Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement

The Journal of Responsible AI & Ethics (JRAIE) is committed to maintaining integrity, transparency, accountability, and responsible conduct throughout the scholarly publishing process. The journal recognizes that confidence in academic literature depends not only on the quality of published research but also on the ethical conduct of authors, reviewers, editors, and the publisher.

This Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement establishes the principles and responsibilities that apply to manuscript submission, editorial assessment, peer review, authorship, research integrity, disclosure, publication, and post-publication management.

The journal’s editorial practices are informed by recognized principles of scholarly publishing and relevant guidance issued by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). Reference to COPE guidance does not imply that JRAIE is a COPE member or that COPE has endorsed the journal unless such status is separately and officially verified.

The journal seeks to address ethical concerns fairly, confidentially, consistently, and proportionately, taking into account the available evidence and the circumstances of each case.

1. Scope of the Ethics Policy

This policy applies to all scholarly and editorial content submitted to or published by JRAIE, including research articles, review articles, conceptual studies, methodological papers, case studies, short communications, editorials where applicable, and other academic content.

The principles described here apply throughout the publication lifecycle, including:

  • Manuscript submission

  • Initial editorial assessment

  • Peer review

  • Revision

  • Editorial decision-making

  • Production and publication

  • Post-publication correction

  • Investigation of integrity concerns

  • Retraction or other corrective action where necessary

Authors, reviewers, editors, editorial board members, and the publisher are expected to understand and observe the responsibilities relevant to their roles.

2. Principles of Research and Publication Integrity

JRAIE expects all submitted and published work to be based on honest scholarly practice.

Research findings, analyses, interpretations, data, methods, and references should be presented accurately and transparently. Authors must not intentionally misrepresent evidence, manipulate results, conceal material limitations, or present fabricated information as genuine research.

Practices inconsistent with responsible scholarly publishing may include, but are not limited to:

  • Plagiarism

  • Fabrication of data or results

  • Falsification or inappropriate manipulation of research materials

  • Duplicate submission

  • Redundant publication

  • Inappropriate authorship

  • Undisclosed competing interests

  • Citation manipulation

  • Peer-review manipulation

  • Misrepresentation of ethical approval

  • Misrepresentation of data provenance

  • Deliberate misreporting of research methods or findings

  • Unauthorized use of confidential information

  • Manipulation of images, figures, or datasets in a misleading manner

The presence of an integrity concern does not automatically establish misconduct. Allegations should be assessed based on evidence and appropriate editorial procedures.

3. Responsibilities of Authors

Authors are responsible for the accuracy, integrity, originality, and scholarly content of manuscripts submitted under their names.

By submitting a manuscript to JRAIE, authors are expected to ensure that:

  • The work is original or appropriately attributed

  • The manuscript has not been submitted simultaneously to another journal

  • All individuals listed as authors satisfy appropriate authorship requirements

  • Relevant sources have been acknowledged accurately

  • Data and results have not been fabricated or falsified

  • Relevant ethical approvals and informed-consent requirements have been addressed where applicable

  • Conflicts of interest have been disclosed

  • Funding information has been disclosed accurately

  • Appropriate permissions have been obtained for copyrighted or third-party material

  • The manuscript accurately represents the research undertaken

  • Substantive limitations are not deliberately concealed

Corresponding authors are expected to communicate with all coauthors regarding submission, revision, authorship changes, and final publication.

All authors remain accountable for the integrity of the work in accordance with their contributions and applicable scholarly standards.

4. Originality and Plagiarism

Manuscripts submitted to JRAIE should represent original scholarly work.

Authors must appropriately acknowledge ideas, text, methods, data, figures, tables, software, or other intellectual contributions obtained from other sources.

Plagiarism may include direct copying without attribution, close paraphrasing without appropriate acknowledgment, unattributed reuse of another author’s ideas or structure, or presentation of another person’s scholarly contribution as one’s own.

The journal may use similarity-detection or originality-assessment tools as part of editorial screening. A similarity percentage alone does not establish plagiarism. Editors should evaluate the nature, context, source, extent, and scholarly significance of matching material.

Legitimate overlap may occur in references, standard methodological terminology, institutional information, technical expressions, or appropriately cited material. Editorial judgment should therefore distinguish between acceptable textual similarity and unethical appropriation.

