Purpose and the Limits of Journal Authority
This policy governs how LMI and its journals respond to concerns that submitted or published content, or conduct connected with it, may be unreliable or improper. It is the framework's primary statement of due process and proportionality.
A journal assesses the reliability and integrity of the scholarly record: whether content can be relied upon, whether it complies with policy, and what record action is warranted. It does not determine research misconduct as an employment or regulatory matter. Determinations requiring access to primary research records, laboratory materials, employment evidence or witnesses belong to institutions, funders, ethics bodies and competent authorities. LMI shall not purport to exercise the powers of a university, employer, regulator or court, and shall frame its own findings accordingly.
Definitions
Research misconduct means fabrication, falsification, plagiarism or other serious departure from accepted practice in proposing, conducting or reporting research. Fabrication is inventing data, results, participants, approvals or events. Falsification is manipulating research materials, equipment, processes, images or data so that the research is not accurately represented. Publication misconduct means serious impropriety in the publication process, including the prohibited practices in C1, C2 and C3.
Honest error, methodological limitation, legitimate scientific disagreement and differences of interpretation are not misconduct. Where an error is honest, the response is correction (G2), not sanction.
Receipt and Preliminary Assessment
Concerns may be raised by anyone and shall be considered on their substance, whether raised openly or anonymously, though anonymity may limit what can be investigated. On receipt, the journal shall record the concern, make a preliminary assessment of whether it is specific and credible enough to warrant inquiry, and close unsupported concerns with a reasoned record. Concerns about a journal's own leadership, or about LMI, escalate under A4.
Evidence Preservation
From the moment a concern is recorded, relevant records — submission files, correspondence, review records, versions, metadata, screening outputs — shall be preserved and shall not be altered, deleted or placed beyond reach until the matter and any assurance requirements conclude (A5, H2).
Confidentiality, Conflicts and Independent Handling
Matters shall be handled confidentially under A5, with disclosure limited to those who need to know and to bodies with a legitimate role. The handler shall be free of conflict with the parties and subject; where ordinary handlers are conflicted — including where editorial leadership is implicated — independent handling applies (A3, A4). Persons raising concerns in good faith are protected from retaliation under A4.
Fair Process
Before any adverse finding or action, the person concerned shall receive a clear statement of the concern and a reasonable opportunity to respond, ordinarily in writing and within a stated period. Where the concern involves co-authors, the corresponding author shall normally be addressed first and all authors informed where the matter is material, unless the corresponding author is implicated, conflicted, unreachable, or contact through that person would create a risk to evidence or fair process. Findings shall rest on evidence assessed on its merits; suspicion, pattern indicators (C3) and screening outputs (C2, C4) are inquiry triggers, not conclusions. Interim protective measures — pausing review or production, deferring publication, withholding issue assignment — may be taken where necessary to protect the record, and shall be proportionate, reasoned and revisited as the matter develops.
Proportionality
Response shall be proportionate to the seriousness, the reliability of the evidence, the effect on the record and on participants, and whether the conduct appears deliberate, reckless or inadvertent. A minor citation lapse and a fabricated dataset are not to be treated alike.
Referral, Cooperation and Coordination
Where a concern requires evidence beyond the journal's reach, or indicates conduct within an institution's or regulator's jurisdiction, the matter shall be referred to the appropriate body with the evidence relied upon, and the journal shall cooperate with that body's process. The journal may proceed with record action necessary to protect the scholarly record without awaiting the institutional outcome, stating the basis on which it acts, and shall revisit its action in light of the outcome.
Where a concern touches more than one LMI journal, or content published elsewhere, LMI shall coordinate handling and, where appropriate, notify other publishers, subject to A5 and to the pattern-evidence limits in C3.
Boundary with Administrative Governance Actions
Rejection of a submission because it breaches the absolute editorial-team publication prohibition (B1) is an administrative governance action. It requires only recording and does not, by itself, imply misconduct or require an investigation under this policy. An investigation arises only where additional evidence suggests deliberate concealment of an editorial role, falsification of authorship or identity, or other conduct within this policy.
Outcomes and Documentation
Outcomes may include: no further action; record action under Corrections, Expressions of Concern, Retractions & Removals (G2); rejection; referral; a proportionate and reviewable restriction on future engagement; and, for editorial or reviewer roles, action under B1 or B2. Outcomes shall be communicated to the parties with reasons appropriate to confidentiality constraints, recorded with the evidence and reasoning, and reported into assurance under H2. A closed matter may be reopened where material new evidence emerges, a previously undisclosed conflict is identified, the original process was materially defective, or a later institutional or regulatory finding affects the reliability of the record.
Standards and Guidance
Informed by the COPE Core Practices and COPE flowcharts for handling allegations of misconduct, and the ICMJE Recommendations on scientific misconduct and cooperation with institutions.