How these standards apply
These Ethical Standards for Authors apply to every submission type in AAAI (original research, reviews, case reports, editorials, short communications, and special issue submissions). They work together with the journal’s submission and review requirements—such as online submission, plagiarism screening, and double-blind peer review.
If an ethical concern is raised (for example, plagiarism, authorship disputes, undisclosed conflicts of interest, or complaints about the review process), AAAI may apply its grievances/complaints pathways and publication policies, and may suspend processing until the concern is resolved.
Core principle
Authors are responsible for ensuring that the manuscript is accurate, ethically conducted, and transparently reported—before it reaches reviewers and readers.
Authorship, contributorship, and accountability
AAAI expects authorship to reflect real scholarly contribution and accountability. Submissions must be made by one of the authors (not by an unlisted third party), and the submitting author is responsible for responding to editorial queries.
Who qualifies as an author?
AAAI aligns with widely adopted medical-journal authorship standards. The International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) recommends that authorship be based on four criteria: substantial contribution, drafting/reviewing the work, final approval, and accountability for the work. If someone contributed but does not meet authorship criteria, they should be acknowledged (with permission).
| Avoid guest, gift, and ghost authorship | Do not add authors who did not contribute, and do not omit contributors who qualify for authorship. If an authorship concern is raised, it may be treated as an ethical complaint. |
|---|---|
| Define contributions | Clearly describe what each author did (e.g., concept/design, data collection, analysis, drafting, supervision). AAAI may request clarification during review. |
| Corresponding author responsibilities | The corresponding author should coordinate co-author approvals, manage data/material availability, and ensure that all disclosures are complete and accurate. |
Authorship changes after submission
Requests to add/remove/reorder authors after submission must be justified in writing and approved by all co-authors. Unresolved disputes may delay review or require institutional input. COPE provides guidance on handling authorship disputes and concerns.
Originality, duplicate submission, and prior publication
AAAI requires that submissions be original and not under review elsewhere. Legacy submission guidance advises authors that the manuscript should not be under review for publication elsewhere and should not be submitted to another publisher during the review period.
- No duplicate submission: Do not submit the same (or substantially similar) manuscript to multiple journals simultaneously.
- Transparent prior dissemination: If the work has appeared as a preprint, thesis, conference abstract, or dataset, disclose this at submission.
- Redundant publication risks: AAAI’s withdrawal policy notes that ethical violations can include multiple submissions and similar misconduct.
Preprints and early sharing
Posting a preprint can support rapid dissemination, but authors must disclose it and ensure that journal submission does not violate licensing or prior agreements. If in doubt, disclose and ask the editorial office.
Plagiarism, citation integrity, and text recycling
AAAI states that it is committed to protecting the reliability of scholarly work and uses iThenticate plagiarism screening. If plagiarism is detected at any stage (before or after acceptance), authors may be asked to rewrite content, add citations, or the paper may be rejected depending on severity.
What authors must do
- Cite the original source when using ideas, wording, figures, or data from other works.
- Use quotations sparingly and only with clear attribution where appropriate.
- Avoid excessive self-reuse (text recycling) without citation, especially in Results/Discussion.
- Do not manipulate citations to inflate metrics; reference only what is relevant and actually used.
Plagiarism screening is routine
By submitting a manuscript, authors agree that it may be screened for plagiarism against published works.
Human participants, animals, and research approvals
Research involving humans or identifiable human data must be conducted ethically, with appropriate oversight. Internationally recognized standards include the World Medical Association’s Declaration of Helsinki, which requires free and informed consent and careful protections for identifiable or re-identifiable data.
Human studies: approvals and consent
- Ethics committee/IRB approval: Include the committee name, approval ID/code, and date (or state why formal approval was not required).
- Informed consent: Confirm that informed consent was obtained (or explain legally valid alternatives for retrospective data, where applicable).
- Privacy: Remove direct identifiers and avoid publishing sensitive patient details unless essential and consented.
Case reports and patient images
If a manuscript includes identifiable patient information (photographs, rare combinations of details, or recognizable imaging), authors must obtain written consent for publication and retain it. Many medical publishers require consent to be retained by the author and provided only if requested in exceptional circumstances.
Animal studies
Animal research must follow institutional and national regulations and include a clear statement of ethics approval and welfare standards. AAAI articles commonly include “statement of ethics” sections that identify the approving committee and adherence to animal care standards.
Clinical transparency: say what you did and why
Reviewers and readers should be able to see that human and animal studies were designed to minimize harm, protect privacy, and follow legitimate oversight and consent requirements.
Data integrity, image integrity, and reproducibility
Authors must report results honestly and maintain original data and materials so that findings can be verified. If concerns arise, authors may be asked to provide clarifications, raw data, or source files. Failure to cooperate may result in rejection or post-publication actions.
Data integrity expectations
- No fabrication or falsification: Do not invent data, alter outcomes, or misrepresent methods.
- Keep records: Retain raw data, protocols, and approvals for a reasonable period after publication.
