Apply

Transparency & best practice

Introduction

The Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), DOAJ, the Open Access Scholarly Publishing Association (OASPA), and the World Association of Medical Editors (WAME) are scholarly organisations that work together to identify principles of transparency and best practice for scholarly publications. This is the fifth version of a work in progress (published 29th October 2026). We encourage you to share them widely.

The Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing apply to all published journal content, including special issues and conference proceedings. Where practices vary from the standards outlined, editors must clearly state the procedures that the journal follows.

COPE, DOAJ, OASPA, and WAME agree that these principles underpin good publishing practice and that publishers must demonstrate they meet them. Because these principles form the basis of each organisation’s membership criteria, journals and publishers may need to explain when they do not comply with them.

Principles of transparency and best practice in scholarly publishing

JOURNAL PRESENTATION

Name of journal

The journal's name must:

  1. Be relevant to the aims and scope, and content of the journal.
  2. Not be easily confused with another journal.
  3. Be accurate regarding the journal’s origin, location, and/or association with other journals and organisations.

Website

  1. Websites must be properly supported and maintained, with particular attention given to security that protects users from viruses and malware. Websites must use HTTPS and not HTTP.
  2. A journal must have one official website. If it is hosted on additional sites, these secondary sites must clearly direct users to the primary official site.
  3. Those responsible for the website should apply best web standards to the website’s content and ensure clear presentation and navigation.
  4. The website must not contain information that might mislead readers or authors.
  5. The website must not copy another journal or publisher’s site, design, or logo, nor impersonate legitimate academic journals by copying their titles, ISSNs, and other identifying information to create fake, clone versions of the original journals (“hijacked journals”).
  6. If any text is copied from another website, an acknowledgement to the source website must be declared.
  7. The website must list active ISSNs (print and electronic versions, as applicable).

Publishing schedule and timeline

  1. The journal’s publication frequency (whether based on a fixed schedule with issues/volumes or continuous/rolling publication) should be clearly described, and the journal must keep to its stated schedule and timeline unless there are exceptional circumstances.
  2. The journal must follow its stated publishing schedule unless exceptional circumstances apply.

Preservation

The journal should indicate the journal’s plan for electronic backup and long-term digital preservation of the journal content, separate from the journal website, in the event that the journal and/or publisher stops operating. Examples include sites listed in the Keepers Registry, national archives, PubMed Central, CLOCKSS, Portico, PKP PN, and Internet Archive Scholar.

Copyright

  1. The journal's copyright policy for published articles must be clearly stated on the website. The journal website/platform’s copyright holder must also be stated separately from the article copyright.
  2. If the article copyright terms are described in a separate or downloadable document, the document must be easy to find on the website and available to all.
  3. The article copyright holder must be stated on the full-text version of all published articles (HTML and PDF).

Licensing

  1. The website must clearly and consistently describe licensing information.
  2. All full-text versions of the published article (HTML and PDF) must indicate licensing terms. Content labelled as open access must use an open licence.
  3. The journal should state its policies about posting author manuscripts and published articles in third-party repositories.
  4. If Creative Commons licences are used, then the terms of the licence must link to the correct licence on the Creative Commons website.
  5. The journal should state the publisher's policies on access to, and licensing of, journal content by content miners, including AI companies.

JOURNAL PRACTICES

Publication ethics and related editorial policies

Editors are responsible for the content in their journal and, with the support of publishers, for ensuring the integrity of the evaluation process for all scholarly literature published in their journal. Neither the journal’s policies nor the statements of its editors may encourage or permit misconduct – for example, plagiarism, citation manipulation, data falsification/fabrication, or manipulation of peer review – or knowingly allow misconduct to take place.

A journal must have and adhere to clear, detailed policies on publication ethics issues. These must be clearly visible on its website, and must describe the journal’s policies and processes for:

  1. Journal management
    1. Journals must have a prominently displayed aims and scope statement on the journal website. The aims and scope statement should define the journal’s purpose, subject area, types of research published, and target audience.
    2. Publishers and editors are responsible for supporting accessibility, diversity, equity, and inclusivity in all aspects of the publication.
  2. Publication practices
    1. Journals should clearly describe their policies on ethical issues and related considerations for specific publication types, such as special issues, supplements, and conference proceedings, and if guest editors are used, how they are appointed and their role in manuscript decision making.
  3. Authorship and contributorship, including the use of AI
    1. Journals must have clear requirements for authorship and contributorship that allow for transparency around who contributed to the work and in what capacity, and who takes responsibility for the work. Processes for managing potential authorship disputes should also be stated.
    2. Journals must state their policy on use of AI by authors for content correction and generation (including, but not limited to, development of study design, methods, results, data analysis, generation of figures and tables, introduction, discussion, and citations), and how that should be disclosed.
    3. Current scholarly consensus is that AI cannot qualify for authorship. However, if a journal accepts AI as an author, that should be stated.
  4. Conflicts of interest
    1. Journals must state the processes used for handling conflicts of interest (also known as competing interests) of authors, editors, reviewers, journals, and publishers, whether identified before or after publication. Editors and reviewers who have significant conflicts of interest for particular manuscripts must recuse themselves from reviewing, and in the case of editors, from decision making.
    2. Journals must have clear definitions of conflicts of interest, eg, personal, financial, political or religious, academic or professional influences, and ownership that potentially could interfere with, or could reasonably be perceived as interfering with, the full and objective conduct of research, presentation, peer review, decision making, or publication of research papers submitted to a journal.
    3. Journals must declare what conflicts of interest must be declared and by whom. They must state how, to whom, and when they should be declared.
    4. Journals must state the steps the journal will take if conflicts of interest are not declared.
    5. Editors and staff must not receive compensation based on the acceptance of articles.
  5. Data sharing and reproducibility
    1. Journals should include policies on data sharing, publication and access and encourage the use of the FAIR and CARE principles, reporting guidelines, and registration of clinical trials and other study designs according to standard practice in their discipline.
  6. Funding and support
    1. Journals must require that authors disclose all sources of funding and support, such as grants, equipment, drugs, and/or other support that either facilitates conduct of the work described in the article or the writing of the article itself. If no funding was received, journals must require authors to state 'No funding was received for this study' or similar language.
  7. Post-publication review
    1. Journals should state their policies on handling post-publication review, such as letters to the editor and/or online comments.
  8. Corrections, Retractions, and Expressions of Concern
    1. Journals should state their policies regarding Corrections, Retractions, and Expressions of Concern.
  9. Plagiarism
    1. Journal policies must explicitly outline what constitutes plagiarism (copying others’ words or ideas without acknowledgement) as well as self-plagiarism (reusing one’s own previous work without disclosure, eg, redundant/duplicate or overlapping publication, text recycling).
    2. Journals should specify whether they will consider submissions that have been published elsewhere, including preprints or translations of previously published work.
  10. Complaints and appeals
    1. Complaints may be brought against the journal, its staff, editorial board, or publisher, while appeals may be brought by authors about editorial decisions or processes. Journals must clearly describe processes for handling both and adhere to them.
  11. Research ethics
    1. When relevant to a journal’s content, journals must state their requirements for participant consent for publication wherever there is a possibility of individual identification.
    2. Each article that includes potentially identifiable material must contain a statement that appropriate consent for publication was obtained by the researcher(s) from the participant(s).
    3. When relevant to a journal’s content, journals must have policies on ethical conduct of any research involving humans, animals, or human tissue. The policy must require approval by an ethics review board (or adherence to the Declaration of Helsinki if a review board is not available to the researchers), requirements for informed consent, and handling confidential data. Authors of research exempt from ethics review must provide proof of the exemption (eg, a letter from the ethics board).
  12. Handling allegations of research misconduct
    1. Journals must have a clearly described policy and process for handling allegations of research misconduct, whether they are brought to the journal’s or publisher’s attention. Journals must take allegations of misconduct pre-publication and post-publication seriously. If a journal’s editors or publisher are made aware of any allegation of research misconduct relating to a submitted or published article in their journal, the editor or publisher should follow COPE’s guidance (or equivalent, such as CSE’s and ICMJE’s) in dealing with allegations. When appropriate, journals should coordinate the handling of research misconduct allegations with research institutions, in line with COPE's guidance.
    2. Policies should include how to handle allegations from people who raise concerns about the content of the journal (such as claimants or whistleblowers).

