Purpose and Scope
Policies have value only if implemented. This policy establishes LMI’s assurance function: how implementation is monitored, what evidence supports it, how findings are acted upon, and what LMI reports publicly. It applies to LMI’s own functions and to every journal operating under the LMI publishing framework.
Evidence-Based Assurance
Assurance rests on records generated in the ordinary course of publishing rather than on assertion. Journals shall retain, and provide to LMI on request, evidence of the kinds required by the policies in this framework — including current editorial rosters and appointment records (B1); declarations, recusal and reassignment records (B1, E1); peer-review records sufficient to show that declared processes were followed (B2); submission, decision and publication date records; fee, waiver and refund records (F2); correction, Expression of Concern and retraction records with their propagation (G2, G1); metadata and preservation evidence (G1); records of complaints and integrity matters and their handling (A4, C5); training records; and evidence maintained for external requirements (H3). The detailed registers, checklists, forms and worksheets through which this evidence is compiled are internal operating documents and are not part of this public framework.
Competence, Induction and Continuing Guidance
LMI and its journals shall provide role-appropriate induction and continuing guidance for editors, editorial-board members, staff, guest editors and service providers, and shall make reviewer guidance readily available. Training shall address the policies relevant to the role, including confidentiality, competing interests, peer review, authorship, research ethics, AI, misconduct handling and record action. Material policy changes shall be communicated to affected roles, and training or acknowledgement records shall be retained proportionate to risk.
Proportionality
Monitoring shall be proportionate. Frequency and depth reflect the risk presented by the activity, previous findings and their remediation, external or regulatory requirements applying to the journal, and significant change — a new journal, a new editorial leadership, a platform migration, a change of publishing model or a substantial rise in volume. Routine compliance attracts light-touch monitoring; identified weakness attracts closer examination.
Confidentiality and Independence
Assurance work engages confidential publishing information and personal data, and is subject to A5: access shall be limited to what the assurance purpose requires, information shall be used only for that purpose, and reporting shall be aggregated or de-identified wherever the purpose permits. The assurance function examines whether policies were followed; it does not acquire editorial authority, shall not direct, review or reverse any decision to accept, reject, correct or retract any manuscript or article, and its findings shall never be used as a route to influence scholarly outcomes (A3). Where assurance identifies a decision made in breach of policy, the remedy is a finding and corrective action addressed to process, together with any action properly taken under B1, C5 or G2 by those with authority to take it.
Findings, Corrective Action and Escalation
Monitoring outcomes shall be documented, stating what was examined, what was found and the basis for the finding, and shall be communicated to those responsible with an opportunity to comment on factual accuracy before finalisation. Where non-compliance is identified, a corrective-action plan shall record the action required, the person or role responsible, and the date by which it is to be completed; completion shall be verified rather than assumed. Serious or repeated non-compliance, or failure to remediate, shall be escalated to the governing body (A2), and may result in proportionate consequences including intensified monitoring, suspension of specified activity such as special issues (B3), review of editorial appointments under B1, or, in extreme cases, review of a journal’s continued operation within the LMI publishing framework. Consequences shall be proportionate, reasoned and recorded, and shall never be used in response to legitimate editorial decisions (A3).
Website, Accessibility and Contact-Route Assurance
Monitoring shall include periodic checks that public policies correspond to practice; official contact and complaint routes function; journal and policy pages use secure and maintained web infrastructure; article templates display required metadata, licence and status information; and reasonable accessibility measures under G1 are implemented. Findings shall distinguish a temporary technical defect from a systemic failure and shall lead to documented corrective action.
Declared-Schedule Integrity
Each journal shall publish according to the publication frequency and schedule it publicly declares, or shall transparently correct its declaration. Persistent divergence between declared and actual publication is a compliance matter under this policy. LMI prescribes no publication frequency; frequency is a journal-level determination, and the obligation is that the declaration be truthful and honoured.
Corrective and Preventive Action
Assurance shall address both correction of an identified non-compliance and prevention of recurrence. A corrective and preventive action record should identify the immediate correction, underlying or contributing causes where they can reasonably be determined, the preventive control, responsible role, due date, verification method and closure decision. Repeated findings shall be analysed for systemic causes rather than treated as isolated events.
Policy Exceptions and Unsupported Assurances
An exception is permitted only where the relevant policy allows discretion or a binding obligation requires another course. It shall be documented, authorised by an appropriate conflict-free role, limited in scope and duration, and reviewed. An exception shall never defeat editorial independence, the payment-decision firewall, participant protection, fair process, the prohibition on editorial-team publication, or the integrity of the scholarly record. LMI and its journals shall not state that a control, audit, preservation service, training programme or compliance arrangement exists unless it has been implemented and can be evidenced.
Continuing Improvement and Stakeholder Input
Assurance findings, complaints, integrity cases, user experience, changes in external standards and proportionate feedback from editors, authors, reviewers and readers shall inform continuing improvement. Stakeholder input does not transfer approval authority and shall not be used to weaken an integrity safeguard for convenience. Material lessons should be converted into policy, training, system or procedural change under H1 and then verified.
Transparency Reporting
LMI shall publish a periodic publishing-integrity and transparency report appropriate to the scale and maturity of its publishing programme. The report may address: publication volumes and editorial timelines where journals record them; corrections, Expressions of Concern and retractions; integrity matters raised and their disposition in aggregate; complaints and escalations and their outcomes in aggregate; peer-review activity; waivers granted and financial-transparency information (F2); training and assurance activity; and progress on corrective actions. The report shall be accurate and shall not overstate performance. It shall not disclose confidential case details, reviewer identities, the identities of individuals involved in integrity matters or complaints, or personal data (A5); where a matter cannot be reported without identifying individuals, it shall be reported in aggregate or omitted, and the omission shall not be used to conceal a systemic problem.
Standards and Guidance
Informed by the Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing and the COPE Core Practices on the oversight of publishing practice.