1. General duties and responsibilities of editors

• actively seeking the views of authors, readers, reviewers and editorial board members about ways of improving their journal’s processes
• encouraging and being aware of research into peer review and publishing and reassessing their journal’s processes in the light of new findings
• working to persuade their publisher to provide appropriate resources, guidance from experts (e.g. designers, lawyers)
• supporting initiatives designed to reduce research and publication misconduct
• supporting initiatives to educate researchers about publication ethics
• assessing the effects of their journal policies on author and reviewer behaviour and revising policies, as required, to encourage responsible behaviour and discourage misconduct
• ensuring that any press releases issued by their journal reflect the message of the reported article and put it into context

2. Relation with readers

• ensuring that all published reports and reviews of research have been reviewed by suitably qualified reviewers (including statistical review where appropriate)
• ensuring that non-peer-reviewed sections of their journal are clearly identified

• adopting processes that encourage accuracy, completeness and clarity of research reporting including technical editing and the use of appropriate guidelines and checklists

• considering developing a transparency policy to encourage maximum disclosure about the provenance of non-research articles
• adopting authorship or contributorship systems that promote good practice (i.e. so that listings accurately reflect who did the work)4 and discourage misconduct (e.g. ghost and guest authors)
• informing readers about steps taken to ensure that submissions from members of the journal’s staff or editorial board receive an objective and unbiased evaluation

3. Relation with authors

• reviewing author instructions regularly and providing links to relevant guidelines
• publishing relevant competing interests for all contributors and publishing corrections if competing interests are revealed after publication

• ensuring that appropriate reviewers are selected for submissions

• respecting requests from authors that an individual should not review their submission, if these are well-reasoned and practicable

• being guided by the COPE flowcharts (http://publicationethics.org/flowcharts) in cases of suspected misconduct or disputed authorship publishing details of how they handle cases of suspected misconduct (e.g. with links to the COPE flowcharts)

• publishing submission and acceptance dates for articles

4. Relation with reviewers

• encouraging reviewers to comment on ethical questions and possible research and publication misconduct raised by submissions (e.g. unethical research design, insufficient detail on patient consent or protection of research subjects (including animals), inappropriate data manipulation and presentation)
• encouraging reviewers to comment on the originality of submissions and to be alert to redundant publication and plagiarism

• considering providing reviewers with tools to detect related publications (e.g. links to cited references and bibliographic searches)

• sending reviewers’ comments to authors in their entirety unless they contain offensive or libellous remarks

• seeking to acknowledge the contribution of reviewers to the journal

• encouraging academic institutions to recognise peer review activities as part of the scholarly process

• monitoring the performance of peer reviewers and taking steps to ensure this is of high standard

• developing and maintaining a database of suitable reviewers and updating this on the basis of reviewer performance

• ceasing to use reviewers who consistently produce discourteous, poor quality or late reviews

• ensuring that the reviewer database reflects the community for their journal and adding new reviewers as needed

• using a wide range of sources (not just personal contacts) to identify potential new reviewers (e.g. author suggestions, bibliographic databases)

• following the COPE flowchart in cases of suspected reviewer misconduct

5. Relation with editorial board members

• having policies in place for handling submissions from editorial board members to ensure unbiased review
• identifying suitably qualified editorial board members who can actively contribute to the development and good management of the journal
• regularly reviewing the composition of the editorial board

• consulting editorial board members periodically (e.g. once a year) to gauge their opinions about the running of the journal, informing them of any changes to journal policies and identifying future challenge

6. Relations with journal owners and publishers

• establishing mechanisms to handle disagreements between themselves and the journal owner/publisher with due process
• communicating regularly with their journal’s owner and publisher

7. Editorial and peer review processes

• ensuring that people involved with the editorial process (including themselves) receive adequate training and keep abreast of the latest guidelines, recommendations and evidence about peer review and journal management
• keeping informed about research into peer review and technological advances

• adopting peer review methods best suited for their journal and the research community it serves

• reviewing peer review practices periodically to see if improvement is possible

• referring troubling cases to COPE, especially when questions arise that are not addressed by the COPE flowcharts, or new types of publication misconduct are suspected

• considering the appointment of an ombudsperson to adjudicate in complaints that cannot be resolved internally

8. Quality assurance

• having systems in place to detect falsified data (e.g. inappropriately manipulated photographic images or plagiarised text) either for routine use or when suspicions are raised
• basing decisions about journal house style on relevant evidence of factors that raise the quality of reporting (e.g. adopting structured abstracts, applying guidance such as CONSORT2) rather than simply on aesthetic grounds or personal preference

9. Protecting individual data

• publishing their policy on publishing individual data (e.g. identifiable personal details or images) and explaining this clearly to authors

10. Encouraging ethical research (e.g. research involving humans or animals)

• being prepared to request evidence of ethical research approval and to question authors about ethical aspects (such as how research participant consent was obtained or what methods were employed to minimize animal suffering) if concerns are raised or clarifications are needed
• ensuring that reports of clinical trials cite compliance with the Declaration of Helsinki8, Good Clinical Practice and other relevant guidelines to safeguard participants

• ensuring that reports of experiments on, or studies of, animals cite compliance with the US Department of Health and Human Services Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals or other relevant guidelines

• appointing a journal ethics advisor or panel to advise on specific cases and review journal policies periodically

11. Dealing with possible misconduct

• Editors have a duty to act if they suspect misconduct or if an allegation of misconduct is brought to them. This duty extends to both published and unpublished papers
• Editors should not simply reject papers that raise concerns about possible misconduct. They are ethically obliged to pursue alleged cases
• Editors should follow the COPE flowcharts where applicable
• Editors should first seek a response from those suspected of misconduct. If they are not satisfied with the response, they should ask the relevant employers, or institution, or some appropriate body (perhaps a regulatory body or national research integrity organization) to investigate
• Editors should make all reasonable efforts to ensure that a proper investigation into alleged misconduct is conducted; if this does not happen, editors should make all reasonable attempts to persist in obtaining a resolution to the problem. This is an onerous but important duty.

12. Ensuring the integrity of the academic record

• taking steps to reduce covert redundant publication (e.g. by requiring all clinical trials to be registered)
• ensuring that published material is securely archived (e.g. via online permanent repositories, such as PubMed Central)

• having systems in place to give authors the opportunity to make original research articles freely available

13. Intellectual property

• adopting systems for detecting plagiarism (e.g. software, searching for similar titles) in submitted items (either routinely or when suspicions are raised)
• supporting authors whose copyright has been breached or who have been the victims of plagiarism

• being prepared to work with their publisher to defend authors’ rights and pursue offenders (e.g. by requesting retractions or removal of material from websites) irrespective of whether their journal holds the copyright

14. Encouraging debate

• being open to research that challenges previous work published in the journal

15. Complaints

• Editors should respond promptly to complaints and should ensure there is a way for dissatisfied complainants to take complaints further. This mechanism should be made clear in the journal and should include information on how to refer unresolved matters to COPE
• Editors should follow the procedure set out in the COPE flowchart on complaints.

16. Commercial consideration

• publishing a general description of their journal’s income sources (e.g. the proportions received from display advertising, reprint sales, sponsored supplements, page charges, etc.)
• ensuring that the peer review process for sponsored supplements is the same as that used for the main journal
• ensuring that items in sponsored supplements are accepted solely on the basis of academic merit and interest to readers and decisions about such supplements are not influenced by commercial considerations

17. Conflict of Interest

• publishing lists of relevant interests (financial, academic and other kinds) of all editorial staff and members of editorial boards (which should be updated at least annually)