Policy Owner: Scholarly Integrity and Standards Office
Contact: standards@scholarscribe.com
The Scholar-Scribe anchors publishing operations in research integrity, procedural fairness, and respect for participants, communities, and the scholarly record. Every submission is expected to demonstrate ethical readiness, transparent reporting, and responsible authorship. Editorial assessment and peer review operate under published standards so that outcomes remain consistent, explainable, and defensible.
Authorship must represent genuine intellectual contribution and accountability. The Scholar-Scribe requires that listed authors can each take responsibility for the integrity of the work within their contribution domain, and that the author group collectively takes responsibility for the overall integrity of the manuscript.
Contributorship disclosure is required to prevent hidden authorship, guest authorship, and undisclosed third-party involvement. Each submission must include a clear description of contributions across core activities such as study design, data acquisition, analysis, interpretation, drafting, and critical revision. Where group authorship applies, the method of attribution must be explicit, and corresponding accountability points must be identifiable.
Authorship changes after submission are controlled. Additions, removals, and reorderings must be justified, agreed by all authors, and approved through editorial governance. Requests that cannot be validated through documentation and consensus may trigger an integrity review.
Similarity screening is performed to protect originality, attribution integrity, and the reliability of the scholarly record. Screening may occur at initial checks, pre-review, post-revision, and pre-publication. Similarity scores are not treated as final judgments. Editorial evaluation focuses on the nature of overlaps, the presence of proper citation, and the possibility of unattributed reuse.
Unacceptable practices include verbatim copying without quotation and attribution, close paraphrase without citation, translated plagiarism, and systematic reuse of text across multiple publications without appropriate disclosure. Legitimate reuse, such as standard method phrases or legally required wording, must remain proportionate and properly referenced.
Submissions must not be under consideration elsewhere. Duplicate submission undermines peer review resources and can distort the scholarly record. The Scholar-Scribe requires authors to confirm exclusivity at submission and to disclose any related manuscripts, preprints, conference abstracts, or prior versions.
Redundant publication, sometimes referred to as salami slicing, is prohibited when it fragments a single research programme into artificially separated outputs that obscure context, inflate apparent novelty, or create confusion about what evidence belongs to which claim. Secondary publication, where ethically and legally permissible, requires transparent disclosure and clear linkage to the primary record
Peer review relies on confidentiality, impartiality, and professional conduct. Reviewers must treat manuscripts as privileged documents. Content must not be shared, used for competitive advantage, or discussed outside the review process. Editorial teams apply confidentiality controls to protect authors and reviewers and to preserve procedural integrity.
Reviewer conduct must remain respectful and evidence-focused. Reviews must address methods, reporting clarity, validity threats, and claim proportionality. Reviews that contain personal remarks, identity-based assumptions, coercive citation demands, or vague dismissal may be moderated, returned for revision, or rejected.
Human participant research must demonstrate ethical approval or documented ethical exemption when applicable. The Scholar-Scribe requires clear statements describing the approving body, approval reference identifiers where available, and the consent approach. Consent language must match the study's risk profile and data practices, including the handling of sensitive data and participant confidentiality.
When consent is not feasible or not required under a legitimate ethics exemption, the justification must be explained and must be consistent with institutional policies and applicable ethical frameworks. Research involving vulnerable populations or elevated risk demands heightened transparency regarding safeguards and oversight.
Animal research must be ethically justified, scientifically necessary, and conducted under approved protocols consistent with recognized animal welfare expectations. The Scholar-Scribe requires statements describing ethical approval, welfare safeguards, and efforts to minimize harm, including humane endpoints where relevant.
Animal research reporting must also demonstrate methodological transparency. Under-reporting of housing conditions, intervention details, or welfare safeguards weakens interpretability and may trigger editorial concern.
The Scholar-Scribe treats misconduct concerns as integrity-sensitive matters requiring confidentiality, documentation, and procedural fairness. Concerns may include plagiarism, fabricated data, falsified results, manipulated images, unethical research conduct, undisclosed conflicts, authorship disputes, and peer review interference.
Whistleblowing channels are available for authors, reviewers, editors, and readers. Submissions must include adequate detail to enable assessment. Anonymous concerns may be considered when evidence is credible and specific. Retaliation against whistleblowers is prohibited. Where an investigation is required, the Scholar-Scribe may contact relevant institutions, funders, or oversight bodies consistent with the seriousness of the allegation and the available evidence.
