Research & publication misconduct, complaints & investigations

1 Scope & purpose

Supporting a culture of integrity across IUMS journals.

Research integrity is a shared responsibility. IUMS journals expect authors, reviewers and editors to follow high standards of honesty, transparency and accountability in planning, conducting and reporting research. This policy explains:

• how IUMS journals define research and publication misconduct;
• which behaviours are unacceptable during submission, peer review and publication;
• how concerns or complaints can be raised; and
• how journals handle investigations and decide on appropriate actions.

The policy applies to all submissions and published articles in IUMS journals, including original research, reviews, case reports, trial reports and other content types, and covers both pre- and post-publication stages.

2 Principles & definitions

What we mean by misconduct and how we approach it.

IUMS journals align with widely used definitions of research misconduct (for example, national and institutional policies) while also recognising broader forms of publication misconduct that affect the trustworthiness of the literature.

At a minimum, research misconduct includes:

• fabrication: making up data, results or participants;
• falsification: manipulating materials, equipment, processes or data such that the research is misrepresented;
• plagiarism: presenting the ideas, processes, results or words of others as one’s own without proper attribution.

Publication misconduct extends to unethical behaviour in preparing, submitting, reviewing and disseminating manuscripts, including authorship abuse, duplicate or redundant publication, inappropriate image manipulation, peer review manipulation and undisclosed conflicts of interest.

Editors aim to respond in a way that is:

• fair and proportionate;
• evidence-based and consistent with due process;
• transparent to readers while respecting legal and privacy constraints.

3 Core research misconduct

Fabrication, falsification and plagiarism.

IUMS journals consider the following behaviours to be serious misconduct:

• Fabrication: inventing data, cases, experiments or results that were never obtained, and presenting them as real.
• Falsification: manipulating data, images or experimental procedures—for example, selectively reporting favourable results, altering data points, or using inappropriate statistics—to give a misleading impression of findings.
• Plagiarism:
  • copying text, figures, tables or ideas from other sources without proper quotation, attribution or permission;
  • re-using large portions of one’s own previously published work without citation (“self-plagiarism”) when it creates redundant or duplicate publications.

These behaviours may occur at the level of individual researchers, groups or through organised fraudulent activities. All are considered incompatible with publication in IUMS journals.

4 Publication misconduct

Unethical behaviour during submission, authorship and peer review.

Publication misconduct includes, but is not limited to:

• Duplicate or simultaneous submission: submitting the same or highly overlapping manuscript to more than one journal at the same time without disclosure.
• Redundant or “salami-sliced” publication: fragmenting one substantial study into multiple publications without clear justification, or repeating large parts of previous work with minimal new information.
• Improper authorship:
  • adding individuals as authors who do not meet authorship criteria (honorary or gift authorship);
  • excluding individuals who made substantial contributions (ghost authorship);
  • changing authorship or order inappropriately without consent of all authors.
• Undisclosed conflicts of interest: failing to declare financial or non-financial relationships that could be perceived to influence the work.
• Peer review manipulation:
  • suggesting fake reviewers or using fabricated identities;
  • attempting to influence reviewers or editors outside the formal peer review process;
  • breaching reviewer confidentiality or misusing privileged information obtained through peer review.
• Image and data manipulation: altering figures, images or datasets in ways that violate the Image integrity or Data sharing policies.

Some forms of publication misconduct overlap with broader research misconduct and may require institutional investigation.

5 Questionable research practices (QRPs)

Practices that may not meet the threshold for misconduct but still undermine quality.

Not all concerns meet formal definitions of fabrication, falsification or plagiarism. Questionable research practices (QRPs) can still compromise reliability and trust, such as:

• selective reporting of outcomes without justification;
• failure to pre-specify key aspects of study design when required (e.g. in clinical trials or registered studies);
• insufficient reporting of methods and data, limiting reproducibility;
• inadequate consideration of ethical approvals or participant consent;
• inappropriate statistical analyses or p-hacking.

When QRPs are identified, editors may request clarifications, additional analysis or corrections. In cases where QRPs substantially compromise the work, stronger actions (such as rejection, retraction or institutional referral) may be needed.

6 Misuse of AI & digital tools

Aligning AI use with integrity and transparency.

Generative AI and other digital tools can assist authors (for example, in language editing, coding support or image analysis), but misuse may constitute misconduct. Examples include:

• using AI tools to fabricate data, images, references or experimental results;
• submitting AI-generated text or images as original human work without disclosure, contrary to the Generative AI & digital tools policy;
• allowing AI tools to create or modify patient images or case details in ways that misrepresent clinical information;
• using AI to translate or rewrite others’ work without attribution, leading to disguised plagiarism.

Authors must follow the Generative AI & digital tools policy and remain fully responsible for the integrity, originality and accuracy of content submitted in their name.

7 How to raise concerns or complaints

Channels for reporting suspected misconduct or publication concerns.

Concerns about possible misconduct can be raised by:

• authors (including co-authors) of the article;
• reviewers, readers or other researchers;
• institutions, funders or regulatory bodies.

To raise a concern or complaint, please contact the editorial office of the relevant IUMS journal or use the general integrity contact listed below. Provide, as far as possible:

• the article title, journal name and DOI or manuscript ID;
• a clear description of the concern;
• supporting evidence (for example, annotated figures, similarity reports, correspondence or relevant documents).

