Lippincott Publishing Ethics

Wolters Kluwer Health (WKH) and its publishing imprint Lippincott® expects the highest ethical standards from their authors, reviewers, and editors when conducting research, submitting papers, and throughout the peer-review process. WKH is a member of the Committee on Publishing Ethics (COPE) and follows their recommendations on publication ethics and standards. Our ethical guidance is also informed by recommendations for the Conduct, Reporting, Editing, and Publication of Scholarly Work in Medical Journals" developed by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE).

WKH is committed to:
  • Fostering the editorial independence of journal editors
  • Working with and supporting editors to set policies and run their journals ethically and transparently
  • Maintaining an accurate and transparent academic record, including publishing corrections and retractions when necessary

Responsibilities

Editors

  • Provide guidelines to authors for the preparation and submission of manuscripts
  • Establish a system for effective and rapid peer review
  • Make editorial decisions with reasonable speed and communicate them clearly
  • Establish policies for the handling of incidences of academic misconduct or systemic error that necessitate a correction of the scientific record
  • Communicate clearly all other editorial policies and standards

Reviewers

  • Maintain the confidentiality of the review process
  • Provide unbiased feedback in a timely manner, addressing the appropriate aspects of the work
  • Alert the editor to any potential personal financial conflict of interest, and decline to review when any such conflict exists

Authors

  • Ensure that submitted work is original and has not been previously published or submitted elsewhere
  • Cite source materials clearly and obtain appropriate permissions
  • Confirm that the work does not infringe on any rights of others, including privacy rights and intellectual property rights
  • Report any conflicts of interest accurately
  • Communicate to the Editor any material errors immediately upon discovery
  • Represent authorship of the paper accurately and ensure that all individuals credited as authors participated in the actual authorship of the work and that all who participated are credited and have given consent for publication 

Generative AI Policy for Authors

This policy is a position statement for the periodical journals published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. (WKH).

The increasing adoption of Artificial Intelligence (AI) authoring tools (e.g., Large Language Models or Image Creators such as ChatGPT, Gemini, DeepSeek, DALL-E, Stable Diffusion) presents academic scholarship with unique challenges.

WKH’s position is that an AI authoring tool does not meet the standards required for authorship as defined by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) (1). Specifically, the ICMJE recommendations require that every author be “…accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved.”

In agreement with the position of the Committee on Publication Ethics (2), WKH endorses the following recommendation:

Authors who use AI tools in the writing of a manuscript, production of images or graphical elements of the paper, or in the collection and analysis of data, must be transparent in disclosing in the Materials and Methods (or similar section) of the paper how the AI tool was used and which tool was used. Authors are fully responsible for the content of their manuscript, even those parts produced by an AI tool, and are thus liable for any breach of publication ethics.

In addition, authors must not upload an accepted or published manuscript or any part of it into a generative AI tool as this may violate the copyright agreement or licensing terms in effect at the time of acceptance.

WKH is committed to adopting artificial intelligence in an ethical and responsible manner with Artificial Intelligence Principles that incorporate key standards of use across the company.

References

Generative AI Policy for Journals

This policy is a position statement for the periodical journals published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. (WKH).

This policy addresses the rise in use of generative AI and AI-assisted technologies in medical and scientific research publishing and aims to provide greater transparency and guidance to authors, editors and reviewers. This guidance is based partly on the recommendations made by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (1) and the Committee on Publication Ethics (2).

  • WKH’s Artificial Intelligence Authoring Tools and Authorship Policy permits authors to use generative AI and AI-assisted technologies in the writing of a manuscript, production of images or graphical elements of the paper, or in the collection and analysis of data. Authors must be transparent in disclosing in the Materials and Methods (or similar section) of the paper how the AI tool was used, and which tool was used. Authors are fully responsible for the content of their manuscript, even those parts produced by an AI tool, and are thus liable for any breach of publication ethics.
  • A submitted manuscript must be treated as a confidential document. Editors, editorial office staff, or reviewers must not upload a submitted manuscript or any part of it into a generative AI tool as this may violate confidentiality and proprietary rights and, where the paper contains personally identifiable information, may violate data privacy rights. This confidentiality requirement extends to all communication about the manuscript including any notification or decision letters as they may contain confidential information about the manuscript and/or the authors. For this reason, reviewers and editors must not upload their review and letters, respectively, into an AI tool, even if it is just for the purpose of improving language and readability.
  • The management of the editorial evaluation of a scientific manuscript is a responsibility of humans. AI technologies should not be used by editors or reviewers as the sole mechanism in evaluating or making decisions about a manuscript. The editor is responsible and accountable for the editorial process, the final decision, and the communication thereof to the authors.
  • Evaluations of misconduct and research integrity including those leading to expressions of concerns, retractions, or contacting researchers’ institutions, also should not rely solely on AI decision making.
  • AI powered automation to increase processing speed, validation, quality assessment, and progression of the peer review process may be used provided the outcome does not result in a decision by the AI itself on acceptance or rejection of a manuscript.

