Publication Ethics
EUMJ adheres to the core guidelines of COPE, ICMJE, and WAME to uphold research integrity, editorial independence, and ethical publishing.
The Three Pillars of Our Policy
COPE
Committee on Publication Ethics
Defines the core practices for ethical editorial conduct and misconduct investigation.
ICMJE
International Committee of Medical Journal Editors
Sets the authorship criteria and disclosure standards that EUMJ enforces.
WAME
World Association of Medical Editors
Provides guidance on editorial independence, peer review integrity, and conflict of interest.
Our Integrity Standards
Every submission must comply with these standards. Violations are handled under the sanctions matrix described below.
Data Sufficiency
Authors may be required to provide raw data, spreadsheets, anonymized transcripts, or source code during review. Failure to provide requested material within 14 business days, absent valid justification, results in immediate rejection.
Image Authenticity
Figures and images must accurately reflect original data. Selective enhancement or contrast adjustment intended to obscure or alter data is prohibited; standard adjustments must be applied uniformly and documented.
Citation Integrity
Submissions containing excessive or irrelevant citations intended to inflate author or journal metrics will be flagged for removal or rejected.
Redundant Submission
Manuscripts under concurrent review elsewhere will be immediately blacklisted upon detection.
Plagiarism & Similarity Index
All submissions are screened through Turnitin and iThenticate during initial screening. The following escalation matrix applies.
Strict Rule
Regardless of the total similarity score, any single block of text exceeding five consecutive sentences copied verbatim from an external source without quotation marks and proper citation constitutes a primary ethical breach and will result in a desk rejection.
Handling of Misconduct Allegations
EUMJ follows a three-step process to investigate allegations of research or publication misconduct. Confidentiality is maintained at every stage.
Initial Assessment
The Managing Editor and Editor-in-Chief conduct a preliminary review of the allegation. Unsubstantiated allegations are dismissed.
Formal Inquiry
Where evidence of misconduct is found, the manuscript's review or production process is frozen, and the corresponding author is given 14 business days to respond with supporting evidence.
Institutional Escalation
Where the response is unsatisfactory or misconduct is confirmed, sanctions are applied according to severity, and the case may be escalated to the author's institution.
Progressive Sanctions Matrix
Misconduct is classified by severity, and sanctions escalate accordingly.
Category A
Examples
Improper citation patterns, minor self-plagiarism in introductions, missing ORCID data.
Sanction
Formal warning; manuscript suspended pending a corrected draft.
Category B
Examples
Duplicate submission, gift/ghost authorship, citation stuffing, deliberate image manipulation.
Sanction
Rejection; 2-year submission ban for all co-authors; report sent to the authors' institution.
Category C
Examples
Plagiarism exceeding 20% of text, data fabrication or falsification, essay-mill purchases, systematic review manipulation.
Sanction
Rejection or public retraction; permanent submission ban; notification to the Vice-Chancellor, Dean, and Research Ethics Committee of the authors' institution.
Right to Respond
Authors who believe a decision was made in error may appeal the decision by contacting the Editor-in-Chief directly. Appeals must be made in writing within 14 days of the decision, and must reference the specific points in dispute.
Editorial Independence
All appeals are reviewed independently. The final decision rests with the Editor-in-Chief and the Advisory Board.