Publication Ethics and Research Misconduct Policy
Standards for Research and Publication Integrity and Procedures for Responding to Allegations
Research and Development in Medical Education (RDME) is committed to maintaining the highest standards of research integrity, publication ethics, transparency, and accountability. This policy describes the journal's standards for responsible research and publication and the procedures followed when concerns regarding possible misconduct arise.
The policy is informed by the principles and guidance of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE), and applicable national and institutional standards for research ethics and integrity.
The policy applies to all participants in the publication process, including authors, co-authors, reviewers, editors, editorial board members, guest editors, and editorial office staff.
RDME considers allegations of misconduct seriously, whether they concern a manuscript under consideration or an article that has already been published. Concerns are handled fairly, confidentially, and objectively, with decisions based on available evidence. Where appropriate, RDME will use relevant COPE flowcharts and guidance to support the investigation and resolution of publication-ethics concerns.
1. Scope and Guiding Principles
RDME is committed to:
- protecting the integrity and reliability of the scholarly record;
- promoting honesty, transparency, accountability, and responsible conduct of research;
- ensuring fair and confidential handling of allegations;
- protecting the rights of authors, reviewers, editors, research participants, and individuals who raise legitimate concerns;
- correcting the scholarly record when errors or misconduct are identified;
- distinguishing deliberate misconduct from honest error, methodological disagreement, or legitimate differences in scientific interpretation;
- taking proportionate action based on the nature and seriousness of the concern.
An allegation of misconduct does not constitute proof of misconduct. Individuals involved in an investigation will be treated fairly, and authors will have a reasonable opportunity to respond to concerns raised about their work.
2. Research Misconduct
Research misconduct generally includes fabrication, falsification, and plagiarism (FFP).
2.1 Fabrication
Fabrication is the invention of data, observations, participants, results, or other research information and reporting them as genuine.
Examples include:
- inventing study participants or observations;
- creating data that were never collected;
- reporting experiments that were never conducted;
- generating figures or tables from nonexistent data.
2.2 Falsification
Falsification involves manipulating research materials, equipment, procedures, data, images, or results, or selectively omitting or altering information so that the research record is misleading.
Examples may include:
- inappropriate manipulation of research data;
- selective removal of observations without methodological justification;
- altering or selectively reporting results;
- inappropriate manipulation of images;
- presenting an incomplete or misleading representation of the research findings.
Image adjustments that are appropriate, disclosed, and applied uniformly may be acceptable when they do not misrepresent the underlying data. However, selective manipulation intended to create a misleading impression may constitute misconduct.
2.3 Plagiarism
Plagiarism is the presentation of another person's ideas, words, data, methods, results, or other intellectual work as one's own without appropriate attribution.
This includes, but is not limited to:
- copying text without appropriate quotation or citation;
- reproducing another person's ideas without acknowledgment;
- presenting another researcher's data or results as one's own;
- inappropriate appropriation of unpublished material obtained through peer review.
Plagiarism may also involve substantial unattributed reuse of one's own previously published work when such reuse creates a misleading impression of originality.
2.4 Honest Error and Scientific Disagreement
Honest mistakes, differences in scientific interpretation, methodological disagreements, or legitimate statistical disagreement do not, by themselves, constitute research misconduct.
However, an honest error that materially affects the validity or interpretation of a published article may require correction or, in serious circumstances, retraction.
3. Publication and Editorial Misconduct
3.1 Duplicate or Redundant Publication
Authors must not submit substantially the same manuscript simultaneously to more than one journal.
Duplicate or redundant publication includes publishing substantially overlapping work without appropriate disclosure, justification, or cross-reference.
Authors must disclose previous publications, submissions, reports, preprints, or other materials that could reasonably be considered substantially related to the submitted manuscript.
3.2 Text Recycling and Self-Plagiarism
Authors should not reuse substantial portions of their previously published text or data without appropriate acknowledgment, citation, and, where required, permission.
Limited and appropriate reuse of methodological descriptions may sometimes be unavoidable; however, such reuse should be transparent and should not create a false impression of originality.
3.3 Salami Publication
RDME discourages inappropriate fragmentation of the results of a single study into multiple publications when such fragmentation unnecessarily duplicates information or prevents each publication from making a meaningful independent contribution.
