Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement

The AI Ethics Journal (AIEJ) and its Publisher, the AI Robotics Ethics Society (AIRES), follow the COPE Code of Conduct and Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors and the Code of Conduct for Journal Publishers.

Duties of Editors

Fair play and editorial independence

Editors evaluate submitted manuscripts exclusively based on their academic merit (importance, originality, validity, clarity) and relevance to the scope of the Journal without regard to race, gender, sexual orientation, ethnic origin, citizenship, religious belief, political philosophy, or institutional affiliation of the authors. Decisions to edit and publish are not determined by the policies of governments or any other agencies, or by the sponsors of this Journal. The Editor-in-Chief has full authority over the entire editorial content of the Journal and the timing of publication of that content.

Confidentiality

Editors and editorial staff will not disclose any information about a submitted manuscript to anyone other than the corresponding author, reviewers, potential reviewers, other editorial advisers, and the publisher, as appropriate.

Disclosure and conflicts of interest

Editors and editorial board members will not use unpublished information disclosed in a submitted manuscript for research purposes without the author’s explicit written consent. Privileged information or ideas obtained by editors as a result of handling the manuscript will be kept confidential and not used for their advantage. Editors will recuse themselves from considering manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships/connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers; instead, they will ask another member of the editorial board to handle the manuscript.

Publication decisions

The editors ensure that all submitted manuscripts considered for publication undergo peer review by at least two reviewers who are experts in the field. The Editor-in-Chief is responsible for deciding which of the manuscripts submitted to the Journal will be published, based on the validation of the work in question, its importance to researchers and readers, the reviewers’ comments, and such legal requirements as are currently in force regarding libel, copyright infringement, and plagiarism. The Editor-in-Chief may confer with other editors or reviewers in making this decision.

Involvement and cooperation in investigations

Editors (in conjunction with the publisher and/or society) will take responsive measures when ethical concerns are raised concerning a submitted manuscript or published paper. Every reported act of unethical publishing behavior will be looked into, even if it is discovered years after publication. AIEJ editors follow the COPE Flowcharts when dealing with cases of suspected misconduct. If, on an investigation, the ethical concern is well-founded, a correction, retraction, expression of concern, or other note as may be relevant, will be published in the Journal.

Duties of Reviewers

Contribution to editorial decisions

Peer review assists editors in making editorial decisions and, through editorial communications with authors, may assist authors in improving their manuscripts. Peer review is essential to formal scholarly communication and lies at the heart of the scientific endeavor. The AIEJ shares the view of many that all scholars who wish to contribute to the scientific process must do a fair share of reviewing.

Promptness

Any invited reviewer who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should immediately notify the editors and decline the invitation to review so that alternative reviewers can be contacted.

Confidentiality

Any manuscripts received for review are confidential and must be treated as such; they must not be shown to or discussed with others except if authorized by the Editor-in-Chief (who would only do so under exceptional and specific circumstances). To invited reviewers who decline the review invitation, this also applies.

Standards of objectivity

Objectivity is critical during the review. Observations should be formulated clearly with supporting arguments to contribute to improving the manuscript. Personal criticism of the authors is inappropriate.

Review of sources

Reviewers should identify relevant published material that the authors have not credited. Any statement that is an observation, derivation, or argument documented in previous publications should be supported by the appropriate citation. A reviewer should also notify the editors of any substantial similarity or overlap between the article under consideration and any other manuscript (published or unpublished) about which they have personal knowledge.

Disclosure and conflicts of interest

Any invited referee who has conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the manuscript and the work described therein should immediately notify the editors to declare their conflicts of interest and decline the invitation to review so that alternative reviewers can be contacted.

The express written consent of the authors is necessary for the utilization of unpublished material disclosed in a submitted manuscript. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be confidential and not used to grant advantage. To invited reviewers who decline the review invitation, this also applies.

Duties of Authors

Reporting standards

Authors of original research should present an accurate account of the work performed and the results, followed by an objective discussion of the significance of the work. The manuscript should contain sufficient detail and references to permit others to replicate the work. Review articles should be accurate, objective, and comprehensive, whereas editorial or perspective pieces should be labeled correctly. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behavior and are unacceptable.

Data access and retention

Authors may be asked to provide the raw data of their study together with the manuscript for editorial review and should be prepared to make the data publicly available if practicable. In any event, authors should ensure accessibility of such data to other competent professionals for at least 10 years after publication (preferably via an institutional or subject-based data repository or other data center), provided that the confidentiality of the participants can be protected and legal rights concerning proprietary data do not preclude their release.

