Policy on Allegations of Scientific Misconduct

The ACMM is committed to upholding the highest standards of scientific integrity. All allegations of misconduct, whether arising during the pre-publication or post-publication phase, are subject to a rigorous investigation. The ACMM consider the following actions by authors as a form of scientific misconduct (whether intentional or not) and will result in the rejection of the submitted manuscript: Data fabrication, Data falsification, Plagiarism, Redundant publication, Improper authorship, Undisclosed conflicts of interest, Violation of research ethics.

A full description of these actions is found on the Council of science editors’ website.

ACMM process for handling Allegations of Scientific Misconduct:

  1. Raising concerns: in the pre-publication phase, the handling editor or manuscript reviewers can raise concernes about any possibility of scientific misconduct by email to the editor-in-chief. The email must include all information available for the purpose of assessment. In the post-publication phase
  2. Initial assessment by the Editor-in-chief: a preliminary review is performed by the editor-in-chief to determine if the allegations are possible and to decide if further investigation is required. If allegations are credible, the manuscript will be placed on hold and relevant parties (authors, reviewers) notified.
  3. Further investigation: If required, a formal inquiry may be initiated, and can involve external experts based on the editorial board suggestions. Authors will be given an opportunity to respond to the results of investigation. Investigations will follow principles of confidentiality, transparency and fairness.
  4. Outcomes and Actions depending on the investigation results:
  • No Misconduct: Manuscript proceeds through normal editorial process.
  • Confirmed Misconduct: Actions may include rejection, retraction, notification to institutions, and banning future submissions. all retractions and corrections will be published in the journal transparently.
  • Corrections: If errors are honest but significant, a correction or erratum may be issued.
  1. Appeal process: Authors may appeal the journal decision by submitting a formal request to the editor-in-chief supported with relevant documentation.
  2. Record Keeping: All documentation related to the misconduct investigations should be retained for a minimum of five years.