The editorial decision will consider the scientific rationale, transparency, degree of overlap, and contribution of each manuscript.
3.4 Authorship and Contributorship Misconduct
Authorship must reflect genuine scholarly contribution and responsibility.
Examples of authorship misconduct include:
- Gift or honorary authorship: listing an individual who does not meet authorship criteria;
- Ghost authorship: omitting an individual who made a substantial contribution that warrants authorship;
- adding or removing authors without appropriate agreement;
- inappropriate manipulation of author order;
- misrepresenting the contributions of authors.
RDME follows the ICMJE authorship principles. Authorship requires all four of the following:
- substantial contribution to the conception or design of the work, or acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data;
- drafting the work or critically reviewing it for important intellectual content;
- final approval of the version to be published; and
- agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work and to appropriately investigate and resolve questions concerning its accuracy or integrity.
Individuals who contribute to a study but do not meet all authorship criteria should be appropriately acknowledged rather than listed as authors.
Authorship disputes are primarily the responsibility of the authors and their institutions. RDME will not ordinarily determine the order of authorship or adjudicate institutional authorship disputes. Where agreement cannot be reached, the journal may request that the relevant institution investigate the matter.
4. Citation and Referencing Misconduct
RDME expects authors and reviewers to use citations accurately, transparently, and appropriately.
Citation misconduct may include:
- citing sources that were not actually consulted;
- misrepresenting the findings of cited studies;
- excessive or unnecessary self-citation;
- coordinated citation practices intended to manipulate citation metrics;
- pressuring authors to add citations primarily to increase the citation count of a particular individual, journal, or group;
- citing unreliable or inappropriate sources in a misleading manner.
Editors and reviewers must not require citations merely to increase the visibility or citation metrics of their own work or the journal.
5. Artificial Intelligence and AI-Assisted Technologies
RDME recognizes that artificial intelligence (AI), including large language models (LLMs), may be used in research, writing, language editing, data analysis, image generation, and other aspects of scholarly work.
AI tools cannot be listed as authors or co-authors because they cannot assume responsibility for the accuracy, integrity, originality, and accountability required of authors. Human authors remain fully responsible for all submitted material, including material generated or modified with AI assistance.
Authors must disclose substantive use of AI-assisted technologies in accordance with the journal's submission requirements. Depending on the nature of the use, disclosure should identify the tool and explain how it was used.
For example:
- language editing or grammar assistance should be disclosed where required by the journal;
- AI-assisted generation of substantive manuscript content should be disclosed;
- AI used for data analysis, coding, figure generation, or other methodological purposes should be described in the appropriate section of the manuscript;
- AI-generated images or other content should be clearly identified where relevant.
Authors remain responsible for:
- verifying the accuracy of AI-generated material;
- checking references and citations;
- ensuring that plagiarism has not been introduced;
- ensuring that confidential or proprietary information has not been improperly disclosed;
- obtaining necessary permissions for copyrighted material.
AI-generated content should not be treated as an independent scholarly authority or cited as a substitute for the original scientific source.
AI Use by Reviewers and Editors
Reviewers and editors must maintain the confidentiality of submitted manuscripts. They should not upload manuscripts, peer-review materials, or confidential editorial information into AI systems where confidentiality cannot be assured, unless the journal has explicitly authorized such use and appropriate safeguards are in place.
6. Conflicts of Interest and Competing Interests
Authors, reviewers, editors, and editorial board members must disclose relationships or activities that could reasonably influence—or be perceived to influence—their judgment.
Potential conflicts may include:
- employment;
- consultancy;
- research funding;
- grants;
- honoraria;
- ownership of stocks or equity;
- patents or royalties;
- personal relationships;
- academic competition;
- institutional interests;
- intellectual or professional interests.
Disclosure does not necessarily mean that a conflict exists or that the manuscript is unsuitable for publication. Transparency enables editors and readers to evaluate potential sources of bias.
Editors and reviewers should recuse themselves from decisions or reviews where a conflict could compromise—or reasonably appear to compromise—their impartiality.
Failure to disclose a relevant relationship or activity may constitute publication misconduct, particularly where the omission was intentional and materially affected the publication process.
7. Ethical Oversight and Research Participants
Authors are responsible for ensuring that research involving human participants, identifiable information, human tissues, or other ethically sensitive material complies with applicable ethical and regulatory requirements.
