Scholarly misconduct is categorized into eight primary types, with measures for prevention and response outlined below in accordance with COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics) guidelines.
Each category below includes a link to the recommended protocol and an accompanying flowchart illustrating the steps taken when ethical issues arise in submitted or published manuscripts.
To address issues of misconduct, Bentham Open Science has established an Ethics Advisory Panel, which consists of,
a) Senior researchers and experts affiliated with Bentham Open Science who serve as Editors across various disciplines.
b) A team of legal professionals who advise the Ethics Advisory Panel on legal matters when required.
When a complaint is received, Bentham Open Science’s senior publication team consults the Ethics Advisory Panel to for guidance. The Ethics Advisory Panel thoroughly reviews the case and provides recommendations in compliance with COPE’s practices and guidelines.
The fundamental procedure for handling any claim is as follows:
The senior publication team at Bentham Open Science collaborates with the complainant to document the issue and compile a factual report addressing key questions: Who is involved? What is the nature of the ethical concern? When and where did it occur? Why is it significant?
If the documented claim/complaint is against an author of a Bentham Open Science article, Bentham Open Science’s senior publication team first contacts the author to inform them of the allegation and provide an opportunity to respond or clarify their position. The author’s response is then reviewed by the Ethics Advisory Panel and shared with the Editor-in-Chief of the relevant journal for further evaluation and appropriate action. The Ethics Advisory Panel reserves the right to support or challenge the Editor-in-Chief’s decision in cases where the members feel that it inconsistent with their assessment of an ethical breach.
The publisher may involve external bodies if the complaint is deemed credible, complex, or likely to benefit from institutional involvement. Depending on the nature of the concern, Bentham Open Science may contact:
If a complaint involves authors from different Bentham Open Science journals or books, the Editor-in-Chief of one journal or book may contact the Editor-in-Chief of another. The same procedures outlined above will then be followed.
Data fabrication refers to the intentional misrepresentation of research results. This may involve creating experiments that were never conducted, presenting invented data, or manipulating results to support a desired outcome.
Data falsification involves the manipulation, omission, or alteration of data, images, or research findings with the intent to create a misleading impression.
To ensure transparency and prevent allegations of image manipulation, authors are strongly encouraged to explicitly state in their manuscript that no image alterations have been made and be prepared to provide original, unprocessed images upon request, or confirm that such files are available.
Bentham Open Science recommends that authors adhere to the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) guidelines to avoid image-related misconduct. Authors should ensure that:
In case of any claim/complaint/findings related to the Data Fabrication or Falsification, the publisher will notify the corresponding author, requesting clarification and justification (if any). If the author fails to provide a satisfactory response, the publisher may contact the author’s institution or affiliated organization for further investigation. All claims or complaints will be dealt in full accordance with protocols recommended by the Committee of Publication Ethics (COPE), mentioned in the links below:
https://publicationethics.org/guidance/flowchart/fabricated-data-submitted-manuscript
https://publicationethics.org/guidance/flowchart/fabricated-data-published-article
Duplicate submission/publication: Duplicate submission refers to submitting the same article, study, or substantially similar content to more than one journal at the same time. Duplicate publication occurs when an article—or a near-identical version—is published in two different journals, either simultaneously or years apart. Such practices may occur for various reasons, including attempting to obtain peer review from one journal while intending to publish elsewhere. Another intention can simply be to increase the number of publications in an author’s record.
Redundant publication: A redundant publication refers to the publication of the same data or research findings more than once, resulting in a rejection or a request to merge the submitted manuscript with another one and the rectification of published manuscripts. Seriously flawed or misleading content (plagiarized publications) may cause a retraction of the article, and the authors may be penalized.
Redundant publications involve reusing or deriving content from previous work without proper citation. Authors must not include previously published or reproduced material unless written permission has been obtained from the copyright holder. This permission must be provided to the Editorial Office upon acceptance of the article. This provides the necessary information to make an assessment on whether it is deliberate or unintentional.
Authors wishing to publish translations of previously published work must ensure that they have obtained the necessary permission(s), clearly indicate that the work is a translation and has been previously published, and provide complete citation details for the original publication. The Editor-in-Chief may request copies of related prior publications when assessing overlap or potential redundancy.
