Publication Malpractice Statement
NOVAXIS
Publication Malpractice Statement
This statement defines publication malpractice at NOVAXIS, assigns the duties whose breach constitutes it, and states the consequences. It binds every participant in publication — authors, reviewers, editors and the publisher — and is applied under COPE guidance. Detailed procedures live in the journal's peer review, ethics and governance policies; this statement is the accountability framework that connects them: malpractice is any deliberate act, by any party, that deceives the journal, its readers, or the scholarly record.
Duties of editors
- Judge manuscripts solely on scholarly merit and fit to scope, without regard to the authors' origin, gender, seniority, institution, or beliefs, and without influence from the publisher or from payment.
- Keep submissions confidential, sharing them only with those involved in their assessment, and never use unpublished material for their own research or advantage.
- Stand aside from any manuscript in which they have a competing interest, and disclose the conflict.
- Never require or suggest citation of their own work, the journal, or any source for other than scholarly reasons.
- Act on credible concerns about any article, however old, and correct or retract as the evidence requires.
Duties of reviewers
- Review only within their competence, decline when conflicted, and deliver on time or withdraw promptly.
- Treat the manuscript as confidential: no sharing, no use of its content, no disclosure to or processing by third parties or external AI tools.
- Assess the work objectively and support every criticism with evidence; hostility toward authors and their persons has no place in a report.
- Recommend citation of their own work only where genuinely required by the argument, and flag any substantial similarity with published work they know of.
Duties of authors
- Report honestly work they actually performed, on data that exist as described, with methods stated fully enough to be checked and materials made available under the journal's data policy.
- Submit original work, to one journal at a time, crediting the words, ideas and prior findings of others — and of themselves — accurately.
- List as authors all who qualify and only those who qualify; declare funding and competing interests; disclose any use of AI tools.
- Suggest only real, correctly identified potential reviewers; supplying fabricated or misattributed reviewer contact details is fraud against the review process.
- Notify the journal promptly of any significant error discovered in their published work and cooperate with correction, retraction, and any investigation.
Duties of the publisher
- Guarantee editorial independence and never intervene in decisions on content.
- Provide the resources for integrity screening, investigation of allegations, and permanent preservation of the record.
- Support editors in issuing corrections, expressions of concern and retractions, however uncomfortable, and publish them without delay.
Forms of malpractice
| Party | Examples |
|---|---|
| Authors | Fabrication or falsification of data or images; plagiarism and redundant publication; gift, guest or ghost authorship; undeclared conflicts; fake reviewer suggestions; undisclosed AI-generated content |
| Reviewers | Breach of confidentiality; misappropriation of ideas or data from a manuscript; reviewing under an undeclared conflict; coercive self-citation; delegating review without consent |
| Editors | Deciding under a conflict of interest; using submissions for personal advantage; citation coercion; suppressing or fabricating reviews; obstructing correction of the record |
| Any party | Peer review manipulation; interference with an investigation; retaliation against a good-faith whistleblower |
Enforcement
- Anyone may report suspected malpractice to the editorial office; good-faith reports are handled confidentially and bring no reprisal, and the accused are always heard before conclusions are reached.
- Cases proceed under the applicable COPE flowchart. Outcomes are proportionate to the finding: correction, expression of concern, retraction, rejection, notification of institutions and funders, and — for documented abuse of the process — refusal of future service as reviewer or editor.
- Findings against editors are handled by editors with no involvement in the conduct at issue, up to and including the governance procedures for removal from office. No role in the journal confers immunity from this statement.