Where substantial plagiarism is identified before publication, the manuscript may be rejected. Where credible plagiarism concerns arise after publication, the journal may investigate and take appropriate corrective action.

5. Self-Plagiarism and Text Recycling

Authors should not reproduce substantial portions of their own previously published material without appropriate disclosure and citation.

Limited reuse of standard methodological language may sometimes be reasonable, particularly where precise technical description is required, but extensive recycling of previously published text should be avoided unless justified and transparently acknowledged.

Previously published findings should not be presented as new research.

Where a manuscript substantially overlaps with an author’s earlier publication, the relationship between the works should be disclosed and the new submission should provide a distinct and meaningful scholarly contribution.

6. Duplicate and Simultaneous Submission

A manuscript should not be under active consideration by more than one journal at the same time.

Authors must not submit substantially the same manuscript simultaneously to JRAIE and another publication.

If a manuscript has previously been submitted elsewhere but is no longer under consideration, that fact does not ordinarily prevent submission to JRAIE.

If simultaneous submission is discovered during editorial processing, the journal may discontinue consideration of the manuscript and seek an explanation from the authors.

7. Redundant and Duplicate Publication

The journal does not support publication of substantially identical research as separate original publications without appropriate justification and disclosure.

Authors should disclose related publications, preprints, conference versions, datasets, or manuscripts where substantial overlap exists and where that information is relevant to editorial assessment.

Secondary publication may be appropriate in limited scholarly circumstances when legally and ethically permissible, clearly identified, appropriately referenced, and agreed upon by the relevant parties.

Authors should not divide a single study into multiple minimally differentiated manuscripts solely to increase publication count where such fragmentation compromises scholarly coherence.

8. Data Fabrication and Falsification

Fabrication involves presenting invented data, observations, participants, experiments, results, or analyses as genuine.

Falsification may involve manipulating research materials, instruments, processes, images, datasets, statistical procedures, or results in a manner that materially misrepresents the research.

Both practices are inconsistent with responsible scholarship.

If credible concerns relating to fabricated or falsified research arise, the journal may request supporting documentation, underlying data, methodological records, ethical approvals, or other relevant evidence.

Where appropriate, the journal may contact an author’s institution or another responsible body if independent investigation is required.

9. Data Integrity and Availability

Authors should maintain accurate records of the data, methods, analyses, code, or other materials supporting their research.

Where appropriate to the research design and subject area, authors are encouraged to provide sufficient information to permit scholarly evaluation and reasonable verification of their conclusions.

Authors should not alter, omit, selectively report, or manipulate data in ways that create a materially misleading interpretation.

If research data cannot be made publicly available because of privacy, confidentiality, legal, commercial, security, contractual, or ethical restrictions, those limitations should be stated transparently where relevant.

The journal may request supporting data during editorial assessment or following publication when a legitimate integrity concern arises.

10. Image and Figure Integrity

Images, figures, visualizations, and graphical research outputs must accurately represent the underlying information.

Adjustments to brightness, contrast, color balance, resolution, or presentation should not selectively obscure, remove, introduce, or misrepresent meaningful information.

Splicing, duplication, selective enhancement, removal of features, or other modifications that materially alter the interpretation of an image are unacceptable unless scientifically justified, clearly disclosed, and appropriate to the methodology.

Where image manipulation is suspected, the journal may request original files or supporting documentation.

11. Authorship Criteria

Authorship should reflect meaningful scholarly contribution and accountability.

Individuals listed as authors should have made substantive contributions to the work and should be able to take appropriate responsibility for the content.

Contributions may include substantial involvement in areas such as:

  • Research conception or design

  • Data acquisition

  • Data analysis

  • Methodological development

  • Interpretation of findings

  • Drafting of the manuscript

  • Critical intellectual revision

  • Final approval of the published version

Individuals who provided administrative assistance, technical support, language editing, funding acquisition, general supervision, or other contributions that do not justify authorship should normally be acknowledged appropriately rather than listed as authors.

Honorary, guest, gift, and ghost authorship are inconsistent with responsible publication practice.

12. Changes in Authorship

Any request to add, remove, or reorder authors after manuscript submission should be supported by a clear explanation and agreement among the affected authors.

