Publication Ethics & Malpractice Policy
The Operating Room Global Journal (TORGJ) is committed to maintaining high standards of publication ethics, research integrity, transparency, accountability, and responsible scholarly communication throughout the editorial and publication process.
Guidance for ethical editorial practice, misconduct investigation, corrections, retractions, and publication integrity.
Recommendations concerning authorship, disclosure, responsible reporting, and biomedical publishing practice.
Best-practice principles supporting editorial independence, professionalism, and ethical medical publishing.
This policy applies to authors, editors, peer reviewers, the publisher, and other parties involved in the TORGJ publication process. It provides the framework for preventing, identifying, investigating, and responding to ethical concerns and publication misconduct.
Core Ethical Principles
TORGJ expects all participants in the publication process to uphold principles that protect scientific integrity, fairness, confidentiality, transparency, accountability, and the reliability of the published scholarly record.
Honesty & Research Integrity
Research findings, methods, data, analyses, authorship, and disclosures should be reported accurately and without fabrication, falsification, manipulation, or misleading presentation.
Originality & Appropriate Attribution
Submitted work should be original, appropriately referenced, and free from plagiarism, improper duplication, or unattributed use of another person’s intellectual contribution.
Transparency & Disclosure
Authors, reviewers, and editors should disclose relevant conflicts of interest, funding relationships, institutional connections, and other circumstances that may reasonably affect impartiality.
Fairness & Editorial Independence
Editorial decisions should be based on scholarly merit, journal scope, methodological quality, ethical compliance, and relevance rather than financial status, personal relationships, or inappropriate influence.
Confidentiality
Manuscripts, reviewer reports, correspondence, unpublished data, and other confidential materials should be handled responsibly and disclosed only where necessary for legitimate editorial purposes.
Accountability & Correction
Authors, editors, reviewers, and the publisher share responsibility for maintaining the scholarly record and responding appropriately when errors, misconduct, or material concerns are identified.
Publication Misconduct Is Taken Seriously
Suspected or confirmed breaches of research or publication integrity may require investigation and appropriate editorial action in accordance with TORGJ policy and recognised publication-ethics guidance.
TORGJ may investigate concerns identified during submission, peer review, revision, production, or after publication. Appropriate action may include clarification, correction, expression of concern, rejection, retraction, or referral to a relevant institution or authority where warranted.
Duties of Editors
TORGJ editors are responsible for protecting editorial independence, ensuring fair and confidential manuscript assessment, managing conflicts of interest, supporting rigorous peer review, and safeguarding the integrity of the scholarly record.
Fair & Objective Assessment
Editors should assess manuscripts on their scholarly merit, originality, methodological quality, ethical compliance, relevance, and suitability for the journal, without inappropriate discrimination or external influence.
Editorial Independence
Editorial decisions should remain independent of commercial interests, sponsorship, advertising, membership status, APC payment, waiver status, institutional prestige, or personal relationships.
Confidentiality
Editors must protect confidential information relating to submitted manuscripts, authors, reviewers, editorial correspondence, unpublished data, and other materials obtained through the editorial process.
Appropriate Reviewer Selection
Editors should seek reviewers with appropriate subject or methodological expertise and take reasonable steps to avoid reviewers with significant conflicts of interest or other circumstances that may compromise impartial assessment.
Responsible Decision-Making
Final editorial decisions should consider the manuscript, reviewer assessments, author responses, journal policies, ethical requirements, and the editor’s independent academic judgement.
Timely Editorial Management
Editors should seek to manage manuscripts efficiently, communicate decisions clearly, avoid unnecessary delays, and ensure that requests for revision or clarification are relevant to the scholarly assessment of the work.
Ethical Oversight
Editors should consider whether research involving human participants, identifiable information, animals, or other ethically sensitive matters has received appropriate oversight and reporting.
Post-Publication Responsibility
Editors should respond appropriately to credible concerns about published work and support corrections, clarifications, expressions of concern, retractions, or other action when justified.
Editorial Decisions Must Be Independent
Acceptance, revision, or rejection should be determined by scholarly and ethical considerations rather than financial or organisational interests.
Manuscripts Submitted by TORGJ Editors or Editorial Board Members
Editors, Editorial Board members, and other individuals involved in TORGJ governance are not prohibited from submitting scholarly work to the journal. However, they must have no involvement in the editorial handling, reviewer selection, peer review, or final decision concerning their own manuscript. Such submissions should be managed independently and subjected to the same editorial and peer-review standards as other submissions.
Responding to Ethical Concerns
Editors should not ignore credible allegations of research or publication misconduct. Concerns should be assessed fairly, confidentially, proportionately, and with appropriate opportunity for relevant parties to respond.