Wolters Kluwer is committed to adopting artificial intelligence in an ethical and responsible manner with Artificial Intelligence Principles that incorporate key standards of use across the company.

References

Authorship

To be considered an author of a published paper, individuals must meet all the following criteria (ICMJE):

  • Made substantial contributions to conception or design of the work, or the acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data for the work
  • Drafted the work or revised it critically for important intellectual content
  • Provided final approval of the version to be published
  • Agreed to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved

Anyone who meets all four criteria should be named as an author, and all authors must meet these criteria. Those who do not meet authorship criteria but who contributed to the work may be named in an acknowledgement section with their permission.

Some journals may have more specific criteria for authorship. Authors are advised to review each journal’s policies to confirm compliance prior to submitting a manuscript.

Appeals and Complaints

Appealing an editorial decision

The decisions of the Editors are final, except if the authors can demonstrate that the peer review process was flawed (e.g., by reviewer bias) or that substantive factual errors were made by the reviewers or Editors. In these cases, authors who receive a rejection letter may appeal the decision by email within 30 days of receipt. A decision about an appeal will be made as quickly as possible and subject to time for further peer-review. The decision is final. The process of handling an appeal may vary by journal. For more information, please consult the journal's Instructions for Authors.

Complaints on the peer-review and publication process

All complaints related to how a paper was processed during peer-review and publication should be raised with the Editor or Editorial Office in the first instance. If there is no resolution, the matter can be referred to the Publisher at Wolters Kluwer Health. The Publisher contact name often appears on the Journal website in a "About the Journal" or "Journal Info" section, or if unsatisfied to the Committee on Publication Committee (COPE) if the journal is a member.

Other complaints

All complaints will follow the processes outlined in the research misconduct section below.

Allegations of Research Misconduct

If serious concerns are raised by readers, reviewers, or others, about the conduct, validity, or reporting and citation of academic work, the journal will follow the guidance of the Committee on Publication Ethics for addressing this type of misconduct. Wolters Kluwer Health regularly reviews citation data for indicators of potential manipulation.

Editors will contact the authors of the suspected work and allow them to respond to the concerns. If that response is unsatisfactory, editors will contact the authors’ institution to conduct further investigation.

Once an investigation is concluded, editors will take the appropriate action and issue an accompanying comment that explains the findings of the investigation.

In rare cases, when the published work is likely to influence clinical practice or public health, editors will consider informing readers by issuing an ‘expression of concern,’ while the investigation is ongoing.

  • For further guidance on specific allegations and suggested actions, such as retractions, see the COPE flowcharts and retraction guidelines.
  • For journals that are not members please review the journal’s policies in the information for authors.

Citation Manipulation

Citation manipulation occurs when references are included for the sole purpose of increasing citations to the referenced article. These references do not contribute to the scholarly content of the article and are included for purposes of self-promotion or other personal gain. Journals indexed in Web of Science should regularly review citation data following the annual release of the Journal Citation Report. Regular review allows editors and publishers to become familiar with citation trends in their journal and identify signs of manipulation such as excessive self-citation or citations from unrelated papers and journals. Journals should develop policies and standards to determine self-citation thresholds, provide educational resources to support best practice, and establish procedures to respond to potential misconduct. For additional information on citation manipulation, please visit COPE.

Conflicts of Interest

At submission, all author must identify potential conflicts of interest in the electronic Copyright Transfer Agreement and within the article submitted for publication. Authors should err on the side of full disclosure and provide as much information as possible.

On the title page of the submitted manuscript, author(s) must:

  • Identify all sources of financial support for the study, including provision of supplies or services or financial compensation from any organization.
  • Provide a listing of all sponsor names. Include an explanation of any role the sponsor(s) had in the study design; collection, analysis, and interpretation of data; writing of the report; the decision to submit the report for publication; or a statement that the sponsor(s) had no such involvement.
  • Disclose any financial involvement that could represent potential conflicts of interest for each author.

These criteria are based on the recommendations of the ICMJE.

Editors and Editorial Board Conflicts of Interest

Editors and Editorial Board members will recuse themselves from oversight, peer-review and decisions on submitted papers where they are an author. A guest editor, typically from the Board, who has no conflicts of interest will oversee peer-review and the editorial decision on such papers.

Data Sharing and Reproducibility

The requirements for submitting research data may vary by article type. Per ICMJE guidance, manuscripts that report the results of clinical trials must contain a data sharing statement. More information on data sharing statements is available at ICMJE.