The Scholar-Scribe operates under applicable sanctions and export control obligations that may restrict transactions, services, payments, or technology transfers to certain persons, entities, or jurisdictions. Compliance is treated as a legal and governance requirement, not as a discretionary business choice.
Where restrictions apply, processing of submissions, payments, licensing, or contracted services may be limited, delayed, or declined. Compliance review may require identity verification, institutional confirmation, or transaction screening. Any compliance-driven limitation is handled with procedural clarity and respectful communication, while preserving confidentiality and legal obligations.
Competing interests, also described as conflicts of interest, must be disclosed by authors, reviewers, and editors. Disclosures include financial relationships, personal relationships, professional rivalries, institutional affiliations, advisory roles, paid expert testimony, intellectual property interests, and any non-financial circumstances that could be perceived as influencing judgment.
Disclosures must be complete, current, and specific. The Scholar-Scribe expects disclosure at submission, updates at revision if circumstances change, and final confirmation before publication. When relevant, disclosures may be published alongside the article to support reader interpretation.
When a conflict risks impairing impartial judgment, recusal is required. Recusal may apply to reviewers, handling editors, section editors, and decision authorities. Conflict management may also include reassignment of handling roles, replacement of reviewers, and the use of additional independent review.
Conflict management protects fairness. The Scholar-Scribe treats conflict handling as a procedural safeguard, ensuring that decisions remain anchored in evidence quality and reporting clarity rather than proximity or competition.
Peer review models define identity visibility and disclosure practices. The Scholar-Scribe supports multiple models where appropriate to the journal or programme context, provided that the chosen model is stated clearly and applied consistently.
Double-blind peer review conceals author and reviewer identities to reduce bias. Single-blind peer review conceals reviewer identity while author identity is visible to reviewers. Open peer review may disclose reviewer identity, review content, or both, subject to policy design and consent controls.
Reviewer confidentiality is mandatory across all peer review models unless an open model explicitly states otherwise. Reviews must remain within scholarly boundaries: critique the work, not the individuals. Reviewers must declare conflicts promptly, avoid identity speculation, and refrain from requesting access to non-public data beyond reasonable editorial expectations.
The Scholar-Scribe expects reviews to be specific and actionable. Major issues must be clearly distinguished from minor refinements. Unsupported or sweeping claims in reviews may be returned for clarification to preserve decision quality.
A Data Availability Statement is required for research articles unless a journal or content type explicitly states an exception. The statement must describe whether data are available, where the data can be accessed, and what conditions apply. The statement must also clarify whether the data include sensitive elements and whether deidentification has been applied.
Data Availability Statements are treated as interpretive tools for readers and reproducibility tools for researchers. Vague statements are not acceptable. When data are not available, the statement must provide a clear, specific justification.
Data sharing expectations are defined by study type, discipline norms, participant protections, and legal constraints. The Scholar-Scribe supports responsible sharing that increases reproducibility without compromising privacy, consent boundaries, or legitimate restrictions.
When data sharing is feasible, structured deposit in a suitable repository is preferred, alongside sufficient metadata to enable reuse. Code, analytic scripts, and study materials are treated as essential reproducibility artifacts when they materially affect results. When feasible, materials should be made available with clear usage terms and version control.
Some data cannot be openly shared due to privacy, security, contractual restrictions, or legal limits. The Scholar-Scribe supports controlled access when it protects participants and preserves ethical boundaries. Controlled access statements must specify the access pathway, eligibility criteria, application process, and the conditions under which access may be granted.
When controlled access is used, sufficient methodological transparency remains required so that readers can evaluate validity without direct access to restricted data.
Reporting guidelines strengthen transparency by making essential elements visible and auditable. The Scholar-Scribe routes submissions toward appropriate reporting checklists based on study design. Where a checklist applies, authors must confirm usage and address key reporting items within the manuscript or in structured supplementary files.
Reporting compliance is treated as a quality requirement. Incomplete reporting may delay review, trigger revision requirements, or result in rejection when omissions undermine interpretability.
Study type is determined by design, not by author preference. Decision guidance clarifies common mappings:
Randomized trials should use CONSORT and related extensions when applicable.
Observational studies should use STROBE.
Systematic reviews should use PRISMA.
Prediction model studies using regression or machine learning should use TRIPOD plus AI where relevant.
