must not use or share unpublished information.
  • Use of generative AI: Reviewers must not upload manuscripts to public AI tools; if AI is used locally for language, responsibility remains with the reviewer and confidentiality must be preserved.

8. Generative AI in Authorship

AI tools cannot be listed as authors. Their limited use (e.g., grammar, figure rendering) must be disclosed in the Methods or Acknowledgments, and authors remain fully responsible for content. AI must not be used to fabricate or manipulate data or citations.

9. Allegations of Misconduct: Procedures

  • Initial Assessment — The Editor screens the allegation and may request raw data and explanations from authors.
  • Investigation — If concerns persist, an investigation follows COPE flowcharts; authors’ institutions may be contacted.
  • Outcomes — Correction, expression of concern, retraction, or rejection; severe or repeated violations may result in submission bans.
  • Right to Respond — Authors are given an opportunity to respond within a defined timeframe.

10. Citation Integrity and Metrics Manipulation

Coercive citation, citation cartels, or manipulative self‑citation practices are prohibited. References must be pertinent and proportional to the content.

11. Appeals, Complaints, and Corrections

Appeals and complaints should be addressed to the Editor‑in‑Chief with detailed justification. Corrections and retractions follow COPE guidance and will be clearly labeled and linked to the original article.