Publication Malpractice Statement

1. Purpose of This Statement

This statement describes how ETII responds to suspected publication malpractice involving authors, reviewers, editors, Editorial Board Members, Guest Editors, or other participants in the publication process.

It applies to manuscripts under consideration as well as to articles that have already been published.

2. What Constitutes Publication Malpractice

Publication malpractice includes intentional, reckless, or materially misleading conduct that compromises the accuracy, originality, independence, fairness, or integrity of scholarly publication.

Examples include, but are not limited to:

• plagiarism;
• data fabrication;
• data falsification;
• inappropriate image manipulation;
• duplicate or redundant publication;
• simultaneous submission to multiple journals;
• authorship manipulation;
• guest, gift, purchased, or ghost authorship;
• paper-mill activity;
• fabricated or manipulated peer review;
• false reviewer identities;
• citation manipulation;
• fabricated references;
• misrepresentation of ethical approval;
• undisclosed serious conflicts of interest;
• misrepresentation of data, methods, results, or provenance;
• unauthorized use of confidential information;
• misleading use of artificial intelligence-assisted technologies; and
• other conduct that materially compromises the scholarly record.

3. Plagiarism

Plagiarism includes presenting the words, ideas, methods, data, figures, tables, results, or intellectual contributions of others without appropriate acknowledgement.

It may include:

• verbatim copying without quotation or attribution;
• substantial paraphrasing without acknowledgement;
• copying figures or tables without appropriate attribution or permission;
• misappropriation of unpublished ideas or data;
• translation plagiarism; or
• presentation of another person's research as one's own.

Similarity-detection software may be used to support editorial assessment. Similarity percentages are interpreted contextually and do not independently establish misconduct.

4. Fabrication and Falsification

Fabrication is the creation of data, observations, experiments, analyses, participants, simulations, or research records that did not exist.

Falsification includes manipulation or omission of research materials, equipment, processes, data, images, analyses, or results in a way that materially misrepresents the research.

Where such concerns arise, ETII may request original data, raw output, laboratory records, source code, analysis files, image files, or other supporting documentation.

5. Image and Figure Manipulation

Figures and images must faithfully represent the underlying evidence.

Unacceptable manipulation may include:

• adding or removing meaningful image elements;
• duplicating image regions without disclosure;
• combining images in a misleading manner;
• selectively altering contrast or intensity to distort interpretation;
• misrepresenting different experiments as the same experiment;
• relabeling images in a deceptive manner; or
• presenting generated or altered images as genuine observations.

6. Duplicate and Redundant Publication

Authors must not present substantially the same research as a new publication when the relevant findings have already been formally published without appropriate disclosure and legitimate justification.

Unacceptable practices may include:

• publishing essentially the same article in multiple journals;
• artificially dividing one study into multiple minimally differentiated publications;
• reusing substantial results while concealing the earlier publication;
• changing only title or wording while substantially reproducing previous work; or
• republishing translated material without appropriate disclosure.

7. Simultaneous Submission

Manuscripts under active consideration by ETII should not simultaneously be under consideration by another journal.

If simultaneous submission is discovered, editorial processing may be terminated and relevant journals or institutions may be contacted where appropriate.

8. Authorship Manipulation

The author list must accurately represent genuine scholarly contributions.

Potential malpractice includes:

• adding individuals who made no meaningful contribution;
• excluding individuals who made substantial contributions;
• selling or purchasing authorship positions;
• changing authors primarily to increase prestige or acceptance prospects;
• providing false affiliation information;
• listing authors without their knowledge or consent; or
• misrepresenting contribution statements.

9. Paper Mills and Purchased Manuscripts

ETII does not accept manuscripts or authorship arrangements produced through paper mills or other services that fabricate, purchase, sell, recycle, manipulate, or misrepresent scholarly research.

Indicators may include suspiciously reused text or figures, fabricated data, implausible authorship changes, manipulated references, false peer-review information, or repeated patterns across unrelated submissions.

Credible evidence of paper-mill activity may result in rejection, withdrawal of the manuscript from consideration, post-publication investigation, retraction, restrictions on future submissions, and notification of relevant institutions where justified.

10. Peer-Review Manipulation

Any attempt to interfere improperly with independent peer review is prohibited.

