Why editor ethics matters
Editors shape the reliability of the scientific record. Your decisions influence what clinicians read, what patients ultimately benefit from, and how research communities evolve. Ethical editing means: (1) making decisions based on scholarly merit, (2) preventing bias and conflicts from distorting outcomes, (3) keeping peer review confidential and respectful, and (4) correcting the literature when errors or misconduct are discovered.
AAAI describes a double-blind peer review process where Editor-in-Chiefs perform initial screening, assign at least two reviewers, and make final decisions after analyzing reviewer reports. Ethical conduct is therefore embedded across the entire editorial workflow.
Minimum standards editors are expected to follow
COPE’s Code of Conduct and Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors provides widely adopted minimum standards for editorial behavior, including fairness, independence, handling conflicts of interest, confidentiality, and ethical oversight.
Core principles for AAAI editors
| Editorial independence | Decisions must be made on scholarly merit and journal scope—free from commercial, personal, or institutional pressure. If you feel pressured, escalate to the Editor-in-Chief (EIC) and document the concern. COPE emphasizes editors’ independence and accountability. |
|---|---|
| Fairness and non-discrimination | Evaluate submissions without bias based on nationality, gender, seniority, or institutional ranking. Apply consistent standards to similar manuscripts. |
| Confidentiality | Manuscripts are privileged communications. Protect author and reviewer identities (double-blind review) and do not share submissions, reviews, or editorial discussions outside authorized channels. ICMJE highlights confidentiality obligations in peer review. |
| Integrity and due process | Respond to suspected misconduct using proportionate, documented steps. COPE guidance notes that editors should pursue credible concerns, while institutional investigations are typically led by the authors’ institutions. |
| Stewardship after publication | Correct the record when needed (corrections, expressions of concern, retractions). Handle reader complaints and post-publication critique seriously. |
Conflicts of interest: identify, disclose, recuse
Editorial conflicts of interest (COI) can be financial, professional, or personal. Even if you believe you can be “objective,” the appearance of a conflict can damage trust. COI is not an accusation—it is a risk factor that must be managed.
Examples of editorial COI
- Recent collaboration or co-authorship with one of the authors.
- Same institution or close professional relationship (mentor/trainee, supervisor/reporting line).
- Active competition where a conflict could reasonably be perceived.
- Personal relationships (friendship, family, prior disputes).
- Financial ties related to the manuscript topic (consultancy, stock ownership, patents, paid speaking).
What to do
| If you are conflicted | Recuse yourself immediately and request reassignment to a non-conflicted editor. Do not suggest reviewers or influence the outcome informally. COPE editor guidance supports managing COI through transparent processes and recusal. |
|---|---|
| If a reviewer is conflicted | Replace the reviewer. If the conflict is discovered after review, disregard or heavily discount the report and seek additional independent reviews. |
| If an author’s COI disclosure is unclear | Request clarification and full disclosure. If disclosure is intentionally misleading, treat as an integrity issue and escalate appropriately. |
Special issues require stronger COI safeguards
AAAI special-issue guidance highlights that the Lead Guest Editor should ensure the manuscript is not giving rise to any conflict before proceeding with review, and that editors must follow the journal’s ethics instructions and policies.
Ethics in double-blind peer review
AAAI’s peer review policy states that the journal uses double-blind peer review, where both author and reviewer identities are concealed throughout review. Authors are asked to submit two files—one Title Page with author details and one manuscript with no author details—to facilitate blinding.
Editor responsibilities in a double-blind system
- Enforce blinding: If author identities appear in the blinded file (institution names, acknowledgments, self-referential phrasing), request a clean version before review.
- Prevent “identity probing”: Do not allow reviewers to demand identity disclosure or to “guess” authors. Remove such content from reports before sharing with authors.
- Protect reviewer anonymity: Never reveal reviewer identities in decision letters or author communications.
- Moderate tone: Screen reports for unprofessional language. Editors should not transmit insults or discriminatory remarks.
- Do not game peer review: Avoid choosing reviewers who are “guaranteed to accept.” Choose reviewers who can genuinely assess rigor and relevance.
Decisions must be consistent and documented
AAAI describes four decision options: no modifications, minor modifications, major modifications, or rejection. Use these categories consistently and explain your reasoning in plain language.
Handling suspected misconduct and serious concerns
Editors must take credible concerns seriously, while also protecting due process. A good ethics response is: timely, proportionate, documented, and consistent with recognized guidance.
Common concerns editors may face
- Plagiarism / overlap: unattributed copying, excessive reuse, or redundant publication.