Originality and plagiarism

Authors should ensure that they have written and submitted only entirely original works, and if they have used the work and/or words of others, that this has been appropriately cited. Publications that have been influential in determining the nature of the work reported in the manuscript should also be cited. Plagiarism takes many forms, from "passing off" another's paper as the author's own, to copying or paraphrasing substantial parts of another's paper (without attribution), to claiming results from research conducted by others. Plagiarism in all its forms constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable.

Multiple, duplicate, redundant, or concurrent submission/publication

Papers describing essentially the same research should not be published in more than one publication. Hence, authors should not submit for consideration a manuscript published in another journal. Submission of a manuscript concurrently is unethical publishing behavior and unacceptable.

The publication of articles (such as clinical guidelines and translations) in more than one journal is sometimes justifiable, provided that certain conditions are met. The authors and editors of the journals concerned must agree to the secondary publication, which must reflect the same data and interpretation of the primary document. The primary must have credit in the secondary publication.

Authorship of the manuscript

Only those who satisfy the following requirements for authorship should be identified as authors in the paper since they must be able to accept public responsibility for the content: (i) contributed significantly to the study's conception, design, execution, data acquisition, or analysis/interpretation; (ii) drafted the manuscript or critically revised it for important intellectual content, and (iii) seen and approved the final version of the paper and agreed to its submission for publication. All persons who made substantial contributions to the work reported in the manuscript (such as technical help, writing and editing assistance, and general support) but who do not meet the criteria for authorship must not be listed as an author but should be acknowledged in the "Acknowledgments" section after their written permission to be named as been obtained. The corresponding author should ensure that all appropriate coauthors (according to the above definition) and no inappropriate co-authors are included in the author list and verify that all co-authors have seen and approved the final version of the manuscript and agreed to its submission for publication.

Disclosure and conflicts of interest

Authors should—at the earliest stage possible (generally by submitting a disclosure form at the time of submission and including a statement in the manuscript)—disclose any conflicts of interest that might be construed to influence the results or their interpretation in the manuscript. Examples of potential conflicts of interest that should be disclosed include financial ones such as honoraria, educational grants or other funding, participation in speakers’ bureaus, membership, employment, consultancies, stock ownership, or other equity interest, and paid expert testimony or patent-licensing arrangements, as well as non-financial ones such as personal or professional relationships, affiliations, knowledge or beliefs in the subject matter or materials discussed in the manuscript. All sources of financial support for the work should be disclosed (including the grant number or other reference number if any).

Acknowledgment of sources

Authors should ensure that they have properly acknowledged the work of others, and should also cite publications that have been influential in determining the nature of the reported work. Information obtained privately (from a conversation, correspondence, or discussion with third parties) must not be used or reported without explicit written permission from the source. Authors should not use information obtained in the course of providing confidential services, such as refereeing manuscripts or grant applications unless they have obtained the explicit written permission of the author(s) of the work involved in these services.

Hazards and human or animal subjects

If the work involves chemicals, procedures, or equipment with any unusual hazards inherent in their use, the authors must identify these in the manuscript. If the work involves the use of animals or human participants, the authors should ensure that all procedures were performed in compliance with relevant laws and institutional guidelines and ensure the approval of the appropriate institutional committee(s); the manuscript should contain a statement to this effect. Authors should also include a statement in the manuscript that informed consent was obtained for experimentation with human participants. The privacy rights of human participants must always be observed.

Peer review

Authors are obliged to participate in the peer-review process and cooperate fully by responding promptly to editors’ requests for raw data, clarifications, proof of ethics approval, participant consent, and copyright permissions. In the case of a first decision of "revisions necessary", authors should respond to the reviewers’ comments systematically, point by point, and promptly, revising and re-submitting their manuscript by the deadline given.

Fundamental errors in published works

When authors discover significant errors or inaccuracies in their own published work, they must promptly notify the journal’s editors or publisher and cooperate with them to either correct the paper in the form of an erratum or to retract the paper. If the editors or publisher learns from a third party that a published work contains a significant error or inaccuracy, then the author must promptly correct or retract the paper or provide evidence to the journal editors of the correctness of the paper.

Duties of the Publisher

Handling of unethical publishing behavior

In cases of alleged or proven scientific misconduct, fraudulent publication, or plagiarism, the publisher, in close collaboration with the editors, will take all appropriate measures to clarify the situation and amend the article in question. Including the prompt publication of an erratum, clarification, or, in the most severe case, the retraction of the affected work. The publisher, with the editors, shall take reasonable steps to identify and prevent the publication of papers where research misconduct has occurred, and under no circumstances encourage such misconduct or knowingly allow such misconduct to take place.

The publisher is committed to the permanent availability and preservation of scholarly research and ensures accessibility by partnering with organizations and maintaining our digital archive.