Authorship changes should not be made merely to enhance the perceived status of a manuscript or for reasons unrelated to genuine scholarly contribution.

Requests made after acceptance may require additional editorial scrutiny.

The journal may decline an authorship change if adequate justification or author agreement is not provided.

Authorship disputes that cannot be resolved through editorial correspondence may need to be referred to the authors’ institution or another appropriate authority, as journals are generally not positioned to adjudicate complex institutional contribution disputes.

13. Corresponding Author Responsibilities

The corresponding author serves as the principal point of communication between the journal and the author group.

The corresponding author should ensure that:

  • All legitimate authors are included

  • All authors approve the submitted manuscript

  • All authors are informed of major editorial decisions

  • Relevant disclosures are complete

  • Authorship information is accurate

  • Required documentation is provided

  • Revisions are communicated appropriately

  • The final version is approved by the author group

The corresponding author should not make material changes affecting authorship or scholarly content without appropriate coauthor involvement.

14. Use of Artificial Intelligence and Generative AI

The journal recognizes that artificial intelligence tools may be used in legitimate research and writing contexts, but their use must not compromise authorship accountability, originality, confidentiality, transparency, or research integrity.

AI tools and generative AI systems must not be listed as authors because they cannot assume responsibility for scholarly content, approve a final manuscript, manage conflicts of interest, or be accountable for the accuracy and integrity of published work. This is consistent with COPE’s position that human authors remain responsible for manuscript content, including material created with AI assistance.

Where generative AI or similar tools have been used substantially in manuscript preparation, data analysis, coding, image generation, translation, methodological assistance, or other research-related activities, authors should disclose their use where relevant to understanding the work.

Authors remain fully responsible for:

  • Accuracy of AI-assisted content

  • Verification of references

  • Protection of confidential information

  • Avoidance of plagiarism

  • Reliability of analyses

  • Appropriate disclosure of AI use

  • Compliance with copyright and data-protection requirements

  • The final scholarly content of the manuscript

AI-generated references, quotations, factual claims, datasets, or interpretations must not be included without appropriate human verification.

15. Ethical Use of AI in Responsible-AI Research

Because JRAIE specifically publishes scholarship concerning artificial intelligence and ethics, manuscripts involving AI systems should provide adequate methodological and ethical transparency.

Where relevant, authors should identify:

  • The AI system or model evaluated

  • Relevant model version where known

  • Data sources

  • Evaluation procedures

  • Human involvement

  • Known limitations

  • Potential bias

  • Privacy considerations

  • Safety considerations

  • Fairness implications

  • Governance considerations

  • Reproducibility constraints

Claims concerning AI performance, fairness, reliability, explainability, safety, or societal impact should be supported by appropriate evidence rather than promotional assertions.

16. Human Participants Research

Research involving human participants should comply with applicable ethical and legal requirements.

Where institutional ethics review or equivalent oversight is required, authors should provide relevant approval information in the manuscript.

Where informed consent is required, authors should indicate that appropriate consent was obtained.

Research involving vulnerable populations, sensitive personal information, biometric information, health data, behavioral monitoring, or AI-based profiling should receive particular ethical attention.

The journal may request additional documentation if the ethical basis of a study is unclear.

17. Privacy and Informed Consent

Authors must protect the privacy and confidentiality of research participants.

Personally identifiable information should not be published unless its inclusion is scientifically necessary, ethically permissible, and supported by appropriate consent.

Images, quotations, case details, demographic information, or combinations of information that could permit identification require careful assessment.

Anonymization should be sufficiently robust to reduce foreseeable identification risks.

18. Research Involving Animals

Where research involves animals, authors should follow applicable institutional, national, and disciplinary standards for animal welfare and ethical research.

Relevant ethical approval or oversight information should be reported where required.

Authors should describe procedures sufficiently to permit assessment of ethical and methodological appropriateness.

19. Conflicts of Interest

Authors, reviewers, and editors should disclose interests that could influence, or reasonably be perceived to influence, scholarly judgment.

