Publication Ethics

Building a research paper is an involved process, and at EAI we focus on ensuring our journals follow best practice and are aligned with a transparent, publicly documented process which reflects the quality of authors and institutions.

To establish trust in peer-reviewed articles and their findings, and their scientific transparency and replicability, ethical standards must be upheld from all publishing parties, including author, journal editor, reviewer and publisher.

The guidelines outlined here for editors, authors, and reviewers are based on The Committee on Publication Ethics COPE Code of Conduct.


Publications must obtain written informed consent from participants (or parent or legal guardian for children under 18).

Although consent forms should not be included in the journal for confidentiality and legal reasons, the author must include a statement attesting that consent forms have been signed and received.

Consent for publication is made available to the Editor on request and will be handled confidentially.

Examples include details, images, or videos relating to individual participants. Where images are unidentifiable, with no personal information, consent is not required.

Guide for Authors

Authors of original research must present an honest, accurate account of research and an independently written explanation of its significance. A paper should contain sufficient detail to allow others to replicate the research, and adhere to a professional reference system. It is unacceptable to fabricate or falsify data, or include data or statements which are inaccurately represented.

Originality and plagiarism

  • It is a requirement that an author or authors produce an entirely original work. Permission is required to reproduce copyrighted material, including images, tables, figures and quotations. The work of other authors must be referenced with an accurate citation.
  • Papers should not be submitted and published to more than one publication simultaneously, including presenting the same research in more than one publication.
  • Authors should acknowledge all sources of data used in the research and cite publications that have been influential in research work.
  • Editors and the publisher may use software to screen for plagiarism.

Authorship and Authors responsibilities

  • Authorship is limited to those who conceived the execution, design or interpretation of the paper. Other significant contributions should be listed as co-authors or clearly acknowledged or referenced, as appropriate, and never omitted.
  • All authors must have viewed and agreed to the paper’s submission and the inclusion of their names as co-authors.
  • A single study is not to be divided into multiple parts to increase the quantity of submissions or submitted to more than one publication.
  • Authors may be asked to provide access to raw data, and should be prepared to provide public access which also adheres to confidentiality and legal norms.
  • Any relationships that could present a potential conflict of interest must be disclosed.
  • Authors should alert the editor in a timely manner if they discover a significant error or inaccuracy.
  • All sources must be correctly acknowledged, including accurate citations and referencing.
  • Data analysis and display should use methods appropriate to the medium, following specialised advice if necessary.
  • Authors hold responsibility for ensuring the accuracy of publications, including textual content and research data.
  • All the authors must agree to the listing of a paper. Any change to the author list requires approval from all authors, including any who have been removed. The corresponding author must keep co-authors informed and involved in major decisions about the publication.
  • Authors provide access to raw research data for editorial review upon request, for a period of up to three years following publication.
  • Authors will inform the editor if they withdraw their work from review, or are not able to respond to reviewer comments after receiving a conditional acceptance.
  • Authors are to respond to reviewers’ comments in a professional and timely manner.
  • Authors are advised to determine the correct authors and order of authors at submission, as changes of authorship or in the order of authors will not be accepted after a paper’s acceptance.
  • Where adding, deleting authors and/or changing the order of authors at revision stage is justifiably warranted, a letter must be submitted accompanying the revised manuscript, documenting the reason for any change.
  • The addition or removal of authors after acceptance can be made only after formal notification by the institute or independent body and/or agreement between all authors. In this case, a letter signed by all authors must be submitted for evaluation.

    Ethical considerations

  • Authors may need to provide evidence that research was conducted ethically at an editor’s request, with necessary copies of approvals, licences and participant consent forms.
  • Unless there is an appropriate reason, researchers must not publish or share identifiable individual data collected during the course of research without specific consent from the individual (or their representative). As research may be read online, authors must be aware of the ethical consequences of unintended readership, such as research participants or their families recognising themselves from case studies, images etc. and guard against this.
  • Upon request, authors should editors with supply research procedure – such as for clinical trials - to verify research was conducted as planned, without the omission of relevant details.  Requirements of clinical trial registration, such as trial registration number should be included.

Transparency of authors

Relevant financial and non-financial support and relationships that might be considered to skew or influence the interpretation of their findings must be disclosed. This includes any relationship to the journal, for example, if editors publish their own research in their own publication. Authors should also follow publication and institutional requirements for disclosing competing interests.

Correction of articles is permitted, and they should be informed to Every correction request will be evaluated by the journal editors and Publication Department. Corrections will take place in case of minimal errors, authorship modification, or other related metadata. In case of approval, a correction notice will be published.

Guide for Editors

Editors must also follow high standards of publication ethics in their policies and practice, to assist the author in following good practice and professional guidelines.

  • The editor may accept, reject, and request modifications to the author’s paper, making review decisions after a minimum of two single-blind reviews have been delivered.
  • Papers can be rejected without review if the publication quality is inadequate, a double submission, not in the journal's standard scope, or contains plagiarism.
  • The review must be made without regard for race, gender or religion of authors etc.
  • The editor ensures the confidentiality of information relating to papers and their authors.
  • The editor enters an agreement to not use unpublished materials from a submitted paper for his own research without an author’s prior written consent.

On suspicion of misconduct, an investigation will be implemented, following COPE guidelines. If an allegation appears to be valid, the author(s) will be contacted to address the issue. If misconduct is beyond reasonable doubt, the editor can reject the paper, remove it from the published volume and inform the author’s institution.

Rejection can also occur where there is a lack of appropriate structure, unsupported findings, a lack of detail to support replication, and/or unclear references.

Retraction of published papers can take place in case of major errors, data falsification, plagiarism, redundant publication, copyright infringement, peer-review manipulation, and conflict of interests. In this case, authors will be notified, and a retraction notice will be published together with the first original article. In the case of minimal errors, a correction notice will be required instead.

The work should also follow the standard scientific model with detailed description of hypothesis, experimental design, and statistical analysis, with a clear explanation of what has been newly discovered, and an appropriate level and quality of language.

Guide for Reviewers

The reviewer is responsible for critical evaluation of a submission in their field of specialty. Constructive, respectful feedback should be made, with analysis of a paper’s strengths and weaknesses, as well as quality improvements and evaluation of its relevance and originality.

A reviewer is responsible for reviewing papers in his specific area of expertise. If a submission is not a sufficient fit, the editor should be notified as soon as possible.

  • If a reviewer feels unable to complete the review within the given time frame, he should let the editor know as soon as possible, ideally suggesting an alternate reviewer.
  • Any potential conflicts of interests should be disclosed.
  • The paper must be original, and the quality of a sufficiently high standard, with all requirements fulfilled.
  • Reviewers must verify authors have correctly cited all sources of data used in the research.
  • The editor should be informed if there is a correspondence between the paper and other published work.
  • All sections of the paper must appear logical, accurate and transparent, with appropriate supporting material and a conclusion supported by the results.

The reviewer‘s recommendation will be strongly considered so that an editor can make a final, definitive decision supported by a thorough, conscientious and sophisticated review process.