Publishing Ethics

1. Commitment

Trends and Reviews in Medicine and Biomedical Engineering (TRMBE) and its publisher, INATGI, are committed to maintaining the integrity of the scholarly record. The journal follows the Core Practices and guidelines of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), the Recommendations of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE), and the principles of the World Association of Medical Editors (WAME). This statement sets out the ethical responsibilities of authors, reviewers, editors, and the publisher, and describes how the journal deals with suspected misconduct.

Because TRMBE publishes review articles only, the integrity of its content depends above all on the faithful representation of other researchers' work. Authors, reviewers, and editors share responsibility for ensuring that the literature is searched, cited, and summarized accurately and without bias.

2. Responsibilities of Authors

2.1 Originality and prior publication

Submitted manuscripts must be the authors' own original work and must not have been published previously, in whole or in substantial part, in any language. Manuscripts must not be under consideration by another journal at the same time. Posting a preprint before submission is permitted and must be disclosed. Manuscripts that substantially overlap with an author's previously published review, without adding new synthesis or analysis, are treated as redundant publication.

2.2 Plagiarism and text recycling

Plagiarism, the use of another person's ideas, text, figures, or data without appropriate acknowledgment, is unacceptable in any form. This includes copying text verbatim without quotation marks and citation, close paraphrasing without attribution, and reproducing figures or tables without permission and credit. Reuse of an author's own previously published text (text recycling) beyond brief methodological descriptions is not acceptable without citation and, where relevant, permission. All manuscripts are screened with text-similarity software at submission and again before publication.

2.3 Faithful representation of the literature

Authors of reviews must:

  • describe the studies they cite accurately, including their design, population, findings, and limitations, and not overstate or misattribute conclusions;
  • apply eligibility criteria consistently and not omit relevant studies because their findings are inconvenient to the argument;
  • distinguish clearly between established evidence, preliminary findings, and the authors' own opinion;
  • cite the original source of a finding rather than a secondary source wherever possible;
  • verify every reference against the original publication. Fabricated, inaccurate, or non-existent references, including references generated by AI tools and not checked, are treated as misconduct.

2.4 Citation manipulation

Authors must not add citations that are irrelevant to the manuscript in order to increase the citation counts of themselves, their colleagues, or any journal. Excessive self-citation, and citation of TRMBE articles that are not relevant to the manuscript, are not permitted and may be removed at the editor's request. Editors and reviewers may not require authors to cite their own work as a condition of acceptance.

2.5 Authorship

All authors must meet the ICMJE criteria for authorship (see Author Guidelines, Section 3). Guest, gift, and ghost authorship are unacceptable. The corresponding author is responsible for ensuring that all co-authors have approved the manuscript and its submission and for communicating with the journal on their behalf. Requests to add, remove, or reorder authors after submission must be made in writing with the agreement of all authors, including any author being removed, and must explain the reason for the change. Contributions of individuals who do not qualify for authorship, including professional writers and editors, must be acknowledged, with their permission. Generative AI tools cannot be authors.

2.6 Conflicts of interest and funding

Authors must disclose all financial and non-financial interests that could reasonably be perceived to influence the review, including employment, consultancies, honoraria, patents, equity, speaker fees, and industry-sponsored research within the past 36 months, together with all sources of funding for the review and the role of the funder, if any, in its preparation. Undisclosed conflicts of interest discovered after publication may lead to a correction or retraction.

2.7 Use of generative artificial intelligence

Authors may use generative AI tools to assist with language editing, formatting, or literature management, provided that the use is declared in the manuscript, that every output is checked by the authors, and that the authors take full responsibility for the accuracy and originality of the content. AI tools may not be used to generate the substantive content of a review, to fabricate citations, or to create or alter figures in a way that misrepresents the underlying source. Images generated by AI are not permitted except where the article is about AI-generated imagery and the image is clearly labeled as such.

2.8 Research ethics and privacy

Reviews of published literature do not normally require ethical approval. If a manuscript includes unpublished data, patient material, or images from which an individual could be identified, the authors must provide evidence of ethical approval and written informed consent for publication. Authors must not reproduce identifiable patient images from other publications without confirming that consent for reuse was obtained.

2.9 Errors in published work

Authors who discover a significant error or inaccuracy in their published article must notify the Editorial Office promptly and cooperate in publishing a correction or, where necessary, a retraction.

3. Responsibilities of Reviewers

Reviewers contribute to editorial decisions and help authors improve their manuscripts. Reviewers must:

  • treat manuscripts and all associated material as confidential, and not share, discuss, or use them for their own purposes before publication;
  • not upload any part of a manuscript to generative AI tools or other external services;
  • declare any conflict of interest before reviewing and decline to review where a conflict exists;
  • evaluate manuscripts objectively on their scholarly merit, without regard to the authors' identity, institution, nationality, or gender, and express their views clearly with supporting arguments;
  • not request citation of their own work unless it is essential to the manuscript;
  • alert the editor to any substantial similarity between the manuscript and other published work, to suspected plagiarism or citation manipulation, or to any other ethical concern;
  • return their report within the agreed time or inform the editor promptly if they cannot.