Bentham Open Science strongly advises authors to avoid duplicate or redundant submissions. All submitted manuscripts must be original and must not be under consideration by any other journal.
The first step in identifying duplicate submissions is a direct comparison of the texts in both articles. Depending on the complexity, the editor may conduct a straightforward side-by-side evaluation or a deeper assessment to determine whether multiple articles stem from the same research project inappropriately divided into separate publications.
In some cases, an article may be legitimately republished—for example, when a study first appears in a local-language journal and is later translated for an international audience. The ethical implications of such republications depend on the editorial policies of the journal - and agreement by the editors of the two journals involved.
Such republication is acceptable only if full disclosure is made to the editor, editors of both journals agree, and proper citation of the original article is included (preferably as a footnote to the title) . Bentham Open Science will handle all cases of duplicate or redundant publication according to COPE-recommended procedures, as mentioned in the links below:
https://publicationethics.org/guidance/flowchart/redundant-duplicate-publication-published-article
Plagiarism: Plagiarism refers to presenting another person’s work—whether words, ideas, images, data, or any form of intellectual output—as one’s own without proper citation or acknowledgment. It includes both direct copying and the appropriation of concepts or findings without appropriate attribution.
Plagiarism can be assessed based on several factors: extent or magnitude of copied material, the novelty or importance of the copied content, the context/section/type of material reused and Whether proper referencing or attribution has been provided.
Bentham Open Science maintains a strict editorial policy to prevent plagiarism. Details of the plagiarism prevention protocol are mentioned under the, Editorial Policies section on our website.
To identify overlapping or similar text, Bentham Open Science uses various leading plagiarism detection tools that compares submitted manuscripts against a comprehensive database of scholarly articles, periodicals, and online sources. Bentham Open Science follows COPE’s recommended procedures for handling potential plagiarism in both submitted manuscripts and published articles.
If a plagiarism-related complaint is received, the senior publications team will conduct a direct, word-for-word comparison between the referenced text and the submitted manuscript. If significant overlap is found, the Editor-in-chief of the journal will be consulted. For complex cases, the Editor-in-Chief may seek guidance from other Editorial Board Members or external reviewers. For cases involving potential copyright violations, Bentham Open Science will consult its legal advisors, who will then communicate findings to the Ethics Advisory Panel and the Editor-in-Chief. After the initial assessment, Bentham Open Science’s senior publications team will contact the corresponding author, summarize the concerns and request an explanation. If the author fails to provide an acceptable justification, Bentham Open Science will escalate the matter by informing the author’s institution or employer. All cases will be addressed in accordance with COPE’s official flowcharts, given below:
https://publicationethics.org/guidance/flowchart/plagiarism-submitted-manuscript
https://publicationethics.org/guidance/flowchart/plagiarism-published-article
Authorship is critical in establishing credibility to submitted or published work. It is essential—and ethical—to include only those individuals who have made genuine, substantive contributions to the research and preparation of the manuscript.
Bentham Open Science adheres to the authorship guidelines established by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE), which recommends that authorship should be based on all the following four criteria (each author must meet all of these conditions):
Bentham Open Science publishes authors’ names using the format previously cited in their publications and displays their institutional affiliations. Email addresses for corresponding authors are included and marked with an asterisk. Personal contact details—such as phone numbers, mobile numbers, and fax numbers—are not disclosed unless explicitly required by a journal’s editorial policy. Author details are regularly updated to maintain accuracy. Affiliations are not altered after publication unless corrections are required due to typographical errors or incorrect institutional identification.
Bentham Open Science follows COPE’s recommendations on how to spot potential authorship problems.
Authors must provide the final and complete author list at the time of submission. The order of authorship should be carefully reviewed before submission as additions, deletions, or rearrangements will not be permitted after final submission, except under exceptional circumstances and with editorial approval. If a change to the author list is essential, the Editor-in-Chief must receive:
Any amendment to the authors' list will only be considered by the Editor-in-chief only if it is necessary. Publication of the manuscript will be paused during consideration of the request. If the article has already been published online, approved changes will result in an erratum or corrigendum.