Where applicable, manuscripts should provide information regarding:
- approval by an appropriate research ethics committee or institutional review board;
- informed consent;
- consent for publication of identifiable information or images;
- clinical trial registration;
- protection of participant confidentiality;
- appropriate handling of vulnerable populations.
RDME may request documentation of ethics approval, informed consent, trial registration, or other relevant documentation at any stage of editorial assessment.
Concerns regarding ethical approval or participant protection may be referred to the relevant institution or research ethics authority.
8. Reporting Concerns About Possible Misconduct
Concerns about research or publication misconduct may be raised by:
- authors;
- reviewers;
- editors;
- readers;
- research collaborators;
- institutional officials;
- research participants; or
- other individuals with credible information.
Concerns may relate to manuscripts under review or articles that have already been published.
Reports should, where possible, include sufficient information or evidence to allow the journal to assess the concern.
RDME will treat legitimate reports confidentially and will take reasonable measures to protect individuals who raise concerns from retaliation.
Anonymous reports may be considered when sufficient evidence is provided to permit meaningful assessment.
9. Procedure for Handling Allegations of Misconduct
RDME follows a staged process based on the nature and seriousness of the concern and, where appropriate, relevant COPE guidance. COPE recommends that journals have clearly defined procedures for allegations arising both before and after publication.
9.1 Stage 1: Receipt and Documentation
The editorial office records the allegation and relevant supporting information.
The identity of the person raising the concern will normally be kept confidential, subject to applicable legal requirements and the need to conduct a fair investigation.
9.2 Stage 2: Preliminary Assessment
The editor-in-chief or designated editor determines whether the concern:
- falls within the scope of publication or research ethics;
- appears credible and sufficiently supported to warrant further investigation;
- can be resolved through clarification or correction; or
- requires formal investigation.
The journal will distinguish, where possible, between genuine ethical concerns and legitimate scholarly disagreements.
The journal may also assess whether the person making the allegation has a potential conflict of interest.
9.3 Stage 3: Request for an Author Response
Where a concern is sufficiently credible to warrant investigation, the corresponding author will normally be contacted and asked to provide an explanation and relevant supporting documentation.
Where appropriate, all authors may be informed of the concern.
The journal may request:
- original data;
- statistical analyses;
- research protocols;
- ethics approval documentation;
- informed-consent documentation;
- authorship/contributorship information;
- image source files;
- relevant correspondence;
- information concerning previous or related publications.
Authors are expected to cooperate fully and respond within the specified period.
9.4 Stage 4: Editorial Assessment
The editor-in-chief, with appropriate members of the editorial team, will assess the response and available evidence.
Where necessary, the journal may seek independent expertise, including:
- statistical review;
- methodological review;
- image-integrity assessment;
- specialist scientific advice;
- independent editorial assessment.
The journal will avoid reaching conclusions solely on the basis of an allegation without considering the available evidence and the authors' response.
9.5 Stage 5: Referral to the Relevant Institution
Where the concern cannot be adequately resolved at journal level, or where the matter potentially constitutes serious research misconduct, RDME may refer the matter to the relevant institution, research ethics committee, employer, funder, or other competent authority.
Research institutions are generally better positioned than journals to investigate matters requiring access to original research records, laboratory materials, institutional correspondence, or other primary evidence.
RDME will cooperate with legitimate institutional investigations and may request the outcome of such investigations where relevant to the integrity of the published record.
Where appropriate, RDME may issue an Expression of Concern while an investigation is ongoing.
10. Timeframe for Author Responses
Authors will normally be given up to two months to provide a substantive response to an allegation, unless the circumstances require a different timeframe.
The journal may extend this period when justified by the complexity of the case.
Failure to respond does not automatically establish misconduct; however, the journal may proceed with available evidence and, where appropriate, refer the matter to the relevant institution or authority.
11. Corrective and Disciplinary Actions
The action taken by RDME will depend on the nature, extent, evidence, and consequences of the concern.
Possible actions include:
11.1 Before Publication
Where misconduct or a serious ethical problem is identified before publication, RDME may:
- reject the manuscript;
- terminate the peer-review process;
- request clarification or correction;
- notify the authors' institution or other relevant authority where appropriate;
- restrict future submissions in serious cases.