Editorial assessment

  1. Editorial decision making: Editorial decisions must be based on scholarly merit. They must not be affected by the origins of the manuscript, including the nationality, ethnicity, political beliefs, race, or religion of the authors, undue external influence, or ability to pay fees. Editors-in-chief should establish procedures that guard against the influence of commercial, organisational, and personal self-interest on editorial decisions and should make these procedures clear and transparent on the journal website. They should be compensated for their work on the journal in a manner that does not create a conflict of interest for the manuscripts they consider. Editors’ relationship with the journal owner should be stated on the journal website.
  2. Who makes decisions regarding acceptance, revision, or rejection of manuscripts, and when. This includes whether manuscripts may be rejected without peer review and details such as whether decisions are made by a single editor, by group consensus, or via delegated responsibility, and specifies who is responsible for these decisions. Individuals who make article-level decisions must not be involved in article payments or waivers. Editors are solely responsible for making the final decision to accept or reject a manuscript.
  3. Whether journal editors/editorial staff use AI or other automated tools for manuscript screening, correction, generation of editorial comments, or requests for revision for authors.
  4. Any article types that do not undergo peer review. If a specific article is in a category that usually undergoes peer review but it does not undergo peer review, the article must indicate that it was not peer reviewed.
  5. Journals must not guarantee acceptance/approval of initial manuscript submissions.

Peer review

Peer review means getting advice and recommendations on manuscripts from independent scholars who are experts in the manuscript’s subject area and/or methods. Those individuals must not be part of the journal’s editorial office. The details of peer review differ by journal and discipline, so the following must be clearly stated on the website:

  1. Whether or not the content is peer reviewed (reviewers who are not part of the journal’s editorial staff)
  2. Who conducts the peer review, for example, external experts or editorial board members
  3. Whether peer reviewers may use AI for correction or generation of their review content, and whether reviewers are required to disclose such use
  4. Expected turnaround time for peer review
  5. Expected number of reviews per manuscript
  6. The type of peer review process(es) used, including whether any identities are anonymised, and if so, who is anonymised and to whom (eg, the reviewers’ identities are anonymised to the authors)
  7. Any policies related to the peer review procedures, for example:
    1. The confidentiality of peer-reviewed materials and whether reviewers are permitted to contact the author(s)
    2. Whether reviewers are permitted to ask others to assist in their review and under what conditions (eg, contact the editor first)
    3. Who assigns reviewers, including whether the use of automated suggestions/invitations is allowed, including AI
    4. Whether author-recommended reviewers are permitted and if so, for what purpose (eg, increase the reviewer pool vs review the specific manuscript)
    5. Whether supplementary material undergoes peer review
    6. Whether reviews are signed or anonymous (or a mixture of both)
    7. Whether reviews are posted with articles, with or without reviewer identities (or a mixture of both), and whether editor comments and/or author responses are posted
  8. If an article's peer review is an exception to the usual policy, the article must state what review it received.
  9. Journal-reported average time to reach a decision should be supported by published timeframes on accepted papers. If there are delays, authors should be informed of the reason and given the opportunity to withdraw their manuscript if they wish.
  10. The date of publication must appear on all published research. Submission and acceptance dates are preferred as well.
  11. Journals should ensure that all decision-making editors, including guest editors, understand the peer review procedures and provide support and training for all editors in the process of peer review used by the journal; the selection of peer reviewers and what constitutes a conflict of interest; what peer review should and should not address; how to deal with unacceptable reviewer comments; and how to communicate requests for revision to authors.
  12. Journals should provide clear instructions to peer reviewers regarding journal expectations for review and turnaround.
  13. Editors should be available for questions from authors and peer reviewers.

Access

If any online content is not freely accessible to everyone, the method of gaining access (for example, registration, subscription, or pay-per-view fees) must be clearly described. If print versions are available, this must be clearly described along with any associated charges.

ORGANISATION

A well-defined infrastructure that supports the effective and ethical running of an editorially independent journal or publication. This includes clear business models, policies, processes, and software systems, as well as the efficient coordination, training, and support of all decision-making editors, including guest editors, editorial boards and publishing staff.

Ownership and management

  1. Information about the ownership and management of a journal must be clearly indicated on the journal’s website, including the individuals and organisations who own and manage the journal.
  2. Organisational names must not be used in a way that could mislead anyone about the nature of the journal’s owner, or be easily confused with another organisation or brand.
  3. If a journal is affiliated with a society, institution, or sponsor, links to their website(s) must be provided where available.
  4. Ownership of a journal should be independent of the editor’s decision-making regarding journal content to avoid conflicts of interest. The relationship between owners and editors should be explicitly addressed to protect the responsibility and authority of both parties.