Potential competing interests may include:

  • Financial relationships

  • Employment

  • Consultancy

  • Research funding

  • Patent ownership

  • Institutional relationships

  • Personal relationships

  • Professional competition

  • Academic disputes

  • Advisory roles

  • Commercial interests

The existence of a conflict does not necessarily prevent publication or participation in peer review. Transparency allows the journal to determine whether and how the conflict should be managed.

Failure to disclose a material competing interest may require editorial action.

20. Funding Disclosure

Authors should identify financial support relevant to the research or manuscript.

Funding disclosures should state the funding organization where applicable and should describe any relevant role of the funder in research design, data collection, analysis, interpretation, manuscript preparation, or publication decisions.

If the funder had no such role, authors may state this where appropriate.

Funding disclosure should not be used to imply endorsement by the funding organization.

21. Citation Ethics

References should be selected because of their scholarly relevance to the manuscript.

Authors should not engage in excessive self-citation, coordinated citation exchange, citation cartels, or inclusion of irrelevant references intended primarily to influence citation indicators.

Editors and reviewers should not pressure authors to add citations for inappropriate purposes.

Legitimate recommendations for additional references should be based on scholarly relevance and should assist authors in accurately situating their research within the literature.

22. Responsibilities of Reviewers

Reviewers play an important role in protecting the quality and integrity of scholarly publication.

Reviewers should:

  • Evaluate manuscripts objectively

  • Maintain confidentiality

  • Declare relevant conflicts of interest

  • Provide constructive and evidence-based comments

  • Avoid personal criticism

  • Identify significant scholarly or ethical concerns

  • Avoid inappropriate citation requests

  • Complete reviews within an agreed timeframe where possible

  • Decline assignments outside their expertise when necessary

Reviewers must not use unpublished manuscript information for personal or professional advantage.

Suspected misconduct should be communicated confidentially to the responsible editor rather than raised publicly or directly with the authors.

23. Confidentiality in Peer Review

Submitted manuscripts are confidential documents.

Editors and reviewers should not disclose manuscript content, reviewer reports, author information, unpublished findings, datasets, or editorial correspondence to unauthorized parties.

Confidential materials must not be uploaded to external systems where privacy, intellectual property, data retention, or confidentiality cannot be appropriately protected.

Peer review should be conducted according to the journal’s published review policy.

24. Responsibilities of Editors

Editors are responsible for maintaining the independence, fairness, integrity, and scholarly quality of editorial decision-making.

Editors should:

  • Evaluate manuscripts on scholarly merit

  • Apply journal policies consistently

  • Select qualified and independent reviewers

  • Protect confidentiality

  • Manage conflicts of interest

  • Respond appropriately to ethical concerns

  • Avoid discrimination unrelated to scholarly evaluation

  • Avoid inappropriate influence on citations

  • Preserve editorial independence

  • Support correction of the scholarly record where necessary

Editorial decisions should not be affected by an author’s nationality, ethnicity, gender, institutional affiliation, professional status, personal relationships, political perspective, or other factors unrelated to legitimate scholarly assessment.

25. Editorial Conflicts of Interest

An editor should not handle a manuscript when a relationship or interest could reasonably compromise impartiality.

Where such a conflict exists, the manuscript should be assigned to another appropriate editor.

Editors submitting their own work to JRAIE must not participate in the selection of reviewers, review correspondence, or final decision concerning their manuscript.

Equivalent safeguards should apply to editorial board members and guest editors.

26. Editorial Independence

Editorial decisions should be based on scholarly and ethical considerations.

The publisher, sponsors, advertisers where applicable, institutional partners, or other external parties should not interfere with acceptance or rejection decisions.

Editors must be able to make publication decisions independently within the journal’s established editorial framework.

Any commercial or organizational relationship relevant to editorial independence should be managed transparently.

27. Responsibilities of the Publisher

The publisher has a responsibility to support editorial independence, ethical publishing, transparency, and maintenance of the scholarly record.

The publisher should not interfere improperly with individual editorial decisions.

Where credible ethical concerns arise, the publisher should cooperate with editors in evaluating the matter and implementing appropriate corrective action.

Commercial considerations should not override research integrity.

28. Peer-Review Manipulation

Attempts to manipulate peer review are prohibited.