11.2 Correction
A correction may be published when an article contains a material error that can be accurately corrected without invalidating the main findings or conclusions.
Corrections may be appropriate for both author-generated errors and errors introduced during publication.
11.3 Expression of Concern
An Expression of Concern may be published when substantial concerns exist about the reliability or integrity of an article but the available evidence is insufficient to justify immediate retraction, particularly while an institutional investigation is ongoing.
An Expression of Concern does not itself constitute a finding of misconduct.
11.4 Retraction
Retraction may be appropriate when an article is found to be unreliable because of serious error or misconduct, including circumstances in which:
- the reported results cannot be considered reliable;
- major errors invalidate the findings or conclusions;
- substantial fabrication or falsification is established;
- substantial plagiarism has occurred;
- the work has been published elsewhere in circumstances that make the publication redundant or misleading;
- serious ethical violations occurred in the conduct of the research;
- other circumstances meet recognized criteria for retraction.
Retraction decisions will be made as promptly as reasonably possible once sufficient evidence is available.
A retracted article will remain part of the scholarly record but will be clearly identified as RETRACTED. The retraction notice and original article will be electronically linked, and the reason for retraction will be stated as clearly as possible.
12. Restrictions on Future Submissions
In serious cases of confirmed misconduct, RDME may restrict an author's ability to submit manuscripts to the journal for a defined period.
The duration and nature of any restriction will be proportionate to the circumstances and seriousness of the misconduct.
Any such decision will be documented and may take into account:
- the seriousness of the misconduct;
- whether the misconduct was intentional;
- whether the conduct was repeated;
- the extent of harm to the scholarly record;
- cooperation with the investigation;
- corrective action taken by the authors.
Restrictions will not ordinarily be imposed solely on the basis of an allegation that has not been adequately substantiated.
13. Notification of Institutions and Other Authorities
Where appropriate, RDME may notify:
- the author's institution;
- the relevant research ethics committee;
- a funding agency;
- another journal affected by the misconduct;
- a professional or regulatory body; or
- another competent authority.
Such communication will normally occur where the seriousness of the concern warrants institutional investigation or where notification is necessary to protect the integrity of the research record.
14. Reviewer and Editorial Misconduct
The same principles of research and publication integrity apply to reviewers, editors, and editorial board members.
Examples of reviewer or editorial misconduct include:
- unauthorized disclosure of manuscript contents;
- appropriation of authors' ideas, data, or unpublished results;
- use of confidential manuscript information for personal or professional advantage;
- fabrication of reviewer identities;
- submission of fraudulent or manipulated peer reviews;
- inappropriate manipulation of citations;
- undisclosed conflicts of interest;
- unauthorized use of AI tools in ways that compromise manuscript confidentiality.
Reviewers must maintain confidentiality and must not use knowledge obtained through peer review for personal or professional advantage.
Where misconduct by a reviewer or editor is established, RDME may:
- terminate the person's involvement in the manuscript;
- remove the person from the journal's reviewer database or editorial board;
- notify the individual's institution;
- review manuscripts or decisions potentially affected by the misconduct;
- take other appropriate corrective action.
15. Image Manipulation
RDME may use appropriate image-integrity screening tools when warranted.
Suspected image manipulation will be assessed in context. Authors may be asked to provide:
- original image files;
- raw data;
- information regarding image acquisition and processing;
- an explanation of any adjustments made.
Appropriate image processing that does not distort or misrepresent the underlying data may be acceptable when transparently reported.
Where inappropriate manipulation is confirmed, the journal may reject the manuscript or, for published articles, issue a correction, Expression of Concern, or retraction depending on the circumstances.
16. Concerns Regarding Published Articles
Concerns regarding the integrity of an article may be raised at any time after publication.
The age of an article does not, by itself, prevent RDME from investigating concerns or correcting the scholarly record.
Depending on the evidence available, RDME may:
- request clarification from the authors;
- request underlying data or documentation;
- consult independent experts;
- contact the relevant institution;
- publish a correction;
- publish an Expression of Concern;
- retract the article.
Where original data are unavailable, the journal will assess the concern based on the evidence that can reasonably be obtained.