For dealing with authorship disputes, Bentham Open Science is compliant with the guidelines of COPE and the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors – ICMJE for all scientific publications.
Corresponding author requests addition of extra author before publication
Corresponding author requests removal of the author before publication
Request for addition of extra author after publication
Conflict of Interest: A conflict of interest arises when financial, personal, or professional considerations have the potential to compromise—or appear to compromise—the objectivity and judgment of authors or reviewers. To ensure transparency and eliminate bias, authors and reviewers must declare all relevant conflicts of interest, including financial relationships and personal affiliations that may influence the interpretation or evaluation of the work. These disclosures are published with each article.
The complainant is informed that conflict-of-interest concerns cannot be fully investigated unless the journal Editor-in-chief notifies the corresponding (or complained-about) author (through due process) and, when appropriate, the author’s institution or employer where the research took place.
In the communication to the author in question, the journal’s Editor-in-chief must indicate whether the matter is likely to be referred to the institution or company where the research was conducted, the professional or standard-setting body (if applicable), the institution or entity that provided undisclosed financial support (if applicable), or any other relevant institution or agency (for example a funding agency) unless the author provides a reasonable explanation that is accepted by the Editor-in-Chief.
Bentham Open Science follows COPE guidelines for undisclosed conflicts of interest:
What to do if a reviewer suspects undisclosed conflicts of interest in a submitted manuscript
What to do if a reader suspects undisclosed conflicts of interest in a published article
Bentham Open Science carefully selects reviewers to avoid conflicts of interest. Bentham Open Science's peer-review policy is adequately explained here. Our peer-review policy adheres fully to COPE Guidelines.
Reviewers must declare any conflicts of interest that could compromise their objectivity. This includes personal, financial, and professional relationships. Reviewers must not use or disclose information from manuscripts for personal or professional gain before the work is published. Similarly, The Editor-in-Chief, who makes the final publication decisions, must not have any financial, professional, or personal conflicts relating to the submitted manuscripts. If a Conflict of Interest exists, they must recuse themselves and another editor will oversee the decision-making process.
If a complaint is filed against a reviewer, Bentham Open Science will communicate the complaint to the reviewer and ask him/her to provide an explanation. If the explanation is insufficient, Bentham Open Science may contact the reviewer’s institution or employer. All cases are addressed in accordance with COPE's recommended procedures.
Suspected Manipulation of peer-review after publication
Reviewer Suspected To Have Appropriated an Author’s Ideas or Data
Self-Citation: Self-citation manipulation occurs when authors cite their own work—or work published in a specific journal—solely to increase citation counts rather than to support or enhance the academic content. Authors who aim to increase the number of citations to a given author’s research work or the manuscripts previously published in a particular journal will be sanctioned by Bentham Open Science. Similarly, editors or reviewers should not ask authors to add references just to boost citations for their own publications, the journal, or any affiliated journals. Citation manipulation is considered unethical when referenced works do not meaningfully contribute to the scholarly value of the article.
Bentham Open Science has a centralized system to detect excessive self-citation. Authors must provide a reasonable justification for such citations. After consultation with the Editor-in-Chief, decisions are made on a case-by-case basis. Editors and reviewers are discouraged from recommending citations to their own or colleagues’ prior work for non-scholarly purposes. All cases are handled according to COPE Protocols.
https://publicationethics.org/guidance/flowchart/suspected-ethical-problem-submitted-manuscript
Research ethics violations may include, but are not limited to:
Any study involving human or animal subjects must follow established ethical standards. This includes obtaining informed consent and adhering to approved protocols. Bentham Open Science’s detailed policy on Ethical Standards is provided under the Editorial Policies section.
When addressing ethical concerns, the Editor-in-Chief must inform the author whether the matter may be referred to the institution or company where the research was conducted, the professional or standard-setting body (if relevant), or any other relevant authority or funding agency unless the author provides a reasonable explanation (accepted as reasonable by the editor).
Bentham Open Science handles all ethics violations following COPE:
https://publicationethics.org/guidance/flowchart/suspected-ethical-problem-submitted-manuscript.