Publication Ethics and Good Practice

Publication ethics begins before drafting and continues after publication. It is the operating system for honest attribution, transparent support, fair reporting, and accountable correction.

Authorship is a role with continuing duties

The corpus's discussion of ICMJE authorship criteria centers authorship on substantial contribution, participation in drafting or critical revision, approval of the final work, and accountability. Authorship therefore cannot be determined reliably by title, seniority, funding alone, data collection alone, or a promised position in the byline.

At kickoff:

• identify proposed authors and the publication lead;
• explain the applicable authorship and contribution expectations;
• record expected contributions and decision roles;
• establish how drafts, comments, approval, and accountability will be documented;
• identify contributors whose work should be acknowledged rather than assigned authorship;
• revisit the list as actual contributions develop.

Authorship order follows the relevant discipline, team agreement, and target convention. The writer should facilitate a documented decision, not invent a universal ordering rule.

Professional medical writers are transparent contributors

A professional medical writer may help plan, organize, draft, edit, coordinate, document comments, manage references, and prepare submission materials. This support does not transfer author accountability to the writer and does not erase the authors' need to engage with the content.

Record the writer's name or role, affiliation where applicable, nature of support, and funding source in the place required by good publication practice and the target. Ensure authors review, revise, approve, and can defend the publication. Hidden writing support weakens transparency even when the underlying work is accurate.

Contribution records make the process visible

A contribution taxonomy or target-specific contribution statement can show who conceived the work, designed methods, collected or curated data, performed analysis, provided resources, created software or visuals, supervised the work, drafted text, or critically reviewed it. Use only roles that reflect actual work.

Keep the internal record sufficiently detailed to support the published declaration. Resolve discrepancies before submission. A form completed at the last minute cannot reconstruct months of unrecorded participation.

Conflicts of interest and funding need complete collection

Disclosure is broader than a single financial relationship. The exact scope comes from the target and applicable policy. Build a collection process that asks every author for current information, tracks completion, reconciles manuscript language with forms, and retains the evidence of approval.

State funding and sponsor involvement accurately, including relevant roles in study design, data handling, analysis, interpretation, writing, and the decision to submit. Avoid both concealment and vague language that leaves the reader unable to understand the relationship.

Originality is more than avoiding copied sentences

Plagiarism includes presenting another's words, ideas, structure, data, or images without appropriate attribution. Self-plagiarism and redundant publication can mislead readers about novelty and distort the evidence base. Similarity tools can identify text overlap; they cannot decide whether reuse is legitimate, cited, permitted, or scientifically misleading.

When material overlaps with an abstract, registry entry, protocol paper, prior analysis, preprint, conference presentation, or another manuscript:

• disclose the relationship to the target where required;
• cite related publications;
• distinguish the new question, data, or analysis;
• avoid salami slicing that fragments one coherent contribution merely to multiply outputs;
• obtain permission for copyrighted material and label adaptation or reproduction accurately;
• preserve the provenance of author-supplied text and figures.

Data integrity outranks narrative convenience

Do not select only favorable analyses, switch outcomes without explanation, hide protocol deviations, invent post-hoc hypotheses as prospective, suppress relevant harms, or imply causality beyond the design. Discuss inconsistencies with the statistician, study lead, authors, or governance owner and preserve the decision.

Retractions, corrections, expressions of concern, and post-publication questions are part of the literature's correction mechanisms. If an error is found after submission or publication, assess its scientific effect quickly and follow the target's correction process. Defensive wording is not a substitute for correcting the record.

Predatory or unsuitable targets create ethical and practical risk

Assess whether a journal or congress has a credible scope, transparent editorial process, recognizable ownership, appropriate peer review, clear fees, indexing claims that can be verified, and policies for ethics and corrections. A persuasive invitation is not evidence of legitimacy. Match the audience and scientific contribution before convenience or speed.

Publication-practice control card

Before submission, verify:

• every listed author meets the applicable criteria and has approved the final version;
• contributor roles, acknowledgments, writing support, and funding are accurate;
• conflicts and target forms are complete and consistent;
• registration and protocol identifiers are correct;
• primary and secondary outcomes are represented honestly;
• related publications and prior presentations are disclosed;
• permissions and licenses are documented;
• the target's ethics declarations and checklist requirements are satisfied;
• the submission package and cover letter do not overstate novelty or certainty.