Examples may include:

  • Submission of false reviewer identities

  • Fabricated reviewer accounts

  • Use of deceptive email addresses

  • Unauthorized submission of reviewer reports

  • Undisclosed reviewer relationships

  • Coercion of reviewers

  • Manipulated reviewer recommendations

  • Coordinated schemes intended to influence editorial decisions

Where peer-review manipulation is suspected, the journal may suspend editorial processing while the matter is investigated.

29. Publication Misconduct

Publication misconduct includes deliberate behavior that compromises the integrity, fairness, or reliability of scholarly communication.

Depending on the circumstances, concerns may involve:

  • Plagiarism

  • Fabricated research

  • Falsified data

  • Misleading images

  • Inappropriate authorship

  • Undisclosed conflicts

  • Duplicate publication

  • Peer-review manipulation

  • Citation manipulation

  • Ethical misrepresentation

  • Unauthorized use of confidential materials

  • False institutional or author information

The journal evaluates alleged misconduct on a case-by-case basis.

30. Handling Allegations of Misconduct

When a credible allegation is received, the journal should first determine whether sufficient information exists to warrant further examination.

Relevant parties may be contacted for clarification or supporting documentation.

The journal should seek to avoid premature conclusions and should distinguish allegations from established findings.

Depending on the seriousness and nature of the concern, the journal may:

  • Request an explanation

  • Request original data or records

  • Pause review

  • Reject a manuscript

  • Contact relevant institutions

  • Issue a correction

  • Publish an expression of concern

  • Retract an article

  • Take other proportionate editorial action

Confidentiality should be maintained as far as reasonably possible during an investigation.

31. Institutional Investigations

Journals are responsible for the integrity of the published record but are not always equipped to conduct full investigations into research misconduct.

Where an allegation requires access to laboratory records, employment information, research participants, institutional systems, or other evidence outside the journal’s authority, the matter may be referred to the relevant institution, employer, funder, ethics body, or other competent organization.

The journal may consider the findings of such investigations when determining appropriate publication action.

32. Corrections

A correction may be issued when an otherwise reliable publication contains an error that materially affects clarity, interpretation, attribution, metadata, or a limited aspect of the scholarly record but does not invalidate the central findings.

Correction notices should identify the article concerned and explain the nature of the correction sufficiently for readers to understand the change.

Minor typographical errors that do not materially affect meaning may not require a formal published correction.

33. Retractions

Retraction may be appropriate where findings or conclusions are no longer considered reliable because of major error, fabrication, falsification, plagiarism, unethical research, duplicate publication, compromised peer review, or another serious problem affecting the validity or integrity of the article.

The purpose of retraction is primarily to correct the scholarly record rather than to punish authors. Current COPE retraction guidance emphasizes correction of the literature when confidence in the reported findings or conclusions can no longer be maintained.

Retraction notices should be clearly identifiable and linked to the affected article.

The original article should normally remain part of the scholarly record with its retracted status clearly indicated, except where removal is necessary for compelling legal, privacy, safety, or other exceptional reasons.

34. Expressions of Concern

An expression of concern may be considered when substantial doubts arise about a publication but available information is not yet sufficient to justify correction or retraction.

This may occur when:

  • An investigation is ongoing

  • Evidence is inconclusive

  • An institution has not completed its inquiry

  • Serious concerns exist but cannot yet be fully resolved

An expression of concern should clearly identify the affected publication and explain the reason for the notice without making unsupported conclusions.

35. Article Withdrawal and Removal

Withdrawal of an unpublished or early-stage article may occur in limited circumstances according to the stage of publication and nature of the problem.

Complete removal of a formally published article should be exceptional.

Removal may be considered where continued publication creates a serious legal, privacy, confidentiality, public-safety, or other substantial risk that cannot reasonably be addressed by correction or retraction.

Where possible, bibliographic information explaining that an article has been removed should remain accessible.

36. Complaints

The journal should provide a reasonable mechanism for authors, reviewers, readers, and other parties to raise concerns about editorial procedures, staff conduct, published content, or journal policies.

Complaints should be submitted respectfully and should provide sufficient information to permit assessment.

The journal should distinguish complaints about procedure or conduct from scholarly disagreement with published findings.

Complaints should be handled without retaliation against individuals who raise legitimate concerns in good faith.

37. Appeals

Authors may appeal an editorial decision when they believe that a material factual, procedural, or scholarly error affected the outcome.

