Ethics for Editors

The Annals of Proteomics and Bioinformatics (APB) requires all editors to uphold the highest standards of editorial ethics. This document defines the ethical obligations, integrity principles, and professional conduct expected of editors to maintain transparency, trust, and accountability throughout the publication process.

These guidelines are developed in accordance with COPE Core Practices, WAME Editorial Policy Guidelines, and the ICMJE Recommendations.

1. Editorial Integrity and Neutrality

Editors must make decisions solely based on the scholarly merit of the work. Personal relationships, political views, institutional affiliations, or financial interests must not influence editorial judgment.

  • All editorial actions must be impartial and evidence-based.
  • Editors must disclose potential conflicts of interest to the Editor-in-Chief or publisher immediately.

2. Confidentiality

Editors are required to maintain strict confidentiality regarding manuscripts under review. Information about submissions must not be shared beyond authors, reviewers, and editorial staff directly involved in processing the article.

Unpublished data or findings from submitted manuscripts must never be used for personal research or shared with third parties.

3. Managing Conflicts of Interest

Editors must avoid handling manuscripts where personal, professional, or financial relationships may bias their decisions. Such manuscripts should be reassigned to another independent editor or handled by the Editor-in-Chief.

  • Editors should recuse themselves from evaluating submissions authored by colleagues, collaborators, or relatives.
  • All declared conflicts must be transparently recorded within the OJS editorial system.

4. Fair Peer Review Process

Editors are responsible for ensuring an objective, rigorous, and double-blind peer-review process. They must select reviewers solely based on subject expertise and professional conduct.

Editors should reject or replace reviewers who provide biased, disrespectful, or unsubstantiated feedback.

5. Handling Research Misconduct

When evidence or allegations of misconduct arise — including plagiarism, data fabrication, duplicate submission, or unethical research practices — editors must:

  1. Pause the review or publication process immediately.
  2. Notify the corresponding author and request clarification or supporting documentation.
  3. Follow COPE flowcharts for investigating ethical concerns.
  4. Refer confirmed cases to the publisher for appropriate action (correction, retraction, or institutional notification).

6. Transparency in Decision-Making

Editorial decisions must be transparent and supported by clear reasoning. Communication with authors should be professional, respectful, and free from bias or hostility.

7. Corrections, Retractions, and Clarifications

Editors must ensure that the published record remains accurate and credible. When an error or ethical issue is identified, the editor should coordinate the publication of an appropriate notice such as a correction, erratum, or retraction.

8. Data Privacy and Security

Editors are responsible for ensuring that personal and sensitive information from authors, reviewers, or participants is securely stored and handled in compliance with GDPR and other data protection laws.

9. Use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) Tools

Editors may use AI-based tools to assist in plagiarism detection or reference management but must not delegate editorial judgment to automated systems. Decisions must always involve human oversight and ethical accountability.

10. Promoting Diversity and Inclusivity

Editors should ensure equal opportunity for authors and reviewers from diverse backgrounds. Editorial policies must encourage representation across different regions, genders, and disciplines.

11. Ethical Mentorship

Senior editors must mentor new editorial members and reviewers in ethical decision-making and COPE-aligned best practices. Editorial mentorship contributes to maintaining long-term integrity in scholarly publishing.

12. Accountability to the Scientific Community

Editors are accountable for maintaining the integrity of the scientific record. They must act swiftly when unethical behavior is suspected and maintain transparent communication with affected parties.

13. Appeals and Complaints

Editors must provide a fair and structured appeals mechanism for authors contesting editorial decisions. Complaints about editor conduct are reviewed by the Ethics Committee of the publisher.

14. Continuous Professional Development

Editors are encouraged to participate in training workshops, webinars, and COPE or WAME certification programs to remain updated on evolving ethical and technological practices in academic publishing.

15. Contact Information

© 2025 Annals of Proteomics and Bioinformatics (APB) · Heighten Sciences Publication Incorporation

Source Reference: COPE Core Practices, WAME Editorial Ethics Policy, ICMJE Recommendations (2024), and DOAJ Transparency Principles.