- Fabrication or falsification: invented or manipulated data, suspicious statistics, inconsistent datasets.
- Image manipulation: duplicated bands, altered microscopy, inappropriate enhancement.
- Authorship problems: ghost authorship, guest authorship, undisclosed contributions, disputes.
- Ethics approval / consent gaps: missing approvals for human/animal research, privacy/consent failures.
- Peer review manipulation: fake reviewer identities, coerced citations, or review rings.
A practical ethics-handling workflow
| Step 1: Pause (when needed) | If the concern could affect reliability or ethics compliance, pause review or production. Inform the editorial office/EIC that an integrity check is underway. |
|---|---|
| Step 2: Gather evidence | Request clarifications, raw data, ethics approvals, trial registration details, or image originals. Keep communications professional and neutral (avoid accusatory language). |
| Step 3: Escalate appropriately | COPE notes that while editors should pursue suspected misconduct, investigations are often carried out by the authors’ institutions. When a serious concern persists, contact institutions or ethics bodies through official channels. |
| Step 4: Decide and document | Decide on rejection, revision with documentation, or (post-publication) correction/notice. Keep a clear record of evidence and reasons. |
Plagiarism screening is part of integrity safeguards
AAAI’s policies describe use of plagiarism detection tools (e.g., iThenticate) to support ethical publication practices and protect reliability.
Legal, rights, and risk-aware editing
Ethical editing also includes being risk-aware about legal and rights-sensitive issues. Editors should avoid defamatory statements in decision letters, not accuse authors of misconduct without evidence, and refer serious cases to formal processes.
AAAI’s legacy withdrawal policy text references legal requirements (e.g., libel and copyright infringement) as considerations when making decisions about article removal or related actions.
Practical safeguards
- Use neutral language: “We identified substantial overlap” rather than “You plagiarized.”
- Protect patient privacy: Remove identifying information; ensure consent statements are adequate.
- Copyright awareness: Ensure permissions/attributions for reused figures or substantial content.
- Escalate sensitive cases: For legal-risk cases, involve the journal’s senior editorial leadership and publisher processes.
Appeals, complaints, and grievances
Ethical editing includes a fair process for appeals and complaints. Authors may disagree with decisions; some complaints raise legitimate concerns about reviewer bias, factual errors, or misunderstandings. Editors should respond respectfully and without defensiveness.
How to handle appeals ethically
- Be transparent about scope: Clarify what can be reconsidered (e.g., new evidence, demonstrated reviewer error) and what cannot (e.g., disagreement alone).
- Seek independent reassessment: Consider a second editor’s view or additional review when the appeal raises substantial technical issues.
- Document the outcome: Record the appeal reasoning and final resolution for auditability.
Post-publication ethics: corrections, concerns, and retractions
Ethical obligations continue after publication. When errors are discovered, editors should act to correct the record. The response should be proportional to the severity and impact of the problem.
Choosing the right post-publication action
| Correction | For honest errors that do not invalidate the main findings (e.g., mislabeled figure, minor calculation error, missing disclosure). Corrections should clearly state what changed and link to the original. |
|---|---|
| Expression of concern | For serious unresolved concerns where an investigation is ongoing or evidence remains incomplete. Communicate what is in doubt without speculation. |
| Retraction | For unreliable findings due to major error or misconduct, unethical research, or substantial redundant publication. Retraction notices should be factual, specific, and linked. |
AAAI has defined reasons and procedures for article withdrawal
AAAI’s withdrawal policy discusses ethical violations (e.g., multiple submissions, false authorship claims, plagiarism) and other reasons why articles may be withdrawn, emphasizing editor awareness and compliance considerations.
Frequently asked questions
What ethical rules guide AAAI editors day to day?
Editors should follow AAAI’s policies (peer review, plagiarism, withdrawal) and widely used publication-ethics guidance such as COPE’s Code of Conduct for Journal Editors.
How do we keep the double-blind peer review truly blind?
Ensure authors provide separate files (Title Page and blinded manuscript) and remove identifiers from the review version. AAAI’s peer review policy describes this approach.
What if I suspect misconduct but I’m not sure?
Pause, gather evidence, and escalate proportionately. COPE guidance notes that editors should pursue credible concerns and that institutions typically conduct formal investigations.
Are special-issue editors held to the same ethical standards?
Yes. AAAI special-issue guidance states that guest editors must follow the journal’s instructions, including editorial policy, code of ethics, and reviewer guidance.
Can I share a manuscript with a colleague to get advice?
Generally no, unless the journal explicitly authorizes it and confidentiality safeguards are in place. Peer review materials are treated as confidential communications in major guidance.