An appeal should explain the specific grounds for reconsideration and provide relevant evidence.

Disagreement with reviewer comments alone does not automatically establish grounds for reversal.

Where feasible and appropriate, an appeal may be reviewed by an editor who was not responsible for the original decision.

Appeals are intended to assess whether editorial procedures and scholarly evaluation were properly applied; they do not guarantee a different outcome.

38. Post-Publication Discussion

Responsible scholarly debate may continue after publication.

Readers may communicate substantive concerns, corrections, methodological questions, or evidence relevant to a published article.

The journal may invite authors to respond where appropriate.

Post-publication criticism should be evaluated on its scholarly merit and supporting evidence rather than the status or identity of the person raising the concern.

39. Special Issues and Guest Editors

Special issues and guest-edited collections must follow the journal’s established standards of peer review, publication ethics, conflicts of interest, authorship, and editorial independence.

Guest editors must not make decisions on their own manuscripts or on submissions where their impartiality is reasonably compromised.

Such manuscripts should be assigned to an independent editor.

Special issues must not operate as a separate or lower-standard pathway to publication.

40. Ethical Marketing and Journal Representation

Information published by the journal concerning peer review, editorial policies, indexing, fees, licensing, publication frequency, metrics, affiliations, and other journal characteristics should be accurate and verifiable.

The journal should not represent planned indexing applications as confirmed inclusion and should not use ambiguous terminology that could mislead authors or readers concerning its current status.

Promotional statements should not guarantee acceptance, indexing, citation performance, impact, or publication outcomes.

41. Metrics and Citation Indicators

Journal-level or article-level metrics, where displayed, should be described accurately and should not be manipulated.

The journal should not encourage practices designed primarily to inflate citation-based indicators.

Editorial decisions must not be based on whether authors agree to add unnecessary citations intended to improve journal metrics.

42. Record Keeping

The journal should maintain appropriate editorial records relating to manuscript submission, peer review, decisions, author correspondence, conflict disclosures, corrections, and integrity investigations, subject to applicable privacy and data-management requirements.

Records should be handled securely and retained for an appropriate period consistent with editorial and legal responsibilities.

43. Confidentiality of Ethical Investigations

Investigations concerning potential misconduct should be conducted with appropriate discretion.

Information should ordinarily be shared only with individuals or organizations whose involvement is reasonably necessary for evaluation or resolution of the concern.

Confidentiality does not prevent the journal from contacting relevant institutions, ethics bodies, publishers, funders, or legal authorities where appropriate.

44. Protection of the Scholarly Record

The journal’s primary responsibility in post-publication ethics matters is to protect the accuracy, reliability, transparency, and accessibility of the scholarly record.

Corrective actions should be proportionate to the seriousness of the problem and should distinguish between honest error, disputed interpretation, procedural deficiency, and established misconduct.

Where correction is sufficient, retraction should not be used unnecessarily. Where findings are fundamentally unreliable, a minor correction should not be used to conceal the seriousness of the problem.

45. Transparency and Policy Review

JRAIE may periodically review and update this Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement to reflect developments in scholarly publishing, artificial intelligence, peer review, research integrity, open-access publishing, and recognized ethical guidance.

Substantive policy changes should be presented transparently on the journal website.

The journal seeks to ensure that its published policies correspond to its actual editorial practices. A policy should not be presented merely as a statement of aspiration if the journal does not implement the procedures described.

46. Commitment to Ethical Scholarly Publishing

The Journal of Responsible AI & Ethics seeks to maintain an editorial environment in which scholarly quality, research integrity, procedural fairness, transparency, accountability, and responsible communication are treated as essential components of publication.

Authors are responsible for conducting and reporting research honestly. Reviewers are responsible for independent and confidential scholarly assessment. Editors are responsible for fair and evidence-based decisions. The publisher is responsible for supporting editorial independence and preservation of the publication record.

When concerns arise, the journal seeks to respond through evidence-based and proportionate procedures rather than through unsupported assumptions or arbitrary action.

Through these responsibilities, JRAIE aims to support a trustworthy scholarly record in the rapidly evolving fields of responsible artificial intelligence, AI ethics, governance, law, policy, and societal impact.