When a study does not fit standard categories, authors must explain the design and identify the closest guideline rationale. Editorial teams may request additional reporting structure to preserve clarity.
Clinical trials must be registered prospectively in a publicly accessible registry before participant enrollment where applicable. Registration identifiers must be included in the manuscript.
Registration supports transparency by preventing undisclosed outcome switching and by making the existence and design of trials visible to the public record.
Clinical trial reports must include a data sharing statement that specifies whether deidentified individual participant data will be shared, what data will be shared, whether related documents will be available, when data will become available, the duration of availability, and access criteria. Data sharing statements must be explicit. Undecided positions are not acceptable in contexts that require a definitive statement.
Protocol transparency is treated as a foundation of interpretability. When a protocol exists, protocol availability should be stated, including where it can be accessed and whether it includes amendments. Protocol transparency strengthens trust by allowing readers to compare planned methods with executed methods.
A statistical analysis plan is a structured description of analytic intent, including outcome definitions, model specifications, handling of missing data, and planned sensitivity analyses. Where applicable, statistical analysis plan availability should be disclosed, including version timing relative to data unblinding or outcome observation. Transparency reduces analytic ambiguity and strengthens confidence in inference.
The Scholar-Scribe treats post-publication actions as stewardship of the scholarly record. When concerns arise, the objective is to correct the record promptly, preserve reader clarity, and prevent ongoing harm from unreliable findings.
Corrections are issued when an article remains broadly reliable but contains errors that require formal amendment. Correction notices must clearly identify what changed, why it changed, and how the correction affects interpretation. Corrections are linked bidirectionally to the original article so that readers encounter the full context.
Retractions are issued when findings are unreliable, when major ethical violations exist, or when publication integrity is compromised. Retraction notices must identify the retracted work clearly and remain accessible. Retractions are treated as part of record correction, not as punishment. The objective is to protect readers and preserve scholarly clarity.
An expression of concern may be issued as an interim notice when substantial questions exist and an investigation is ongoing, inconclusive, or delayed. Expressions of concern are used to alert readers that interpretation requires caution. Outcomes may later progress to correction, retraction, or resolution without further action, depending on evidence.
Metadata quality determines discoverability, citation accuracy, and long-term record integrity. The Scholar-Scribe treats metadata as a scholarly asset that must remain consistent, complete, and promptly updated when changes occur.
DOI registration and metadata relationships support linking among articles, datasets, corrections, retractions, versions, and supplementary objects. The Scholar-Scribe maintains cross-references so that readers and indexing systems can traverse the scholarly graph reliably.
Metadata updates are treated as an ongoing obligation. When metadata are incomplete or incorrect, records are corrected promptly to protect discoverability and attribution.
When a correction, retraction, or expression of concern is issued, metadata must be updated so that the status of the work is visible in both the landing page and metadata feeds. Bidirectional linking is maintained between the notice and the affected work. This ensures that downstream systems can signal article status accurately and that readers encounter the correct context.
Preservation protects scholarly continuity across technological change, platform transitions, and organizational evolution. The Scholar-Scribe treats preservation as an obligation to the academic community and to the integrity of citation.
Preservation strategy uses formal archiving arrangements and institutional-grade continuity planning. Preservation includes file integrity, metadata retention, and landing-page continuity to preserve citation stability. The Scholar-Scribe maintains preservation governance that ensures content remains retrievable and intelligible across time.
Retention periods reflect the permanence of the scholarly record. Published content is retained for long-term accessibility, subject to legal requirements and exceptional circumstances. When access models change, continuity measures protect stable resolution of identifiers, persistent linking, and reader clarity.
Metrics inform understanding of reach and engagement, yet metrics must be interpreted responsibly. The Scholar-Scribe treats metrics as contextual signals, not as substitutes for peer judgment or scientific validity.
Usage metrics describe readership activity such as views, downloads, and platform engagement. Usage patterns can support library decisions and portfolio stewardship. Usage metrics are presented with clear definitions and reporting boundaries so that interpretation remains disciplined.
Citation metrics describe referencing behaviour across the scholarly ecosystem. Citation metrics must be interpreted in light of discipline norms, publication age, access conditions, and community size. The Scholar-Scribe avoids presenting citation metrics as direct measures of quality.
