Purpose of this statement

The credibility of medical and life-science research depends on trust: readers must be confident that published work is original, ethically conducted, accurately reported, and evaluated fairly. In respiratory medicine, immunology, and allergy research, published findings can influence clinical practice, public health strategies, and patient education. For that reason, Archives of Asthma, Allergy and Immunology (AAAI) maintains an Ethics and Malpractice Statement that defines expected behavior and provides a transparent pathway for addressing concerns.

This statement complements other journal policies including Peer Review Policy, Plagiarism Policy, Editorial Policies, Withdrawal Policy, and the journal’s broader Publication Ethics documents. Together, these policies provide a consistent framework for preventing misconduct, responding to allegations, and protecting the scholarly record.

Ethical values and standards

AAAI promotes internationally recognized best practices for publication ethics, including the principles commonly associated with COPE-style guidance, responsible authorship, and transparent peer review administration. The journal’s ethics approach is built on five pillars:

• Honesty: accurate representation of methods, data, analyses, and conclusions.
• Transparency: full disclosure of conflicts, funding, and relevant relationships; clear reporting of limitations.
• Respect: ethical treatment of human participants and animals; protection of patient privacy.
• Accountability: clear authorship contributions, data stewardship, and responsiveness to post-publication concerns.
• Fairness: unbiased editorial decisions and respectful review communication.

AAAI expects all participants—authors, reviewers, editors, and the publisher—to uphold these standards. The journal may take action when standards are not met, including rejection, correction, retraction, or notification to relevant institutions where appropriate.

Responsibilities of authors

Authors are responsible for ensuring that submitted work is original, ethically conducted, and reported in a way that allows readers to evaluate the evidence. Because AAAI publishes open-access content, the reach of an article can be wide; errors and misconduct therefore have broader consequences.

Authorship integrity

• Genuine contribution: all listed authors must have made a meaningful scholarly contribution and must approve the final version.
• No ghost or guest authorship: contributions must not be concealed, and authorship must not be granted to individuals who did not contribute.
• Order and changes: changes to author list/order after submission require justification and written agreement from all authors.

Originality and duplicate publication

• Original work: manuscripts must be original and not copied from other sources without proper citation.
• No simultaneous submission: do not submit the same work to multiple journals at the same time.
• Transparent overlap: if the work overlaps with a preprint, thesis, abstract, or related paper, disclose this clearly at submission.

Data integrity and reproducibility

• Accurate reporting: results must not be fabricated, falsified, or selectively misrepresented.
• Record retention: keep source data and approvals; editors may request documentation to clarify concerns.
• Methods clarity: describe methods sufficiently for evaluation and replication where feasible.

Ethics approvals and patient privacy

For studies involving human participants, authors should provide ethics committee approval details (where applicable) and informed consent statements. For case reports, authors must protect patient privacy and obtain consent when identifying information could be inferred. For animal studies, authors should confirm ethical oversight and adherence to relevant standards.

Conflicts of interest and funding

Authors must disclose financial and non-financial conflicts that could influence interpretation. Funding sources and the role of funders should be disclosed. Transparency allows readers to interpret the work appropriately and protects authors from later allegations of hidden influence.

Responsibilities of reviewers

Peer reviewers provide independent assessment of validity, clarity, and significance. Reviewers should evaluate manuscripts fairly and maintain confidentiality. AAAI expects reviewers to treat manuscripts as privileged communications and not to use unpublished ideas or data for personal advantage.

• Confidentiality: do not share manuscripts or discuss them outside the review process.
• Objectivity: focus critiques on evidence and methodology; avoid personal remarks.
• Conflict disclosure: decline reviews where conflicts may impair impartiality.
• Timeliness: accept assignments only if you can meet deadlines; communicate promptly if delays occur.
• Integrity alerts: flag suspected plagiarism, image manipulation, unethical research, or major reporting gaps to editors.

Responsibilities of editors

Editors have a duty to act independently, fairly, and transparently. They oversee peer review, resolve conflicts, and protect the scholarly record. Editorial decisions should be based on scientific merit, ethical compliance, and fit with the journal’s aims and scope—not on personal relationships or commercial considerations.

Editorial fairness and independence

• Impartial decisions: evaluate manuscripts without discrimination based on nationality, institution, race, gender, or beliefs.
• Conflict management: recuse from handling manuscripts where conflicts exist; reassign to another editor.
• Quality control: ensure appropriate peer review and integrity checks before acceptance.
• Confidentiality: do not disclose manuscript content or reviewer identities improperly.
• Transparent communication: provide clear decision reasons and guidance for revisions.

Handling concerns and investigations

When concerns arise (plagiarism, image manipulation, authorship disputes, unethical research, or data fabrication), editors may request documentation, consult expert reviewers, and follow a structured integrity process. If necessary, editors may contact institutions or relevant bodies to clarify facts. The goal is proportional response: protecting readers while respecting due process.

Publication malpractice and misconduct

AAAI treats publication malpractice seriously. Examples include, but are not limited to:

• Plagiarism: copying text, ideas, or figures without attribution; self-plagiarism without disclosure; improper paraphrasing.
• Data fabrication or falsification: inventing results, altering data points, manipulating images in misleading ways.
• Duplicate submission/publication: submitting the same work to multiple journals or republishing without transparency.
• Authorship misconduct: ghost authorship, guest authorship, coercive authorship, or undisclosed writing assistance.
• Peer review manipulation: fake reviewer identities, compromised reviewer suggestions, or interference with reviewer independence.
• Undisclosed conflicts: hiding financial ties, sponsorship influence, or other competing interests.
• Ethics violations: missing approvals, lack of consent where required, privacy breaches, or non-compliance with animal welfare standards.

How AAAI responds to ethical concerns

AAAI follows a proportional integrity process. Actions may occur before publication (during screening or peer review) or after publication (post-publication stewardship). The exact steps depend on severity and evidence.

Typical process (plain-language)

• Initial assessment: the editorial office reviews the allegation or signal (e.g., plagiarism report, reader concern).
• Author contact: authors may be asked for clarification, raw data, approvals, or explanations.
• Expert review: editors may consult independent experts for technical evaluation.
• Decision: outcomes may include rejection, correction request, expression of concern, or retraction.
• Record update: if an article is corrected or retracted, the journal updates the public record transparently.

Possible outcomes

Reporting concerns, complaints, and whistleblowing

AAAI welcomes responsible reporting of ethical concerns. If you suspect misconduct or malpractice related to a manuscript or published article, you may contact the editorial office. Provide clear evidence where possible: article URL/DOI, specific passages, figures, or data concerns, and any supporting documentation.

For process disputes or service issues, the journal maintains a formal complaints pathway (Grievances Policy). For serious integrity allegations, the editorial office may handle the matter through a dedicated ethics review workflow.

Building an ethical publishing culture

AAAI views ethics as more than enforcement—it is culture. The journal supports ethical practice by: setting clear expectations, encouraging transparent reporting, maintaining respectful communication, and correcting the record when needed. The journal also promotes education about best practices (e.g., data presentation, citation accuracy, patient privacy).

Authors can support this culture by submitting clean, complete manuscripts; reviewers can support it by providing thoughtful, evidence-based feedback; editors support it by maintaining independence and consistency.