Concerns should be raised in good faith and, where possible, with sufficient detail to allow meaningful assessment.

8 Initial assessment & triage

First steps taken by editors when a concern is received.

When a concern is received, editors will:

• acknowledge receipt, usually to the complainant (if identifiable);
• conduct an initial, confidential assessment to determine whether the issue appears credible and within the journal’s remit;
• decide whether the matter can be handled through editorial correspondence with authors or whether it requires referral to institutional or funder-level investigation.

During this stage, editors may:

• request clarifications or original data from the authors;
• consult specialist editors, reviewers or external experts;
• use similarity-checking tools or image analysis software where relevant.

If the concern appears minor and can be resolved by explanation or a small correction, editors will guide authors accordingly. If the concern suggests possible serious misconduct, a more formal investigation process is initiated.

9 Investigations: roles of journals, institutions & funders

Who does what when serious concerns arise.

Journals are not investigative authorities, but they play a key role in identifying and escalating concerns. In serious cases, particularly when research misconduct is alleged, the primary responsibility for conducting a formal investigation usually lies with:

• the authors’ employing institution(s); and/or
• funding bodies or relevant regulatory authorities.

When appropriate, editors may:

• inform the relevant institution(s) or funder(s) and share available evidence;
• request that they investigate and share non-confidential outcomes with the journal;
• issue an expression of concern while investigations are ongoing, in line with the Corrections & retractions policy.

Editorial decisions (for example, to reject, correct or retract) are informed by—but not always identical to—external investigation findings. Journals may act independently when timely action is necessary to protect readers or patients.

10 Evidence, confidentiality & data access

Balancing fairness, privacy and transparency.

When concerns are investigated, IUMS journals aim to:

• seek sufficient evidence to make a fair and proportionate decision;
• give authors an opportunity to respond to allegations and present relevant information;
• protect confidential information (for example, patient data, whistleblower identities, proprietary methods) to the extent permitted by law and policy.

Authors may be asked to provide:

• original data and image files (see Image integrity and Data sharing policies);
• documentation of ethics approval, consent forms or trial registration;
• correspondence or protocols relevant to the concern.

Information shared by complainants is treated sensitively. Anonymous or pseudonymous reports may be considered if they are supported by verifiable evidence.

11 Possible outcomes & editorial actions

From no action to corrections and retractions.

Depending on the strength of evidence and severity of the issue, possible outcomes include:

• No action: when concerns are not supported by evidence or are based on misunderstanding.
• Clarification: minor issues addressed through correspondence or updated information on the article page.
• Correction / addendum: when the main findings remain valid but parts of the article require amendment, as described in the Corrections policy.
• Expression of concern: when serious doubts exist but investigations are incomplete or inconclusive.
• Retraction or withdrawal: when findings are unreliable or serious misconduct is confirmed.
• Rejection / removal during peer review: for submissions not yet published but affected by suspected misconduct.

Editorial notices (corrections, expressions of concern, retractions) are labelled clearly and linked to the affected article.

12 Sanctions, notices & reporting

Consequences for serious or repeated misconduct.

In addition to article-level actions, IUMS journals may, where appropriate:

• decline to consider future manuscripts from individuals or groups for a defined period, especially in cases of deliberate or repeated misconduct;
• inform the authors’ institutions, funders or regulatory bodies of confirmed misconduct;
• share relevant information with other journals or publishers when this is necessary to protect the integrity of the literature.

Sanctions aim to be proportionate and focused on protecting the scholarly record, not on punishment alone. The nature and duration of any sanctions depend on factors such as intent, severity, impact and prior history.

13 Protection of whistleblowers & respondents

Treating all parties fairly and respectfully.

IUMS journals recognise that raising concerns about misconduct can be challenging and that individuals accused of misconduct are also entitled to fair treatment. Editors therefore aim to:

• take concerns raised in good faith seriously, regardless of the status or affiliation of the complainant;
• avoid unnecessary disclosure of whistleblower identities, unless required by law or agreed with the individual;
• refrain from making premature or public accusations before investigations are complete;
• give respondents an opportunity to respond to allegations and clarify misunderstandings.

Retaliation against individuals who raise concerns in good faith is inconsistent with the values of IUMS journals and may itself be reported to relevant institutions or bodies.

14 Record-keeping, transparency & learning from cases

Using cases to strengthen integrity and guidance.

IUMS journals keep internal records of integrity-related cases, including:

• summary of concerns and evidence;
• communications with authors, institutions and funders;
• decisions and reasons for editorial actions taken.

Aggregated and anonymised insights from such cases may be used to:

• improve author and reviewer guidance;
• refine editorial workflows and screening procedures;
• develop educational materials or editorial statements about recurring issues (for example, image manipulation or authorship disputes).

Where possible, journals aim to be transparent about patterns of misconduct and lessons learned, while respecting legal, ethical and confidentiality constraints.

15 Questions, support & contact

Getting help with integrity concerns or difficult cases.

Authors, reviewers and readers who are uncertain whether a particular situation may constitute misconduct, or who need guidance on how to correct the record, are encouraged to contact the relevant IUMS journal’s editorial office at an early stage.

General questions and confidential concerns about research and publication misconduct across the IUMS journal portfolio can be directed to:

• Research & publication integrity: journals@iums.ac.ir

Policy version: v1.0 – last updated April 2025. This policy will be reviewed periodically in light of evolving guidance from research integrity organisations and regulatory frameworks.