17. Systematic or Coordinated Manipulation of the Publication Process
RDME recognizes that publication misconduct may sometimes involve coordinated or systematic practices, including:
- paper mills;
- fabricated or manipulated reviewer identities;
- fraudulent peer review;
- systematic citation manipulation;
- fabricated data or images;
- coordinated submission of substantially similar manuscripts;
- other attempts to circumvent editorial or peer-review safeguards.
Where such concerns arise, RDME may apply relevant COPE guidance and investigate patterns across manuscripts rather than treating each manuscript in isolation.
18. Confidentiality and Data Protection
All parties involved in an ethics investigation are expected to maintain confidentiality.
Information obtained during an investigation will be shared only with individuals who need access to it for legitimate editorial, investigative, legal, or institutional purposes.
The journal will take reasonable steps to protect:
- confidential manuscript information;
- personal information;
- research data;
- identities of complainants and respondents;
- peer-review information.
Confidentiality may be limited where disclosure is required by law or necessary for a fair and legitimate investigation.
19. Principles Governing RDME's Decisions
All investigations and editorial actions will be guided by the following principles:
Confidentiality
Ethics concerns will be handled discreetly and information will be shared only when necessary.
Impartiality
Decisions will be based on evidence rather than personal relationships, institutional affiliation, seniority, or academic status.
Fair Opportunity to Respond
Authors and other individuals whose conduct is questioned will normally be given an opportunity to provide an explanation and supporting evidence.
Proportionality
The journal's response will be proportionate to the seriousness and consequences of the concern.
Transparency
Where appropriate, decisions affecting the published record will be documented and communicated transparently.
Protection of the Scholarly Record
RDME's primary responsibility is to preserve the accuracy, reliability, and integrity of the published literature.
Protection Against Retaliation
Individuals who raise concerns in good faith should not be subjected to retaliation because they have reported a legitimate publication-ethics concern.
20. Appeals and Complaints
Authors may raise a formal appeal against an editorial decision in accordance with RDME's appeals procedure.
Complaints concerning the conduct of the journal, editors, reviewers, or publication process should be submitted through the journal's designated editorial contact.
Complaints and appeals will be handled independently and fairly, with reference to applicable journal policies and relevant COPE guidance.
21. Responsibilities of Authors, Reviewers, and Editors
Authors
Authors are expected to:
- conduct and report research honestly;
- provide accurate and complete information;
- meet the journal's authorship requirements;
- disclose relevant conflicts of interest;
- obtain required ethical approvals;
- report AI-assisted technologies appropriately;
- preserve relevant research data and documentation;
- cooperate with reasonable editorial investigations;
- notify the journal promptly if a significant error is identified after publication.
Reviewers
Reviewers are expected to:
- maintain confidentiality;
- provide objective, constructive, and evidence-based assessments;
- disclose relevant conflicts of interest;
- avoid using unpublished information for personal advantage;
- respect the intellectual property of authors;
- comply with RDME's requirements concerning AI-assisted review.
Editors and Editorial Board Members
Editors are expected to:
- make decisions based on scholarly merit and ethical standards;
- manage conflicts of interest;
- maintain confidentiality;
- investigate credible ethical concerns;
- follow appropriate COPE guidance;
- correct the published record when necessary;
- avoid discrimination or preferential treatment based on institutional affiliation, seniority, nationality, gender, or other irrelevant characteristics.
22. Agreement to the Publication Ethics Policy
Submission of a manuscript to Research and Development in Medical Education (RDME) constitutes acknowledgement that the authors have read and agree to comply with this Publication Ethics and Research Misconduct Policy.
Authors confirm that:
- the submitted work is original to the extent stated;
- the manuscript is not simultaneously under consideration elsewhere unless explicitly disclosed;
- all authors meet the journal's authorship requirements;
- relevant conflicts of interest have been disclosed;
- required ethical approvals and participant protections have been addressed;
- sources and contributions have been appropriately acknowledged;
- any relevant use of AI-assisted technologies has been disclosed;
- the information provided to the journal is accurate and complete.
Reviewers, editors, and editorial board members are likewise expected to comply with the journal's publication-ethics standards and to report credible concerns regarding research or publication misconduct to the editorial office.
RDME reserves the right to take appropriate corrective or disciplinary action when these standards are violated, consistent with the evidence available, applicable institutional or national requirements, and relevant COPE and ICMJE guidance.