The Archives of Psychiatry and Mental Health (APMH) is committed to maintaining the highest standards of publication ethics, research integrity, and professional conduct. Ethical compliance is integral to the journal’s mission of advancing mental health knowledge and supporting researchers, clinicians, educators, and members of the global health community. This updated Ethics and Malpractice Statement expands upon earlier policy fragments from the predecessor website and incorporates standards from COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics), ICMJE, WAME, and global best practices.

Purpose of the Ethics and Malpractice Statement

This statement outlines the responsibilities of authors, reviewers, editors, and the publisher. It details processes for handling misconduct, complaints, and corrections to ensure transparency, academic quality, and ethical scholarship.

Ethical Principles Guiding APMH

Integrity: Research and reporting must be honest, transparent, and accurate.
Accountability: Authors, reviewers, and editors must adhere to clearly defined responsibilities.
Objectivity: Editorial decisions are based solely on scientific merit.
Confidentiality: Manuscripts and reviewer identities must remain secure.
Respect and fairness: All parties are treated with equality regardless of identity, affiliation, or belief.

Responsibilities of Authors

Authors are expected to uphold the highest ethical standards. By submitting to APMH, authors confirm:

The manuscript is original and has not been published elsewhere (except preprints).
All authors meet authorship criteria (ICMJE guidelines).
There is full disclosure of conflicts of interest and funding sources.
Data is accurate, unmanipulated, and reproducible.
Human research has received IRB or ethics committee approval.
Participants have provided informed consent where applicable.
Permissions are obtained for third-party images or materials.
Clinical trials include registration information.

Plagiarism and Redundant Publication

APMH uses plagiarism-detection software (e.g., iThenticate) to screen all submissions. Any of the following constitute unethical behavior:

Copying text, data, or figures without attribution
Recycling previously published work (“self-plagiarism”)
Segmented or duplicate publication (“salami slicing”)
Submitting to multiple journals simultaneously

Violations may result in immediate rejection, retraction, sanctions, or reporting to the author’s institution.

Data Fabrication and Falsification

Authors must not falsify or fabricate data. Examples include:

Manipulating statistical results
Excluding data without justification
Inventing datasets or clinical findings

If detected, APMH will follow COPE procedures for misconduct investigation.

Human and Animal Rights

Studies involving human participants must state:

Ethics committee approval
Informed consent
Privacy and confidentiality safeguards

Animal studies must adhere to international animal welfare standards, institutional policies, and oversight regulations.

Responsibilities of Reviewers

Reviewers play an essential role in safeguarding scientific integrity. They must:

Provide unbiased, constructive, and timely evaluations
Maintain strict confidentiality regarding manuscripts
Avoid conflicts of interest with authors or institutions
Notify editors of ethical concerns or suspected misconduct
Evaluate studies fairly, regardless of personal views

Reviewers may not use any unpublished data or ideas for personal research.

Responsibilities of Editors

Editors are entrusted with maintaining the scientific and ethical quality of APMH. They must:

Make decisions based solely on scholarly merit, originality, and relevance
Ensure impartiality and avoid conflicts of interest
Guard confidentiality throughout the editorial process
Manage misconduct allegations transparently and fairly
Uphold the journal’s policies on corrections, retractions, and ethical compliance

Editors must recuse themselves from handling manuscripts where conflicts exist.

Responsibilities of the Publisher

The publisher supports the journal by:

Ensuring editorial independence
Providing systems for secure submission and workflow management
Maintaining digital preservation and access
Supporting investigations of ethical concerns

The publisher does not influence editorial decisions.

Handling Ethical Misconduct

APMH investigates all ethical allegations following COPE flowcharts. Misconduct categories include:

Plagiarism
Falsified data
Authorship disputes
Unethical research practices
Peer-review manipulation
Conflicts of interest not disclosed

Depending on the severity, APMH may:

Request clarifications or corrections
Reject the manuscript
Publish an Expression of Concern
Issue a retraction
Ban authors from future submission
Notify institutional or funding authorities

Procedures for Retractions, Corrections, and Expressions of Concern

APMH follows the following COPE-aligned mechanisms:

Corrections

Issued when minor errors are identified that do not undermine the study’s validity.

Retractions

Issued for serious breaches, fabricated data, or unethical research practices.

Expressions of Concern

Published when investigations are ongoing or evidence is inconclusive.

All retraction notices remain permanently accessible.

Conflicts of Interest (COI)

All authors, reviewers, and editors must disclose:

Financial interests
Professional affiliations
Consulting arrangements
Personal relationships that could influence decisions

Failure to disclose COI may result in rejection or corrective action.

Peer-Review Integrity and Confidentiality

APMH maintains a double-blind peer review system. Confidentiality must be protected at all stages:

Reviewer identities are not revealed to authors.
Manuscripts are privileged documents.
Editors safeguard reviewer anonymity.

Breaches may result in removal from reviewer duties.

Publication Malpractice Prevention

To prevent unethical publication practices, APMH:

Uses plagiarism detection tools
Follows COPE procedures for investigations
Ensures ethical compliance during submission
Maintains detailed editorial records
Provides authors with transparent communication
Monitors reviewer performance

Ethics for Special Article Types

Case Reports

Require written informed consent from patients or guardians.

Clinical Trials

Must include trial registry number and ethics approval details.

Qualitative Research

Must ensure confidentiality through anonymization techniques.

Secondary Data Analysis

Requires citation of original datasets and applicable permissions.

AI-Assisted Content and Responsibility

Authors must disclose the use of AI tools and ensure that:

AI does not introduce fabricated or plagiarized content
Authors maintain full responsibility for accuracy
Generated text is reviewed and validated

Real-World Scenario

Scenario: A research team submits a study involving adolescents with anxiety. During initial review, the editor notices missing consent statements. The journal requests additional documentation. The authors provide IRB approval letters and signed assent forms. After clarifications, the review continues. This illustrates how ethical vigilance protects participant rights and ensures responsible publication.

Frequently Asked Questions

Q: What happens if plagiarism is detected?: The manuscript may be rejected or retracted depending on the severity.
Q: Can authors appeal editorial decisions?: Yes. Appeals must provide evidence or justification for reconsideration.
Q: What if a reviewer has a conflict of interest?: They must decline the review.
Q: Are ethical violations reported to institutions?: Yes, in serious cases involving misconduct.

Conclusion

The Ethics and Malpractice Statement ensures that APMH remains a trusted, transparent, and responsible contributor to global mental health research. By upholding COPE principles, adopting open and fair editorial practices, and maintaining strict ethical standards, the journal fosters a culture of integrity and scholarly excellence.