Editorial responsibility does not end when an article is published. Where credible evidence indicates that the published record is inaccurate, misleading, unethical, or otherwise unreliable, TORGJ should consider proportionate post-publication action in accordance with its policies and recognised publication-ethics guidance.
Duties of Reviewers
Reviewers contribute to the integrity and quality of scholarly publishing by providing independent, confidential, objective, timely, and constructive assessment of manuscripts within their areas of expertise.
Accept Reviews Within Expertise
Reviewers should accept assignments only where they possess sufficient subject, methodological, or professional expertise to provide an informed and meaningful assessment.
Provide Objective Assessment
Reviews should focus on the scholarly quality of the manuscript and should be evidence-based, professional, respectful, and free from personal criticism or inappropriate bias.
Maintain Confidentiality
Manuscripts received for review are confidential and should not be shared, discussed, reproduced, or used outside the authorised peer-review process.
Declare Conflicts of Interest
Reviewers should disclose any relationship or circumstance that could reasonably affect, or appear to affect, their independence and should decline the review where impartial assessment cannot be assured.
Review in a Timely Manner
Reviewers who accept an invitation should endeavour to return their report within the requested timeframe or notify the editorial team promptly if additional time is required.
Identify Relevant Ethical Concerns
Reviewers should alert editors to suspected plagiarism, duplicate publication, data-integrity concerns, ethical approval issues, inappropriate citation practices, or other material concerns identified during review.
Avoid Inappropriate Citation Requests
Reviewers should recommend citations only where they genuinely strengthen or correct the manuscript and should not pressure authors to cite the reviewer’s own work or unrelated publications for personal gain.
Respect Unpublished Material
Ideas, methods, data, analyses, or other unpublished information obtained through peer review must not be appropriated or used for the reviewer’s own advantage.
Peer Review Is a Confidential Process
Reviewers are entrusted with unpublished scholarly material and must protect that information throughout and after completion of the review.
A High-Quality Review Should Be
The purpose of peer review is to support an informed editorial decision and, where appropriate, help authors strengthen the scientific and scholarly quality of their work.
Generative AI & Confidential Peer Review
Reviewers should not upload confidential manuscripts, unpublished data, figures, reviewer correspondence, or other protected journal material into public or external generative-AI systems where doing so could compromise confidentiality, intellectual property, data protection, or research integrity. Any permitted use of digital or AI tools must remain consistent with TORGJ policy, and the reviewer remains personally responsible for the accuracy, originality, fairness, and substance of the submitted review.
Where a reviewer suspects plagiarism, fabrication, falsification, duplicate publication, unethical research, undisclosed conflicts, citation manipulation, or other serious concerns, the reviewer should document the concern confidentially for the editor. Formal investigation and communication with authors or institutions should be managed through the appropriate editorial process.
Duties of the Publisher
The publisher supports the integrity and continuity of TORGJ by protecting editorial independence, maintaining appropriate publication infrastructure, supporting transparent policies, and helping preserve the reliability and accessibility of the scholarly record.
Protect Editorial Independence
The publisher should respect the authority of the editorial leadership to make scholarly decisions without inappropriate commercial, financial, organisational, or external interference.
Maintain Publication Infrastructure
The publisher should support the systems, processes, technology, website, metadata, DOI, production, and administrative arrangements required for reliable journal publication.
Support Transparent Policies
Journal policies on authorship, peer review, publication ethics, fees, open access, corrections, retractions, complaints, and related matters should be made accessible to authors, reviewers, readers, and editors.
Preserve Published Content
Reasonable measures should be taken to support continuity, preservation, retrievability, and long-term access to the journal’s published scholarly content.
Support Corrections & Retractions
Where the published record requires correction, clarification, expression of concern, or retraction, the publisher should support appropriate technical and publication action in accordance with journal policy.
Support Ethical Investigations
The publisher should support fair investigation of credible publication-ethics concerns and cooperate with editors, authors, institutions, or other appropriate parties where necessary.
Protect Confidential Information
Publisher-level access to confidential manuscript, author, reviewer, editorial, payment, or investigation information should be limited to legitimate operational or ethical purposes.
Maintain Transparency
Information regarding journal ownership, publishing arrangements, fees, licensing, editorial governance, and relevant commercial relationships should be represented accurately and transparently.
The Publisher Must Not Control Scholarly Decisions
Editorial authority should remain with the appropriate journal editors. The publisher’s operational, financial, administrative, or strategic interests should not determine whether a manuscript is accepted or rejected.
Maintaining the Published Scholarly Record
Publication creates an enduring scholarly record. The publisher should support mechanisms that enable readers to identify the current status of an article when a correction, retraction, expression of concern, or other post-publication notice has been issued.