- Describe methods fully: Ensure materials and methods allow replication where feasible.
- Data availability: Provide a data availability statement (e.g., available on request, repository link, or restricted access justification).
Image manipulation
Limited, uniform adjustments for clarity may be acceptable, but manipulation that changes meaning is unethical. COPE provides editorial guidance and workflows for addressing suspected inappropriate image manipulation. If image concerns arise, AAAI may request original images, uncropped gels/blots, or acquisition metadata.
What to retain (recommended)
Retain: raw images, original instrument output, analysis scripts, and versioned datasets. This protects authors if questions are raised and helps preserve trust in the record.
Conflicts of interest, funding, and acknowledgments
AAAI expects transparent disclosures so readers can interpret findings fairly. Journal articles commonly include conflict of interest statements and funding acknowledgments.
| Conflicts of Interest (COI) | Disclose any financial, professional, or personal relationships that could influence interpretation (e.g., consultancy, advisory roles, stock, speaker fees, patents, paid expert testimony). If none, state “The authors declare no competing interests.” |
|---|---|
| Funding | List all funding sources and grant numbers. If there was no external funding, state that explicitly. |
| Acknowledgments | Acknowledge non-author contributions (language editing, technical assistance, administrative support) and obtain permission from named individuals where appropriate. |
Disclosure quality matters
Undisclosed conflicts of interest are specifically listed among common complaint categories in AAAI’s grievances policy.
Author conduct during peer review
AAAI uses double-blind peer review and requests authors to submit a title page (with author details) and a blinded manuscript (without author details) as separate files. Authors should cooperate with editorial requests, respond respectfully to reviewer feedback, and avoid any attempt to influence reviewers improperly.
What we expect
- Confidentiality: Do not share reviewer comments publicly without permission.
- Respectful responses: Address comments with evidence and clarity; avoid personal attacks.
- Revision transparency: Provide a point-by-point response and highlight changes in the manuscript.
- Integrity of anonymity: Do not include identity-revealing information in the blinded file.
Why these rules exist
Double-blind review is designed to reduce bias and improve fairness. AAAI describes its peer review as systematic and based on editor screening, anonymous review, and revision.
Use of AI tools, editing services, and third-party assistance
AAAI supports language and formatting assistance that helps clarity, but authors remain fully responsible for the accuracy, originality, and integrity of the work. If AI tools or editing services are used, authors should ensure that:
- All claims are verified against primary sources and data.
- No confidential patient data or proprietary datasets are pasted into tools that may store prompts, unless appropriate agreements and approvals exist.
- Any substantial assistance is disclosed in acknowledgments (e.g., “language editing” or “statistical support”).
AI tools cannot be authors
Authorship implies accountability; an AI system cannot take responsibility for the work. Authors must meet accepted authorship criteria and remain accountable.
After publication: corrections, retractions, and withdrawals
The scientific record is a living record. If a significant error is discovered, authors must notify the editorial office promptly. AAAI’s withdrawal policy notes that ethical violations can include multiple submissions, false claims of authorship, and plagiarism—issues that may require corrective action.
What may happen if a serious concern is confirmed
- Correction: For honest errors that do not invalidate the main conclusions.
- Expression of concern: If an investigation is ongoing and readers need to be alerted.
- Retraction: For unreliable findings or serious ethical breaches (e.g., fabrication, plagiarism, undisclosed major conflict, unethical research).
Author cooperation is expected
If an ethics inquiry occurs, authors should respond promptly and provide requested supporting documentation (raw data, approvals, consents, and correspondence) where appropriate.
Complaints, disputes, and reporting concerns
AAAI maintains a grievances policy that allows authors to register complaints if they perceive misconduct related to policies or ethical instructions, and it lists common complaint categories such as plagiarism, copyright violations, deceptive results, undisclosed conflicts of interest, bias in review, and authorship issues.
If you need to raise a concern, provide the manuscript ID (or published article details), a clear description of the issue, and any evidence you can share responsibly. The editorial office may request additional clarification and may involve relevant stakeholders where necessary.
Good faith reporting
Concerns raised in good faith help maintain the accuracy and credibility of the literature. Retaliatory or bad-faith complaints may be declined.
Frequently asked questions
Does AAAI screen submissions for plagiarism?
Yes. AAAI states that it uses iThenticate to check plagiarism, and action may be taken at any stage of processing if plagiarism is detected.
What are the minimum ethics details I should include for human studies?
Include IRB/ethics committee approval details (committee name, approval ID/code, date) and confirm informed consent. International standards emphasize informed consent and protections for identifiable data.
How should we handle author contributions?
Assign authorship only to those who meet accepted criteria and clearly describe contributions. ICMJE defines four authorship criteria that emphasize contribution and accountability.
What if a conflict of interest exists?
Disclose it. Many AAAI articles publish COI statements, and undisclosed COIs are listed as a grievance category.
What if we discover an error after publication?
Contact the editorial office promptly. Depending on severity, the journal may publish a correction, expression of concern, or retraction.