Editorial Board/advisory body

  1. Journals must have editorial boards or other advisory bodies whose members are recognised experts in the subject areas stated in the journal’s aims and scope.
  2. The full names and affiliations of the members must be provided on the journal's website.
  3. The list should be up to date, and members must agree to serve.
  4. Journals should periodically review their board to ensure it is still relevant and appropriate.

Editorial team/contact information

Journals must provide the full names and affiliations of their editors as well as contact information for the editorial office, including a full business address, on the journal’s website.

BUSINESS PRACTICES

Author fees

  1. If author fees are charged (such as article processing charges, page charges, editorial processing charges, language editing fees, colour charges, submission fees, membership fees, or other supplementary charges), then the fees must be clearly stated on the website.
  2. Author fee information must be easy to find and presented before the manuscript submission process begins.
  3. If there are no author fees, this must be clearly stated.
  4. If the journal is likely to implement author fees in the near future, this must be stated.
  5. If author fees are charged, a waiver policy should be available. The criteria used to decide waivers must be clearly stated. Author fees or waiver status must not influence editorial decision making, and this must be clearly stated. Waiver information must include:
    1. Who is eligible for a waiver
    2. Which author(s) of the group must be eligible in order for the waiver to apply
    3. When and how to apply for a waiver, or if they are automatically applied

Other revenue

  1. Business models or revenue sources must be clearly stated on the journal’s website. Examples include author fees (see Section 14), subscriptions, sponsorships and subsidies, advertising (see Section 16), reprints, supplements, or special issues, and licensing agreements with AI companies.
  2. Business models or revenue sources (for example, reprint income, supplements, special issues, sponsorships) must not influence editorial decision making.

Advertising

Journals should state whether they accept advertising. If they do, they must state their advertising policy, including:

  1. Which types of advertisements will be considered.
  2. Who makes decisions regarding accepting advertisements.
  3. Whether advertisements are linked to content or reader behaviour or are displayed at random.

Advertisements must not be related in any way to editorial decision making and should be kept separate from the published content.

Direct marketing

Any direct marketing activities conducted on behalf of the journal, including solicitation of manuscripts, must be appropriate, well targeted, and unobtrusive. Information provided about the publisher or journal must be truthful and not misleading for readers or authors.

Further reading and resources

Version history

About the organizations

Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE)

COPE provides advice to editors and publishers on all aspects of publication ethics and, in particular, how to handle cases of research and publication misconduct. It also provides a forum for its members to discuss individual cases. COPE does not investigate individual cases but encourages editors to ensure that cases are investigated by the appropriate authorities (usually a research institution or employer). All COPE members are expected to apply COPE principles of publication ethics outlined in the core practices.

DOAJ

The mission of the DOAJ is: to curate, maintain and develop a source of reliable information about open access scholarly journals on the web; to verify that entries on the list comply with reasonable standards; to increase the visibility, dissemination, discoverability and attraction of open access journals; to enable scholars, libraries, universities, research funders and other stakeholders to benefit from the information and services provided; to facilitate the integration of open access journals into library and aggregator services; to assist, where possible, publishers and their journals to meet reasonable digital publishing standards; and to thereby support the transition of the system of scholarly communication and publishing into a model that serves science, higher education, industry, innovation, societies and the people. Through this work, DOAJ will cooperate and collaborate with all interested parties working toward these objectives.

Open Access Scholarly Publishing Association (OASPA)

OASPA is a trade association that was established in 2008 in order to represent the interests of Open Access (OA) publishers globally across all disciplines. By encouraging collaboration in developing appropriate business models, tools and standards to support OA publishing, OASPA aims to help ensure a prosperous and sustainable future for the benefit of its members and the scholarly communities they serve. This mission is carried out through exchanging information, setting standards, advancing models, advocacy, education, and the promotion of innovation.

World Association of Medical Editors (WAME)

WAME is a global nonprofit voluntary association of editors of peer-reviewed medical journals who seek to foster cooperation and communication among editors; improve editorial standards; promote professionalism in medical editing through education, self-criticism, and self-regulation; and encourage research on the principles and practice of medical editing. WAME develops policies and recommendations of best practices for medical journal editors and has a syllabus for editors that members are encouraged to follow.

License for this work

This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 license.

In other languages

Version 4.0 is available in the following languages:

Version 3.0 of the Principles is available in 21 other languages.