The Archives of Psychiatry and Mental Health (APMH) is committed to upholding rigorous ethical and professional standards in scholarly publishing. As the field of psychiatry and mental health research directly influences clinical care, public health policies, vulnerable populations, and scientific understanding, ethical publishing practices are essential. This Publication Ethics Statement defines the principles, responsibilities, and expectations that guide authors, editors, reviewers, and the publisher throughout the entire publication process.

This policy builds upon foundational elements from the predecessor website and expands them into a comprehensive, modern ethical framework aligned with:

Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE)
International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE)
World Association of Medical Editors (WAME)
Open Access Scholarly Publishers Association (OASPA)
DOAJ best practices

Core Principles of Ethical Publication

APMH follows internationally recognized principles designed to promote transparency, integrity, originality, and the advancement of scientific knowledge. These include:

Integrity — reporting must be honest, accurate, and free of manipulation.
Transparency — full disclosure of conflicts, funding, and methodology.
Accountability — authors, editors, reviewers, and the publisher share responsibility for ethical conduct.
Respect — protection of human participants, animals, and sensitive populations.
Confidentiality — safeguarding data, identities, and peer-review materials.
Equity — fairness toward authors regardless of affiliation, nationality, gender, or background.

Responsibilities of Authors

Authors submitting to APMH must:

Ensure their work is fully original and properly cited.
Avoid plagiarism, redundant publication, or manipulation of data.
Confirm that the manuscript has not been submitted elsewhere.
List all authors who made substantial contributions (following ICMJE guidelines).
Provide accurate methodological details for reproducibility.
Disclose all conflicts of interest and funding sources.
Obtain appropriate ethical approvals for studies involving humans or animals.
Ensure patient confidentiality and consent when publishing identifiable information.

Submitting a manuscript implies that all authors have reviewed and approved the final version.

Authorship Criteria

To qualify as an author, individuals must contribute significantly to:

Study conception or design
Data collection, analysis, or interpretation
Drafting or critically revising the manuscript
Final approval of the submitted version

Ghost authorship, honorary authorship, and undisclosed contributors violate publication ethics.

Research Ethics for Human Studies

Studies involving human participants must:

Have IRB or ethics committee approval
Comply with the Declaration of Helsinki
Include informed consent from participants
Protect the privacy and confidentiality of participants

Vulnerable populations (children, psychiatric patients, individuals lacking decision-making capacity) require additional protections and justification.

Animal Research Ethics

APMH requires authors to follow:

Institutional and national guidelines on animal welfare
Reduction, Replacement, and Refinement (3Rs) principles
Justifications for the use of animals in studies

Ethical approval details must be included in the manuscript.

Clinical Trials and Registration

APMH mandates registration of clinical trials in recognized registries such as:

ClinicalTrials.gov
WHO ICTRP
EU Clinical Trials Register

Trial numbers must be included in the manuscript.

Data Integrity and Transparency

Authors must report data honestly and transparently. Fabrication, falsification, and inappropriate manipulation are strictly prohibited.

Data Sharing

While not mandatory, APMH encourages:

Sharing anonymized datasets
Providing supplementary materials
Depositing data in public repositories

This promotes reproducibility and accelerates scientific advancement.

Publication Misconduct and Investigations

APMH actively investigates all allegations of:

Plagiarism
Duplicate submission
Data manipulation
Improper authorship practices
Unethical research
Peer-review interference

Editors follow COPE flowcharts for resolution.

Possible Actions

Request for explanation
Manuscript corrections
Rejection or withdrawal
Publication of an Expression of Concern
Retraction of published work
Notification of institutional authorities

Corrections, Retractions, and Editorial Notes

APMH is committed to maintaining the integrity of the scholarly record.

Corrections

Issued when minor errors are discovered that do not invalidate findings.

Retractions

Used when misconduct, major errors, or ethical violations compromise the validity of the work.

Expressions of Concern

Published when investigations are ongoing or conflicting evidence exists.

All corrections or retractions remain permanently accessible.

Responsibilities of Reviewers

Peer reviewers help maintain publication quality by:

Providing objective, constructive feedback
Preserving confidentiality of materials
Declining reviews where conflicts of interest exist
Identifying ethical concerns, plagiarism, or methodological flaws

Reviewers must not:

Use manuscript information for personal research
Share manuscripts with others
Contact authors directly

Responsibilities of Editors

Editors uphold ethical publication practices by:

Ensuring fairness in decision-making
Maintaining confidentiality
Managing conflicts of interest
Following COPE guidance during investigations
Verifying ethical approvals for studies
Ensuring transparent correction and retraction procedures

Editors must recuse themselves if they cannot remain impartial.

Conflicts of Interest

All participants in the publication process—authors, reviewers, editors—must disclose conflicts that could influence their work or decisions.

Examples of Conflicts

Financial relationships
Personal or professional relationships
Institutional affiliations
Competitive research interests

Failure to disclose conflicts can result in corrective actions.

AI Use and Ethical Considerations

APMH allows the use of AI-assisted writing tools but requires:

Full disclosure of AI involvement
Human oversight of all content
No AI-generated fabricated references or data
Authors to remain responsible for accuracy and originality

AI tools may be used ethically for language refinement, not content creation without verification.

Real-World Scenario

Scenario: A research team submits a study involving PTSD patients but omits details of informed consent. During editorial checking, the editors request clarification. The authors provide documentation showing that verbal consent was approved by the ethics board due to participant vulnerability. After including this information transparently in the Methods section, the study proceeds to review. This demonstrates APMH’s commitment to ethical oversight and transparency.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

Q: What happens if authors discover an error after publication?: They should notify the editor immediately for correction or retraction evaluation.
Q: Does APMH permit preprints?: Yes, but authors must disclose all preprint postings during submission.
Q: Can ethical violations lead to author bans?: Yes. Severe or repeated misconduct may result in temporary or permanent submission bans.
Q: Are ethical approvals mandatory for all clinical studies?: Yes. Lack of approval can lead to rejection or retraction.
Q: Does publication ethics apply to invited articles?: Yes. All publications are held to the same ethical standards.

Conclusion

The Publication Ethics Statement of APMH reinforces the journal’s dedication to transparency, integrity, and responsible scholarship. By combining COPE-aligned procedures, rigorous editorial oversight, and author-centered ethical guidance, APMH ensures that published research contributes meaningfully to global mental health knowledge and clinical advancement.