Confidentiality and Ethics

Editors at the Archives of Psychiatry and Mental Health (APMH) bear significant responsibility in protecting the integrity, confidentiality, and ethical standards of the editorial and peer-review process. This document outlines the ethical rules editors must follow to ensure the journal remains a trusted, credible, and unbiased platform for scholarly communication.

The guidance below aligns with best practices recommended by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE), and internationally accepted norms for responsible publishing.

Confidentiality is not optional — it is a foundational ethical expectation for all editors involved in manuscript handling and journal operations.

1. Commitment to Confidentiality

Editors must maintain strict confidentiality regarding:

  • The identity of authors and reviewers
  • Content of submitted manuscripts
  • Unpublished data, hypotheses, and methodologies
  • Communication between authors, reviewers, and editorial staff
  • Decisions under review and internal deliberations

Only individuals directly involved in the editorial workflow may have access to manuscript information.

Prohibited actions include:

  • Sharing manuscript drafts with colleagues not involved in the review
  • Using unpublished data for personal research or advancement
  • Disclosing reviewer identities or comments outside official channels
  • Discussing manuscripts publicly before publication

2. Safeguarding Reviewer Anonymity

APMH follows a **double-blind peer-review model**, requiring editors to ensure that:

  • Reviewer identities remain confidential
  • Manuscripts are properly anonymized before review
  • Editorial communications do not reveal identifying information
  • Reviewer comments are transmitted securely

Under no circumstances may an editor disclose the identity of a reviewer without written permission.

3. Ethical Handling of Manuscript Information

Editors must treat all manuscript-related materials—including text, images, datasets, and supplementary files—as privileged information. They must avoid:

  • Downloading files to unsecured personal devices
  • Forwarding manuscripts to external parties
  • Using confidential information to gain competitive advantage

APMH enforces strict data-governance practices to protect author intellectual property.

4. Avoiding Conflicts of Interest

Editors must recuse themselves from manuscripts when they have:

  • Personal, financial, or professional relationships with authors
  • Competing research in the same domain
  • Institutional ties that may create bias
  • Past or ongoing collaborations with authors

If conflicted, editors must immediately assign the manuscript to an alternate editor.

Examples of conflicts requiring recusal:

  • Handling a manuscript authored by a previous PhD supervisor or student
  • Accepting papers from close colleagues or collaborators
  • Working on a competing publication that could influence judgment
  • Receiving funding tied to the subject matter under review

5. Transparency and Integrity in Editorial Decisions

Editors must ensure:

  • Editorial decisions are transparent and evidence-based
  • Manuscripts are evaluated without discrimination
  • Decisions are communicated respectfully and clearly
  • No external influence (commercial, institutional, or political) affects decisions

Editors must never allow APC (Article Processing Charge) considerations to influence manuscript decisions.

6. Ethical Communications with Authors and Reviewers

Editors must:

  • Use professional, respectful language
  • Avoid revealing confidential details unrelated to the author’s manuscript
  • Provide clear reasoning for decisions
  • Not manipulate reviewers to achieve a predetermined editorial outcome

Reviewers depend on editors to mediate interactions fairly and responsibly.

7. Responsibilities During the Peer-Review Process

Editors must:

  • Select qualified, unbiased reviewers
  • Ensure reviews are constructive and appropriate
  • Remove abusive, unprofessional, or discriminatory reviewer comments
  • Prevent coercive reviewer behavior

Reviewers are partners in the evaluation process, and editors must uphold ethical oversight.

8. Ethical Management of Revisions

Editors must handle revised manuscripts ethically by:

  • Ensuring author revisions address reviewer concerns
  • Sending revised manuscripts back to reviewers when necessary
  • Preventing undue pressure from authors or reviewers
  • Avoiding unwarranted revision cycles

Editors must balance efficiency with thoroughness.

9. Addressing Allegations of Misconduct

Editors must follow COPE guidelines when misconduct is suspected, including:

  • Plagiarism or text overlap
  • Falsified or manipulated data
  • Undisclosed conflicts of interest
  • Improper authorship practices
  • Peer-review manipulation

Investigations must be handled confidentially and without bias.

Editors must act as impartial investigators, not as judges or adversaries.

10. Prohibition of Coercive Citation

Editors must not:

  • Pressure authors to cite the journal unnecessarily
  • Request citations to their own work unless scientifically justified
  • Manipulate citation counts to influence journal metrics

Coercive citation is an ethical violation that undermines journal integrity.

11. Data-Protection Responsibilities

Editors must comply with:

  • GDPR and global data-protection regulations
  • Institutional privacy protocols
  • Secure storage and transmission standards
  • Retention policies for manuscript-related files

Personal data shared during submission must remain confidential.

12. Examples of Ethical vs. Unethical Behavior

Ethical Example

An editor discovers that a reviewer attempted to contact the author directly. The editor intervenes immediately, removes the reviewer, and reminds both parties of confidentiality rules.

Unethical Example

An editor shares unpublished manuscript data with colleagues at a conference. This breaches confidentiality and violates editorial ethics.

13. Promoting Diversity and Equity

Editors must support fairness by:

  • Choosing diverse reviewers
  • Ensuring manuscripts from low-resource regions receive unbiased evaluation
  • Recognizing cultural and linguistic diversity in submissions
  • Mitigating systemic biases that exist in scholarly publishing

Diversity strengthens intellectual rigor and global representation.

14. Continuous Ethical Development

Editors are encouraged to:

  • Participate in COPE workshops
  • Review regular updates to ICMJE standards
  • Study case histories of editorial misconduct
  • Engage in reflective practice and self-assessment

Ethical competence evolves with experience and learning.

Conclusion

Confidentiality and ethics form the backbone of responsible editorial leadership. At APMH, editors must uphold these values at every stage of manuscript handling—from initial screening to post-publication stewardship. By maintaining strict confidentiality, avoiding conflicts of interest, ensuring fairness, and acting with professionalism, editors preserve the integrity of the scientific record and promote trust within the mental health research community.