Commercial, Advertising & Sponsorship Separation
Revenue-generating activities, sponsorship, advertisements, promotional relationships, partnerships, or other commercial considerations should be managed separately from editorial assessment and should not compromise editorial independence, peer-review integrity, or the reliability of published content.
Where credible concerns involve research misconduct, authorship, peer-review manipulation, institutional responsibility, or the integrity of the published record, the publisher should support appropriate editorial investigation and, where justified, communication with relevant institutions, funders, regulators, or other responsible bodies.
Handling Allegations of Misconduct
TORGJ evaluates credible concerns about research or publication misconduct through a fair, confidential, proportionate, and evidence-based process consistent with recognised publication-ethics principles.
Concern Received
A concern may arise during submission, peer review, editorial assessment, production, or after publication, or may be raised by an author, reviewer, reader, institution, editor, or other appropriate party.
Preliminary Assessment
The editorial team determines whether the allegation is sufficiently specific and credible to warrant further review and identifies the relevant journal policy or publication-ethics guidance.
Evidence & Documentation Reviewed
Relevant manuscript files, correspondence, reviewer reports, similarity findings, declarations, ethical documentation, data concerns, or other available evidence may be reviewed as appropriate.
Relevant Parties Invited to Respond
Where appropriate, the author or other relevant party is given an opportunity to clarify the concern, provide documentation, or respond to the allegation before a substantive editorial conclusion is reached.
External or Institutional Referral Where Necessary
Where the matter requires access to evidence beyond the journal’s authority or involves serious research misconduct, TORGJ may refer the matter to the relevant institution, ethics body, funder, regulator, or other responsible authority.
Editorial Action
The journal takes proportionate action based on the available evidence, the seriousness of the concern, the stage of publication, and the reliability of the scholarly record.
Possible Editorial Actions
The appropriate response depends on the nature and seriousness of the concern and whether the manuscript is unpublished or already part of the scholarly record.
TORGJ distinguishes between an allegation, an unresolved concern, and a substantiated finding. Individuals should not be treated as having committed misconduct solely because a complaint has been made. Likewise, clearly malicious, vexatious, knowingly false, or unsupported allegations may themselves be addressed appropriately.
Raise an Ethical or Publication-Integrity Concern
Concerns should include sufficient factual information to allow the Editorial Office to understand and assess the issue. Confidential supporting evidence may be provided where appropriate.
Corrections, Retractions & Expressions of Concern
TORGJ is committed to maintaining an accurate and trustworthy scholarly record. Where material errors or ethical concerns are identified after publication, the journal may issue an appropriate correction, expression of concern, retraction, or other notice.
Correction
A correction may be issued where a published article contains a material error or omission that should be amended but does not invalidate the central findings or overall reliability of the work.
Expression of Concern
An expression of concern may be issued where serious questions have arisen about a published article but available information is insufficient to support a definitive correction or retraction while investigation is ongoing or incomplete.
Retraction
Retraction may be appropriate where reliable evidence shows that findings are seriously unreliable, research or publication misconduct materially affects the article, ethical requirements were seriously breached, or the scholarly record otherwise requires withdrawal.
Choosing the Appropriate Post-Publication Action
The response should be proportionate to the nature, seriousness, certainty, and impact of the identified issue.
Used when a significant but limited error can be corrected without invalidating the article’s core conclusions.
Used where readers should be alerted while investigation, institutional review, or evidence gathering remains incomplete.
Used where the published article should no longer be relied upon as part of the scientific record.
Post-Publication Notices Must Remain Part of the Record
TORGJ should preserve a transparent connection between the original article and any subsequent notice so that readers can determine the current status of the work.
Transparency of Notices
Correction, expression-of-concern, and retraction notices should be sufficiently clear to allow readers to understand the action taken. Where appropriate, the notice may identify whether the issue resulted from honest error, author request, editorial error, misconduct, institutional findings, unresolved concerns, or other relevant circumstances. TORGJ should avoid unsupported or defamatory statements and should distinguish established findings from allegations.
Removal of published content from the journal record should be reserved for exceptional circumstances, such as serious legal requirements, significant privacy or safety concerns, or other compelling reasons where retaining the content would cause substantial harm. Where removal is necessary, an appropriate notice should remain whenever legally and ethically possible.
Advertising, Funding & Sponsorship
Financial support, sponsorship, advertising, and commercial relationships must be transparent and must remain separate from the editorial assessment, peer-review process, and publication decisions of TORGJ.
Funding Must Be Disclosed
Authors should identify relevant research funding, grants, sponsorship, institutional support, or other financial assistance associated with the submitted work.