Examples include:

• providing fabricated reviewer names or identities;
• providing false reviewer email addresses;
• creating fraudulent reviewer accounts;
• impersonating legitimate researchers;
• submitting reviews under another person's identity;
• coordinating undisclosed reciprocal reviewing arrangements;
• attempting to discover confidential reviewer identities improperly; or
• interfering with editorial decisions through deceptive means.

11. Citation Manipulation

References should be included because they are relevant to the scholarly content of the manuscript.

ETII considers the following practices inappropriate:

• excessive self-citation without scholarly justification;
• coercive citation requests;
• systematic citation of a journal solely to increase journal metrics;
• coordinated citation cartels;
• citation exchange arrangements; and
• citation of sources that do not support the associated claim.

12. Fabricated or Misleading References

Authors are responsible for verifying references before submission.

Fabricated articles, nonexistent sources, invented DOI identifiers, false publication information, or references generated without verification may constitute serious publication-integrity concerns.

13. Misrepresentation of Ethical Approval

Authors must not falsely claim that ethics approval, institutional permission, informed consent, regulatory approval, or another required authorization has been obtained.

Where necessary, ETII may request supporting documentation from the authors or relevant institution.

14. Undisclosed Conflicts of Interest

Failure to disclose a material financial or non-financial interest may constitute publication malpractice when that omission could reasonably affect interpretation of the work or confidence in editorial decision-making.

The appropriate response depends on the seriousness of the undisclosed interest and its effect on the published record.

15. Misuse of Artificial Intelligence-Assisted Technologies

Artificial intelligence tools may support legitimate research and writing activities, but their use does not reduce authors' responsibility for the submitted work.

Potential malpractice includes:

• listing an AI system as an author;
• submitting fabricated AI-generated data as genuine observations;
• using AI-generated images to misrepresent experimental evidence;
• including fabricated or unverified AI-generated references;
• concealing material AI use where disclosure is required;
• using AI-generated text to plagiarize or disguise copied material; or
• using AI to manipulate the peer-review process.

16. Breach of Confidentiality

Manuscripts and peer-review materials are confidential before publication.

Unauthorized disclosure, distribution, exploitation, or use of confidential manuscript information by reviewers, editors, staff, or other participants may constitute serious misconduct.

17. Reviewer Misconduct

Reviewer misconduct may include:

• breaching manuscript confidentiality;
• using unpublished ideas or data for personal advantage;
• providing intentionally misleading reviews;
• failing to disclose major conflicts of interest;
• coercive citation demands;
• personal attacks or discriminatory comments;
• delegating review without authorization;
• impersonating another reviewer; or
• colluding with authors to manipulate the review process.

18. Editorial Misconduct

Editors must act independently, confidentially, and impartially.

Potential editorial malpractice includes:

• making decisions based primarily on financial considerations;
• handling manuscripts despite serious undisclosed conflicts of interest;
• manipulating peer review;
• inappropriately pressuring authors to cite particular publications;
• breaching manuscript confidentiality;
• using unpublished work for personal advantage;
• providing preferential treatment to colleagues or associates; or
• retaliating against authors, reviewers, or whistleblowers for legitimate concerns.

19. Malpractice in Special Issues

Special Issues and Guest Editors are subject to the same ethical and editorial standards as the regular journal.

ETII may intervene, suspend, restructure, or terminate a Special Issue where there is credible evidence of:

• inadequate or fabricated peer review;
• Guest Editor conflicts of interest;
• large-scale citation manipulation;
• paper-mill activity;
• inappropriate solicitation;
• systematic quality-control failures; or
• other threats to publication integrity.

20. Sources of Integrity Concerns

Publication-integrity concerns may be identified through:

• editorial screening;
• peer review;
• similarity checking;
• image or data examination;
• reader correspondence;
• whistleblower reports;
• institutional notifications;
• post-publication commentary;
• other journals or publishers;
• research-integrity specialists; or
• other credible sources.

21. Initial Assessment of an Allegation

When a concern is received, ETII first considers whether the allegation is sufficiently specific, credible, and relevant to warrant further investigation.

Preliminary assessment may examine:

• the nature and seriousness of the allegation;
• the evidence provided;
• whether the issue affects the reliability of the work;
• whether additional documentation is needed;
• whether another institution has primary investigative responsibility; and
• whether immediate protective action is necessary.

