Why editor ethics matters
Editors influence which findings become part of the permanent scientific record. That influence creates a duty to act fairly, transparently, and consistently, while protecting the confidentiality of authors and reviewers. AAAI describes a double-blind peer review model in which editors screen submissions for suitability, assign at least two independent reviewers, and make a final decision based on reviewer reports. Ethical editorial conduct ensures that this process remains credible, efficient, and respectful—especially in medical fields where patient safety, public trust, and evidence-based care are at stake.
Best-practice standards used in this guidance
AAAI aligns its policies with common international publishing ethics frameworks such as COPE (editors’ best practice), WAME (medical editors’ responsibilities), ICMJE (submission and peer review responsibilities), and the Principles of Transparency & Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing (as hosted by DOAJ).
Editorial independence and impartiality
Editorial decisions must be based on scholarly merit: validity, originality, importance, clarity, and relevance to the journal’s scope—not on the author’s institution, country, seniority, or personal characteristics. Editorial independence means editors are protected from undue influence (commercial, political, or personal) and maintain consistent standards across submissions. Guidance for medical editors emphasizes fair evaluation and the editor’s responsibility to serve readers and the integrity of science.
What impartiality looks like in practice
- Scope-first triage: Desk decisions should be prompt for clearly off-scope submissions, with a respectful explanation.
- Method-first review: Focus reviewer selection on topic and method expertise, not reputation or affiliations.
- Consistency: Similar manuscripts should receive similar editorial thresholds and decision logic.
- No coercive citations: Editors must not pressure authors to cite irrelevant work to inflate metrics.
Transparency helps prevent conflicts between ethics and operations
The Principles of Transparency and Best Practice emphasize that journals should clearly describe editorial processes and avoid misleading practices, including how peer review is conducted and who is responsible for decisions.
Confidentiality and information security
Confidentiality is essential to double-blind peer review. Editors and editorial staff must protect the manuscript, associated data, peer review reports, and identities of authors and reviewers. ICMJE’s recommendations describe manuscripts as privileged communications and place strong emphasis on maintaining confidentiality in the peer review process.
Editor confidentiality rules
| Do not disclose identities | Do not reveal reviewer identities to authors or other parties. Do not reveal author identities to reviewers in a double-blind workflow, and request file corrections if the “blinded” manuscript contains identifying information. |
|---|---|
| Do not share manuscripts outside review | Only share the manuscript with those directly involved in editorial assessment: assigned editors, reviewers, and (when necessary) specialist advisers. Avoid forwarding manuscripts by email unless required and secure. |
| Use secure channels | Prefer journal systems or approved secure storage. Avoid copying full manuscripts into unprotected chat tools. Store reviewer files and raw data requests securely. |
| Avoid “informal peer review” | Do not seek informal opinions from colleagues who are not formally invited as reviewers (and have not agreed to confidentiality and COI checks). |
Use caution with AI tools and manuscript confidentiality
ICMJE cautions that peer review materials are confidential and should not be uploaded to systems that could compromise confidentiality. If you use any tools to assist with writing or summarizing, you must ensure no confidential manuscript content is exposed.
Conflicts of interest and recusal
Conflicts of interest (COI) can bias editorial decisions or create a perception of bias. Editors should avoid handling submissions where they have a conflict and must recuse themselves promptly. Medical editor responsibility guidance emphasizes managing conflicts of interest to protect trust in publishing.
Common editor COI examples
- Recent co-authorship with one or more authors (e.g., within the last 3–5 years)
- Same department/institution or close supervisory relationship (mentor/mentee)
- Personal relationships or disputes likely to affect judgment
- Financial interests tied to the outcome (e.g., consulting, patents, competing products)
- Direct competitive conflict in a high-stakes priority dispute
What recusal should look like
- Act fast: Recuse as soon as you notice a conflict—before reviewer selection.
- Transfer handling: Assign to a non-conflicted editor with relevant expertise.
- No informal influence: Do not suggest reviewers or comment on decisions after recusal.
- Document: Record that you recused and why (briefly) in the editorial system notes.
Why strict COI controls are important
Research on editorial COI practices shows that handling collaborators’ submissions can occur even where policies prohibit it—reinforcing the need for strong recusal norms and auditable workflows.
Peer review integrity and editor conduct
AAAI’s peer review policy describes a double-blind review process with editor screening and reviewer assignment, leading to editorial decisions such as no modifications, minor modifications, major modifications, or rejection. Editor ethics in peer review means: choosing qualified reviewers, preventing manipulation, and ensuring respectful, evidence-based feedback.