Upon request, authors must provide data supporting their paper for editorial review. Authors must retain these data and records for several years after publication. For more information, authors are encouraged to consult the journal's Instructions for Authors.

Ethical Oversight

Authors of manuscripts that describe experimental studies on either humans or animals must supply to the Editor a statement that the study was approved by an institutional review committee or ethics committee and for human studies that the subjects gave informed consent.

Such approval should be described in the Methods (or similar) section of the manuscript.

More information regarding the ethical principles for medical research involving human participants in the Declaration of Helsinki can be found at the World Medical Association.

Intellectual Property and Permissions

Each manuscript should contain only the authors’ original work. All authors must certify that their manuscript is a unique submission and is not being considered for publication by any other source in any medium. Further, the manuscript has not been published, in part or full, in any form. Work published or presented as a short abstract at a professional meeting will typically be considered.

If excerpts (e.g., text, figures, tables, illustrations, or audio/video files) from copyrighted works are included, a written release will be secured by the author prior to submission, and credit to the original publication will be properly acknowledged. The author must obtain, prior to submission, written releases from patients whose names or likenesses are submitted as part of their work. Should the Editor or Wolters Kluwer request copies of such written releases, the author shall provide them in a timely manner. Authors are responsible for any associated permission fees. Regarding plagiarism, the journal uses the World Association of Medical Editors’ definition:

Plagiarism is the use of others' published and unpublished ideas or words (or other intellectual property) without attribution or permission and presenting them as new and original rather than derived from an existing source. The intent and effect of plagiarism is to mislead the reader as to the contributions of the plagiarizer. This applies whether the ideas or words are taken from abstracts, research grant applications, Institutional Review Board applications, or unpublished or published manuscripts in any publication format (print or electronic).

Plagiarism is scientific misconduct and will be addressed as such. When plagiarism is detected at any time before publication, the editorial office will take appropriate action as directed by the standards set forth by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). For additional information, please visit COPE.

Post-Publication Discussions

Post-publication discussion is facilitated through letters to the editor, commentaries, or other article types determined by the respective journal. Editors may consider proposals for these contributions before submitted formally for publication via the journal’s submission website. For more guidance on post-publication discussion please visit COPE.

Corrections, Expressions of Concern Retractions

Correction to the publication record

A Journal will consider the publication of an erratum, expression of concern, or retraction notice to alert readers to a change in the publication record.

An erratum is used to correct a small but important mistake or omission that does not alter the conclusion of a paper.

An Expression of concern is used to raise reader’s awareness to the potential unreliability of an article. It may be a precursor to a full retraction, but not always. An Expression of concern can be used if there is an ongoing investigation, or if the evidence provided to the Journal is inconclusive.

Per COPE guidelines, retractions may be used to alert readers to cases of redundant publication, plagiarism, peer review manipulation, reuse of material or data without authorization, copyright infringement or some other legal issue, data fabrication, unethical research, and/or a failure to disclose a major competing interest that would have unduly influenced the work.

For information on retractions, please see the journal’s policy on research misconduct.

Author name changes

Wolters Kluwer Health journals and books will consider name change requests for reasons including, but not limited to, gender identity, marriage, divorce, and religious conversion. As with other requests for changes to the publication record, we will work with the author or product editor to establish their identity. We will consider with the author or product editor the extent to which we share the request with other authors and product editors and notify readers of changes to a version of record of an article, chapter, or other product. Compliance with notifying the readership on how an historical record or prior version has changed may not be fully met, for example when the person asking for the modification may be at personal risk. Wolters Kluwer Health will work with the author or product editor to make feasible changes to the version of record and all electronic records maintained under its control and will submit changes to publication records held by third parties such as indexing agencies, legal deposit records, and preservation archive platforms.

The mechanism for the correction of publication records for errors in author and product editor names, and discrepancies in authorship lists, is not affected. The policy on not making changes to job roles and affiliations will also not be affected.

Wolters Kluwer Health recommends that authors and product editors register with ORCID as a scholarly identifier and a way of linking their publication records irrespective of name change, corrections to names, or other changes in an authorship list.

Advertising Polices for Print and Web Publications

Lippincott publications may reject, refuse, omit, postpone, cancel, or require changes to the whole or part of any Material, Advertisement Order, or Advertisement submitted for insertion into a Lippincott publications journal at any time, whether or not it has accepted the Advertisement Order, including the dates for publication and positioning of the Advertisement or to accept the Advertisement Order subject to additional conditions which will be notified by Lippincott publications to the Customer. It is the Customer's responsibility to ensure that all Advertisements are correct, accurate and not misleading. Lippincott publications accept no responsibility for any errors in an Advertisement including (without limitation) any errors which arise as a result of any changes or alterations undertaken by Advertisement submitted for insertion into a Lippincott publications journal at any time at the Customer's request.Advertising polices for print and web publications.

Back To Top