22. Fair and Proportionate Investigation

ETII seeks to distinguish substantiated evidence from allegation, speculation, academic disagreement, or honest error.

Investigation procedures should be proportionate to the seriousness of the issue and may include consultation with authors, editors, reviewers, independent experts, institutions, funders, or other relevant parties.

23. Opportunity to Respond

Individuals whose work or conduct is questioned should normally be given a reasonable opportunity to respond to material allegations and provide supporting evidence.

Exceptions may apply where disclosure would create a substantial legal, security, confidentiality, safety, or investigative risk.

24. Evidence That May Be Requested

Depending on the nature of the concern, ETII may request:

• raw data;
• source code;
• original figure files;
• laboratory or experimental records;
• statistical output;
• ethics approval documents;
• informed-consent documentation;
• authorship contribution records;
• copyright permissions;
• relevant correspondence;
• reviewer identity verification; or
• other evidence reasonably necessary to assess the issue.

25. Institutional Investigation

Journals are not always positioned to determine whether research misconduct occurred within a laboratory or institution.

Where appropriate, ETII may refer a serious matter to an author's institution, research-integrity office, ethics committee, funding organization, or another body with appropriate investigative authority.

The journal may take interim or final editorial action independently where necessary to protect the scholarly record.

26. Action before Publication

If significant concerns arise before publication, ETII may:

• pause peer review;
• pause an editorial decision;
• request clarification or additional evidence;
• request corrections to the manuscript;
• seek additional independent review;
• change the handling editor where a conflict exists;
• reject the manuscript;
• withdraw an acceptance decision before publication where justified; or
• refer the matter to an appropriate institution or authority.

27. Post-Publication Action

Publication does not end the journal's responsibility to maintain the accuracy and integrity of the scholarly record.

Where significant concerns arise after publication, possible actions include:

• publication of a correction;
• publication of an Expression of Concern;
• retraction;
• replacement or republication in exceptional circumstances;
• linking relevant notices to the article;
• notification of indexing or preservation services where appropriate; and
• other measures necessary to maintain an accurate scholarly record.

28. Corrections

A correction may be appropriate where a published article contains an error that affects interpretation, accuracy, authorship, attribution, data presentation, or another material aspect of the work but does not invalidate the principal findings.

Formal correction notices should:

• identify the original article;
• describe the correction clearly;
• be linked to the publication record; and
• preserve transparency about the change.

29. Expressions of Concern

ETII may publish an Expression of Concern where significant doubts exist regarding a publication but the available evidence is not yet sufficient for a correction or retraction.

This may occur when:

• an institutional investigation is ongoing;
• available evidence is inconclusive;
• there are serious but unresolved data-integrity concerns;
• the authors' institution has not completed a necessary investigation; or
• the reliability of the article remains uncertain.

An Expression of Concern is not itself a final finding of misconduct.

30. Retractions

Retraction may be appropriate where findings or conclusions are materially unreliable because of serious error, misconduct, or other major integrity problems.

Possible grounds include:

• fabricated or falsified data;
• major plagiarism;
• serious image manipulation;
• substantial duplicate publication;
• unethical research;
• fraudulent peer review;
• paper-mill involvement;
• invalid authorship arrangements that materially compromise the publication;
• fundamental errors that invalidate the main conclusions; or
• other serious reasons why the article can no longer be considered reliable.

31. Retraction Notices

A retraction notice should be transparent and clearly associated with the affected article.

Where practicable, it should:

• identify the article being retracted;
• state that the article has been retracted;
• explain the principal reason for the retraction;
• indicate who is initiating the retraction where appropriate;
• remain freely accessible; and
• be linked bidirectionally with the original article.

32. Preservation of Retracted Articles

Retraction normally results in clear labeling of the article rather than silent removal.

Preserving the published record helps maintain transparency about what was published, why the record changed, and when the change occurred.

33. Removal of Published Content

Complete removal of published content is expected to be exceptional.

Removal may be considered where continued publication creates a compelling legal, privacy, security, safety, or other serious risk that cannot adequately be addressed through correction, retraction, or restricted access.