The full requirements for reviewers are set out in the Peer Review Policy.

4. Responsibilities of Editors

The Editor-in-Chief, Associate Editors, and Guest Editors are responsible for deciding which manuscripts are published. Editors must:

  • evaluate manuscripts solely on their scholarly merit, relevance, and compliance with journal policies, without regard to the authors' race, gender, sexual orientation, religion, ethnicity, citizenship, or institutional affiliation, and without commercial or political influence;
  • keep all information about submitted manuscripts confidential and disclose it only to those involved in the editorial process;
  • not use unpublished material from a submitted manuscript in their own work without the authors' written consent;
  • recuse themselves from any manuscript in which they have a conflict of interest, as defined in the Editorial Structure and Governance Model, and ensure that manuscripts submitted by editors or Editorial Board Members are handled independently;
  • ensure that peer review is fair, timely, and conducted according to the Peer Review Policy, and that reviewers' identities are protected;
  • act on suspected misconduct, whether it comes to light before or after publication, in accordance with COPE flowcharts, and pursue cases to a reasonable conclusion;
  • publish corrections, expressions of concern, and retractions when warranted;
  • give authors a reasonable opportunity to respond to concerns and to appeal decisions.

5. Responsibilities of the Publisher

INATGI supports the editors in upholding this policy, provides the resources for text-similarity screening, DOI registration, and long-term preservation, and does not interfere in editorial decisions. The publisher ensures that the journal's revenue from article processing charges is kept separate from editorial decision-making, that fee waivers are handled independently of the editorial process, and that no advertising or sponsorship influences content. The publisher cooperates with editors, institutions, and other journals in investigating misconduct and takes appropriate action, including retraction, where misconduct is established.

6. Handling Allegations of Misconduct

Allegations of misconduct, including plagiarism, duplicate publication, citation manipulation, fabricated references, authorship disputes, undisclosed conflicts of interest, undeclared use of AI, reviewer misconduct, and breaches of confidentiality, may be raised by anyone and should be sent to editorial@inatgi.net. Allegations are treated in confidence and the identity of the person raising a concern is protected as far as possible.

The journal follows the relevant COPE flowchart. In general, the Editor-in-Chief, or another editor where the Editor-in-Chief has a conflict of interest, gathers the available evidence, gives the authors or other parties concerned an opportunity to respond, and may consult the authors' institutions or funders. Depending on the seriousness of the case and the stage at which it is discovered, the outcome may include:

  • a request for revision or clarification before the manuscript proceeds;
  • rejection of the manuscript;
  • a formal letter of concern to the authors and, where appropriate, their institution;
  • publication of a correction, expression of concern, or retraction;
  • a temporary ban on submissions from the authors concerned;
  • removal of a reviewer or editor from their role.

Anonymous allegations are considered where they are specific and supported by evidence. Malicious or unfounded allegations are not pursued.

7. Corrections, Expressions of Concern, and Retractions

The journal maintains the integrity of the published record in accordance with COPE Retraction Guidelines.

  • Corrections are published for errors that affect the interpretation of an article or the accuracy of its record (for example, an incorrect citation, a mislabeled figure, or an omitted funding statement) but do not undermine its conclusions. Corrections are linked to the original article and identified by their own DOI.
  • Expressions of concern are published when an investigation is under way or has been inconclusive, and readers need to be alerted to a potential problem.
  • Retractions are published when the findings or conclusions of an article are unreliable because of misconduct or honest error, when the article is redundant or plagiarized, when it reports unethical research, or when undisclosed conflicts of interest are found to have materially affected its content. Retracted articles remain online, are clearly marked as retracted on every page, and are linked to a retraction notice that states the reason for retraction and who initiated it.

Articles are removed from the website only in exceptional circumstances, such as a court order or a serious threat to public health, and a notice explaining the removal is retained.

8. Special Issues

Special issues and thematic collections are subject to the same ethical standards and the same peer review as regular submissions. Guest Editors are appointed by the Editor-in-Chief, may not handle manuscripts in which they have a conflict of interest, and do not take final acceptance decisions. The Editorial Office monitors special issues for citation manipulation, authorship irregularities, and other patterns associated with compromised peer review.

9. Complaints and Appeals

Complaints about the journal's processes, the conduct of editors or reviewers, or the handling of a manuscript should be sent to editorial@inatgi.net. Complaints are acknowledged within 7 days and investigated by the Editor-in-Chief or, where the complaint concerns the Editor-in-Chief, by the publisher. Appeals against editorial decisions are handled as described in the Peer Review Policy. Complainants who are not satisfied with the outcome may refer the matter to COPE, of whose guidance the journal is a follower.

10. Contact

Questions about this policy or reports of suspected misconduct should be addressed to the Editorial Office at editorial@inatgi.net.