Funder Roles Must Be Transparent
Where applicable, authors should state whether the funder or sponsor influenced study design, data collection, analysis, interpretation, manuscript preparation, or the decision to submit for publication.
Sponsorship Does Not Confer Editorial Advantage
Financial support for TORGJ, its programmes, activities, or publishing infrastructure does not provide a sponsor with preferential manuscript handling or publication rights.
Advertising Must Be Distinguishable
Advertising or promotional material should be clearly distinguishable from peer-reviewed editorial content and should not be presented in a way that could mislead readers about its status.
Commercial Relationships Must Not Influence Editorial Decisions
Editorial authority remains with the appropriate TORGJ editors, irrespective of financial or organisational relationships involving authors, institutions, funders, sponsors, advertisers, partners, or other external parties.
Advertising Standards
Any advertising accepted by TORGJ should be handled in a manner that protects readers, journal credibility, and editorial independence.
Sponsored or Supported Scholarly Content
Where scholarly content has received external financial support, the nature of that support should be disclosed appropriately. Sponsorship should not exempt a manuscript from applicable authorship, ethical, editorial, peer-review, disclosure, and publication requirements. Where content is promotional rather than independently peer reviewed, its status should be made clear to readers.
A financial, institutional, or commercial relationship is not inherently unethical. The key requirements are transparency, appropriate management of potential conflicts, and preservation of independent scholarly judgement. Failure to disclose a material relationship may itself create a publication-ethics concern.
Appeals, Complaints & Ethical Oversight
TORGJ aims to provide fair mechanisms for authors, reviewers, readers, editors, and other stakeholders to raise concerns about editorial decisions, publication processes, conduct, or potential breaches of journal policy.
Challenging an Editorial Decision
An author may appeal where there is a substantive scholarly or procedural basis to believe that a material error, misunderstanding, overlooked evidence, conflict, or significant departure from journal process affected the editorial decision. An appeal should explain the specific basis for reconsideration rather than merely express disagreement with reviewer or editorial judgement.
Raising a Concern About Process or Conduct
Complaints may concern matters such as unreasonable delays, inappropriate communication, confidentiality, undisclosed conflicts of interest, reviewer or editor conduct, publication ethics, discrimination, policy implementation, or other aspects of the journal’s operation.
How Appeals & Complaints Are Considered
The handling route may vary according to the nature and seriousness of the issue, but TORGJ seeks to apply a fair and proportionate review process.
Complaints Should Not Be Judged Solely by the Person Complained About
Where an appeal or complaint concerns an editor, reviewer, Editorial Board member, or other individual who would ordinarily handle the matter, responsibility should be transferred where reasonably possible to an appropriately independent person who has not been materially involved in the disputed issue.
Authors, reviewers, readers, editors, and others should be able to raise genuine ethical or procedural concerns without improper retaliation. At the same time, TORGJ may take appropriate action where complaints or allegations are knowingly false, malicious, abusive, threatening, or persistently vexatious.
Submit an Appeal or Complaint
Provide the manuscript ID or article DOI where applicable, identify the decision or issue being challenged, and explain the factual, scholarly, ethical, or procedural basis of the request as clearly as possible.
International Standards & Related Policies
TORGJ’s publication-ethics framework is informed by recognised international standards for responsible scholarly publishing and is supported by the journal’s own editorial, authorship, peer-review, integrity, and post-publication policies.
Committee on Publication Ethics
International guidance and resources concerning publication integrity, editorial ethics, misconduct, corrections, retractions, peer review, authorship, and related issues.
Recommendations for Medical Journals
Guidance on authorship, contributor roles, conflicts of interest, responsible research reporting, editorial practice, and publication in biomedical journals.
World Association of Medical Editors
Professional resources and ethical guidance supporting editorial independence, integrity, transparency, responsible peer review, and good medical-journal practice.
Ethical Oversight Is a Shared Responsibility
Maintaining the integrity of scholarly publishing requires responsible participation by authors, reviewers, editors, the publisher, institutions, funders, and readers. TORGJ seeks to respond to ethical concerns fairly, proportionately, transparently, and in a manner that protects the credibility of the scholarly record.
TORGJ may review and update this policy periodically to reflect changes in recognised publication-ethics guidance, research-integrity standards, journal operations, applicable law, technology, and scholarly publishing practice. The version published on the journal website should be regarded as the current policy.
Publication Ethics & Research Integrity Enquiries
To raise a concern about a submitted or published manuscript, include the manuscript ID or DOI where applicable and provide sufficient factual information for the Editorial Office to assess the matter.
Submit Research With Integrity
Authors submitting to TORGJ should review the journal’s ethical, authorship, peer-review, originality, disclosure, and manuscript-preparation requirements before beginning the submission process.