Where possible, a bibliographic record or explanatory notice should remain so that the publication history is transparent.

34. Author Agreement Is Not Always Required

ETII will seek appropriate author input when considering a correction, Expression of Concern, or retraction.

However, journal action necessary to preserve the integrity of the scholarly record does not necessarily require unanimous agreement from all authors.

35. Possible Editorial Sanctions

Where serious malpractice is substantiated, ETII may take proportionate action including:

• rejection of the manuscript;
• termination of peer review;
• withdrawal of an acceptance decision before publication;
• formal correction;
• Expression of Concern;
• retraction;
• restriction of future submissions for an appropriate period;
• removal of reviewer privileges;
• termination or suspension of editorial appointments;
• notification of an institution, funder, or relevant authority where justified; and
• other proportionate actions necessary to protect the journal and scholarly record.

36. Proportionality of Editorial Action

ETII seeks to distinguish honest error, academic disagreement, poor reporting, negligent behavior, and deliberate misconduct.

The editorial response should be proportionate to:

• the seriousness of the concern;
• the strength of the evidence;
• whether the scholarly record is unreliable;
• whether the conduct appears deliberate;
• whether the problem is isolated or systematic; and
• the potential impact on readers, researchers, institutions, or the public.

37. Concerns Affecting Multiple Publications

If evidence concerning one manuscript raises credible concerns about other ETII submissions or publications involving the same authors, reviewers, editors, datasets, figures, or research project, the journal may examine related records.

Such review does not imply wrongdoing in every related article; each case should be evaluated on its own evidence.

38. Coordination with Other Journals or Publishers

Where suspected malpractice involves duplicate submissions, coordinated peer-review manipulation, paper mills, duplicated figures, or related publications across journals, ETII may communicate with another journal or publisher when necessary to verify facts and protect research integrity.

Confidential information should be shared only to the extent necessary and appropriate.

39. Whistleblowers and Anonymous Reports

ETII considers credible concerns regardless of whether the reporter identifies themselves.

Anonymous reports should contain sufficiently specific information or evidence to permit meaningful assessment.

The journal does not consider unsupported accusations or personal disputes sufficient evidence of misconduct.

40. Confidentiality during Investigation

Integrity investigations should be handled with appropriate confidentiality.

Information should generally be shared only with individuals or organizations whose participation is necessary for fair assessment or resolution of the matter.

41. Protection against Retaliation

Authors, reviewers, editors, readers, or other parties should not be penalized merely for raising a legitimate and good-faith research-integrity concern.

Deliberately false, malicious, or harassing allegations may themselves warrant appropriate action.

42. Appeals

Authors or other affected parties may request reconsideration of an editorial malpractice decision when they can identify a significant factual, procedural, or evidentiary reason for doing so.

An appeal should:

• identify the relevant manuscript or article;
• state clearly what decision is being challenged;
• identify the alleged error;
• provide supporting evidence; and
• avoid simply restating disagreement without new substantive grounds.

43. Independent Handling of Appeals and Complaints

Where practicable, a serious complaint or appeal should be considered by an editor or responsible person who was not directly responsible for the disputed decision.

Where the Editor-in-Chief has a conflict of interest, the matter should be transferred to an appropriate independent editor or another suitable responsible authority.

44. Documentation and Record Keeping

ETII seeks to maintain appropriate records of material publication-integrity concerns, investigations, correspondence, decisions, corrections, retractions, and other significant actions, subject to applicable privacy and data-protection requirements.

45. Updating External Scholarly Records

Where an article is corrected, retracted, or otherwise materially updated, ETII may provide revised metadata or notifications to relevant scholarly infrastructure, DOI services, indexing systems, repositories, archives, or discovery services where technically and operationally appropriate.

46. Independence from Publication Fees

Decisions concerning suspected misconduct, manuscript rejection, correction, retraction, or other integrity actions must not be determined by whether an Article Processing Charge has been paid.

Financial considerations must not prevent ETII from taking action necessary to preserve the scholarly record.

47. Continuing Responsibility after Publication

Authors are expected to inform the journal if they discover a significant error or integrity concern affecting their published work.

Cooperation with reasonable post-publication inquiries is an important component of scholarly accountability.

Publication Malpractice at a Glance

Malpractice Response Process