Alternative metrics, sometimes called altmetrics, describe attention signals such as social and policy visibility. These metrics may indicate dissemination breadth, yet they do not establish methodological reliability. Alternative metrics are presented with interpretive caution and clear boundaries.
Rights and permissions protect lawful reuse while enabling legitimate academic dissemination. The Scholar-Scribe supports responsible reuse through clear permission workflows and licensing clarity
Permission requests are required when reuse exceeds the terms of the applicable license or legal exception. Requests must specify the content to be reused, the reuse context, the distribution scope, and whether commercial usage applies. Permission outcomes are documented to preserve clarity for authors, requesters, and downstream users.
Reuse licensing defines what may be copied, adapted, translated, redistributed, or republished. Licensing terms must be visible on the content landing page and must be stated with clarity so that users can comply without ambiguity.
Translations and syndication require controlled governance to preserve meaning, attribution integrity, and license compliance. Translation permissions must specify language, distribution channels, and fidelity expectations. Syndication agreements must protect version control, correction propagation, and accurate citation.
Commercial reuse, including reprints, promotional distribution, and third-party bundling, requires explicit permission and contractual clarity. Commercial reuse must preserve attribution, avoid misleading framing, and respect integrity notices such as corrections or retractions.
The Scholar-Scribe protects author rights while enabling lawful dissemination. Licensing choices define reuse boundaries and open access visibility. Open access is treated as an access model, not as a relaxation of integrity standards.
Author rights include recognition, attribution integrity, and the protection of scholarly identity. Rights also include clarity about what is transferred, what is retained, and what permissions are granted for distribution and reuse.
Licensing options may include standard copyright licensing and Creative Commons licensing where applicable. Licensing selection determines whether reuse is permitted, whether derivatives are allowed, whether commercial reuse is permitted, and what attribution is required. License terms must be stated clearly on the content landing page and in metadata to support lawful reuse.
Archiving and self-archiving define where authors may deposit versions of their work and under what conditions. The Scholar-Scribe expects authors to follow version clarity, citation accuracy, and license-consistent reuse when depositing author manuscripts, accepted versions, or published versions, depending on policy.
Privacy policies protect user trust and lawful data handling. The Scholar-Scribe treats privacy as a governance discipline that must be stated with clarity, implemented with consistency, and reviewed over time.
The privacy policy defines what data are collected, why data are collected, how data are used, how data are protected, and how users can exercise rights related to their data. The policy also defines retention logic and data sharing boundaries with service providers where applicable.
The cookies policy describes the categories of cookies used, their purposes, and how users can manage preferences. Cookies must be described in plain language, aligned with consent choices, and implemented consistently across the platform.
Consent management enables users to control non-essential data practices. Consent choices must be respected by platform behavior. Changes to consent must be actionable, reversible, and reflected promptly.
Accessibility is a quality standard for scholarly publishing. The Scholar-Scribe treats accessibility as essential to academic equity, legal compliance expectations where applicable, and reader comprehension across diverse needs.
The accessibility statement defines the accessibility standard adopted, the approach to continuous improvement, and the method for reporting accessibility barriers. The statement also identifies accessible communication pathways for users who require assistance with navigation, content access, or format accommodation.
Terms of use define permissible use of the platform, user responsibilities, intellectual property boundaries, prohibited conduct, and service limitations. Terms must be written for clarity and enforceability. Violations may lead to access restrictions, account actions, or legal escalation where required.
Advertising and sponsorship must not compromise editorial independence. The Scholar-Scribe treats commercial relationships as separable from editorial decisions. Commercial activity must remain transparent, clearly labelled, and governed to prevent influence on peer review, acceptance outcomes, or integrity decisions.
Journal advertising is permitted only under clear separation rules. Advertisements must be distinguishable from editorial content and must not be presented in a manner that could confuse readers about editorial endorsement. Advertising acceptance is subject to suitability screening and may be declined where content conflicts with scholarly integrity expectations.
Event sponsorship supports scholarly convening when sponsorship is transparent and non-influential over editorial outcomes. Sponsorship terms must define sponsor visibility, sponsor role boundaries, and integrity safeguards. Sponsorship must not confer editorial privilege, expedited review, or publication guarantees.
The media kit defines sponsorship and advertising formats, specifications, placement options, deadlines, and contact pathways. The media kit must also state integrity safeguards: separation rules, labelling standards, and suitability constraints that preserve scholarly trust.