Ethics for Editors

This detailed guideline outlines the ethical expectations for editors, consistent with COPE, ICMJE, WAME, and international best practices for biomedical publishing.

Editorial ethics protect the neutrality and integrity of the scientific record. Editors must demonstrate fairness, confidentiality, transparency, and responsibility in every action.

1. Editorial Independence

Editors must maintain full independence in decision-making. Editorial decisions cannot be influenced by:

  • Commercial interests or advertising
  • Author’s nationality, gender, institutional affiliation, or career stage
  • Potential journal revenue or APC collection
  • Personal or political ideologies

Independence preserves credibility and prevents conflicts of interest from influencing scientific evaluation.

2. Commitment to Fairness and Impartiality

Editors must:

  • Evaluate manuscripts solely on academic merit
  • Apply policies consistently across all cases
  • Avoid favoritism toward peers or collaborators
  • Ensure equal treatment for authors from all regions

Unconscious bias must be actively monitored and minimized.

3. Confidentiality Obligations

Editors are responsible for protecting:

  • Confidentiality of submitted manuscripts
  • Reviewer identities (for double-blind review)
  • Authors’ unpublished data and ideas
  • Internal communication related to peer review

Unpublished work must never be used for personal research or shared outside the editorial process.

4. Ethical Reviewer Selection

Ethical reviewer selection requires:

  • Ensuring reviewer expertise matches manuscript content
  • Verifying reviewer identity and qualifications
  • Avoiding reviewers with potential conflicts of interest
  • Diversity in geography, gender, and institutional representation

Editors must prevent author-suggested reviewers from compromising review integrity.

5. Handling Conflicts of Interest

Editors must declare and avoid conflicts such as:

  • Collaborative relationships with authors
  • Financial or institutional ties
  • Personal relationships (positive or negative)
  • Competitive scientific interests

If a conflict exists, another editor must take over handling the manuscript.

6. Transparency in Decision-Making

Editors must:

  • Explain decisions clearly and respectfully
  • Provide actionable reasoning behind rejections or revisions
  • Ensure reviewer comments are supportive, not hostile
  • Adhere to timelines and avoid unnecessary delay

Transparent editorial communication fosters trust and fairness.

7. Ethical Management of Revisions

During revisions, editors must:

  • Ensure authors address reviewer concerns thoroughly
  • Request additional review if revisions are substantial
  • Prevent undue pressure from reviewers or authors
  • Avoid excessive revision cycles not justified by manuscript needs

Editors should act as mediators when reviewer comments conflict.

8. Handling Ethical Misconduct

Editors must address allegations involving:

  • Plagiarism
  • Data manipulation
  • Fabrication or falsification
  • Image manipulation
  • Improper authorship practices
  • Peer-review manipulation

Actions should follow COPE flowcharts and may involve:

  • Formal queries to authors
  • Communication with institutions
  • Publication of corrections, retractions, or expressions of concern
  • Bans on future submissions
Editors must approach misconduct with neutrality, confidentiality, and due diligence.

9. Avoiding Coercive Citation

Editors must not:

  • Pressure authors to cite the journal unnecessarily
  • Manipulate citation metrics artificially
  • Request citations to personal work without justification

Coercive citation is considered unethical and damages journal credibility.

10. Maintaining Academic Quality

Editors uphold quality by:

  • Ensuring methodological rigor
  • Promoting strong study design and transparent reporting
  • Rejecting poorly justified, misleading, or weakly supported conclusions
  • Encouraging robust discussions and balanced interpretations

Quality assurance ensures long-term journal reputation and impact.

11. Professional Conduct Toward Authors

Editors must:

  • Use respectful language
  • Avoid accusatory or dismissive tones
  • Provide constructive, actionable feedback
  • Respond to author queries promptly

Clear communication enhances transparency and author satisfaction.

12. Responsibilities Toward Reviewers

Editors must support reviewers by:

  • Providing clear evaluation instructions
  • Ensuring deadlines are reasonable
  • Recognizing reviewer contributions
  • Offering guidance on ethical issues

Supportive editorial management strengthens the peer-review ecosystem.

13. Addressing Post-Publication Issues

Editors must oversee:

  • Corrections of factual errors
  • Retractions for misconduct
  • Clarifications for ambiguous findings
  • Investigation of reader-reported concerns

Editors should collaborate with publishers to ensure timely responses.

14. Examples of Ethical and Unethical Editorial Behavior

Ethical Scenario

An editor steps aside from handling a manuscript written by a close colleague, assigning it to another editor to avoid conflict of interest.

Unethical Scenario

An editor pressures authors to include citations to their own work to increase personal visibility, regardless of relevance.

15. Promoting Diversity, Inclusion, and Equity

Editors must:

  • Promote diversity in reviewer assignments
  • Ensure fairness across regions and disciplines
  • Remain sensitive to cultural and contextual differences
  • Prevent discrimination from influencing decisions

Inclusive editorial practices strengthen global scientific dialogue.

16. Continuous Professional Development

Editors are encouraged to:

  • Participate in COPE and WAME workshops
  • Stay informed about new publishing ethics standards
  • Learn about emerging biases in peer review
  • Develop skills for identifying fabricated or AI-generated content

Continuous development ensures editorial excellence.

Conclusion

Ethical editorial conduct is fundamental to the mission of the Archives of Psychiatry and Mental Health (APMH). Editors must remain neutral stewards of scientific integrity, protect the confidentiality and dignity of authors and reviewers, and act with transparency, accountability, and professionalism. Upholding these principles ensures that the journal remains a trusted source of high-quality mental health scholarship.