Preventing peer review manipulation
| Reviewer identity verification | Use institutional emails where possible, check publication history, and be cautious with reviewer suggestions that include non-institutional addresses or unusually fast/overly positive reviews. |
|---|---|
| Avoid over-reliance on author-suggested reviewers | Author suggestions can be useful but should be balanced with editor-selected reviewers and checked for conflicts. |
| Detect “template reviews” | Watch for generic praise, lack of method-specific critique, or language that mirrors the manuscript. If suspected, seek a new reviewer. |
| Keep the editor in control | Reviewers advise; editors decide. Never accept a manuscript solely because a reviewer recommends acceptance. Document your own decision rationale. |
Respectful communication is an ethics requirement
Editors should not forward unprofessional reviewer language to authors. If a review contains personal attacks, discrimination, or sarcasm, moderate the text and address the reviewer (privately) about standards. This protects authors from harm while preserving valuable technical feedback.
Handling misconduct and serious ethical concerns
Editors must respond to credible concerns about plagiarism, redundant publication, data fabrication/falsification, image manipulation, unethical research, or authorship disputes. COPE provides widely used editor guidance for responding to allegations and for correcting the record when needed. AAAI also states it uses plagiarism checks (e.g., iThenticate) as part of integrity controls.
A practical investigation workflow
- Pause when necessary: If the concern could affect validity or ethics, pause peer review or production.
- Gather evidence: Request raw data, ethics approvals, trial registration, or image originals as appropriate.
- Seek advice: Use specialist reviewers (e.g., statistics, image integrity) when needed.
- Allow response: Give authors a clear opportunity to explain and correct, unless evidence is overwhelming.
- Escalate appropriately: For serious allegations, consider contacting institutions or following COPE-style processes.
- Document everything: Keep a record of evidence, correspondence, and decision logic.
Corrections, retractions, and withdrawals
AAAI’s withdrawal policy notes that ethical violations (e.g., plagiarism, multiple submissions, false authorship claims) may require editorial action. Post-publication stewardship may include correction or retraction depending on severity and reliability.
Appeals, complaints, and grievances
Ethical editorial practice includes responding to author complaints and appeals respectfully and consistently. Appeals should be considered when authors provide specific arguments (e.g., factual errors in reviews, misunderstanding of methods, or evidence of bias). Editors should not reconsider decisions based on pressure or repeated messaging without substance.
Good practice for appeals
- Separate emotion from evidence: Acknowledge the author’s concerns, then focus on technical points.
- Re-check the record: Review editor notes, reviews, and decision rationale for consistency.
- Seek an independent view: Assign an appeal to a non-conflicted senior editor when appropriate.
- Explain outcomes clearly: Whether the decision stands or changes, provide concise reasoning.
Ethics after publication: maintaining the record
Editor responsibilities do not end at acceptance. WAME notes editors should be willing to publish corrections, retractions, and critiques when needed to preserve integrity of the scholarly record. COPE also supports structured correction processes to address reliability concerns and maintain trust.
When to issue which notice (practical guidance)
| Correction | Use when an honest error is present but the core findings remain reliable (e.g., minor data or labeling errors, missing disclosure). Ensure corrections are linked and discoverable. |
|---|---|
| Expression of concern | Use when there is credible suspicion of major issues and an investigation is ongoing or incomplete. Be factual, specific, and careful to avoid speculation. |
| Retraction | Use when results are unreliable due to major error or misconduct, or when research is unethical. Retraction notices should remain factual, avoid defamatory language, and remain linked to the article. |
Special issues: ethics safeguards for guest editors
Special issues can amplify emerging topics, but also create ethical risks if standards are relaxed. AAAI’s special issue guidance emphasizes scope adherence, building a qualified editorial/reviewer team, and ensuring accept/reject decisions are supported with proper reasons.
The transparency principles also apply to special issues and require consistent editorial practices.
Minimum ethics safeguards for special issues
- No “fast lane”: Apply the same review rigor and integrity checks as regular issues.
- COI control: Guest editors must declare conflicts; conflicted manuscripts should be handled by an independent editor.
- Oversight: The Editor-in-Chief (or designated senior editor) retains authority to request additional review or reject submissions that do not meet standards.
- Documentation: Keep a clear audit trail of reviewer selection, revisions, and decision rationale.
Frequently asked questions
Does AAAI use double-blind peer review?
Yes. AAAI’s peer review policy describes double-blind peer review and editor screening followed by reviewer assignment and decision-making.
What is the editor’s most important confidentiality rule?
Do not disclose manuscript content or identities beyond those directly involved in editorial assessment. ICMJE emphasizes that manuscripts are privileged communications and confidentiality must be maintained in peer review.
How should editors handle plagiarism concerns?
Pause evaluation, assess overlap, request explanation and/or raw sources, and follow a structured ethics process. AAAI indicates plagiarism screening is used and COPE provides widely used editor guidance for misconduct handling.
What if an editor has a conflict of interest?
Recuse promptly and transfer handling to a non-conflicted editor. WAME emphasizes managing conflicts of interest to protect editorial integrity.
Are special issues held to the same ethics standards?
Yes. AAAI special issue materials emphasize scope adherence and reasoned accept/reject decisions, and the transparency principles apply to special issues as well.
