Hed-Core Academic Commons

Editorial Independence and Publication Ethics

Editorial Independence and Publication Ethics explains how the Commons protects fair, rigorous, independent, transparent, responsible, and accountable publication.

The Commons may publish research, analysis, evidence reviews, reports, articles, editorials, commentaries, learning resources, notices, Repository material, and other public-interest outputs through the Journal, Repository, Commons webpages, events, partnerships, or other approved publication routes.

Publication carries responsibility.

A published output may influence understanding, professional practice, policy, public discussion, institutional decisions, community experience, reputation, funding, research, and the rights or interests of people affected by the work.

The Commons should therefore ensure that publication decisions are made fairly, independently, proportionately, and according to appropriate editorial, ethical, research, safeguarding, privacy, data, accessibility, attribution, licensing, correction, preservation, and accountability standards.

Editorial independence does not mean that publication is free from standards, review, evidence, care, accountability, or challenge.

It means that editorial decisions should not be improperly influenced by Membership, payment, funding, sponsorship, donor relationships, institutional standing, political pressure, personal relationships, commercial interests, provider relationships, partnerships, authorship status, public controversy, ideological preference, or another improper factor.

The Commons should support open and constructive intellectual disagreement.

It should not publish material that is dishonest, discriminatory, exploitative, unsafe, misleading, plagiarized, unlawfully disclosed, improperly attributed, ethically irresponsible, or inconsistent with the Commons’ Principles and Values.

Purpose, Scope, and Editorial Principles

This framework applies to all publication activity carried out, supported, hosted, administered, reviewed, edited, commissioned, preserved, promoted, corrected, restricted, withdrawn, or otherwise connected to the Commons.

It applies to:

  • The Commons Journal
  • Articles, research reports, working papers, evidence reviews, commentaries, editorials, interviews, reviews, reflections, briefings, policy papers, practice resources, learning materials, and other written outputs
  • Research outputs developed through Commission Requests, Concept Notes, Commissioning Briefs, commissioned research, partnerships, funded work, events, Community Groups, Working Spaces, or other Commons activity
  • Editorial roles, editors, associate editors, editorial advisers, reviewers, authors, contributors, proofreaders, copy editors, translators, publication administrators, Repository staff, and other publication participants
  • Submission, peer review, editorial assessment, author revision, editing, copy editing, fact checking, production, licensing, publication, dissemination, Repository deposit, indexing, preservation, correction, withdrawal, and closure
  • Authorship, contributor roles, acknowledgements, attribution, citations, permissions, copyright, licensing, and intellectual-property arrangements
  • Complaints, concerns, disputes, corrections, expressions of concern, retractions, appeals, access restrictions, versioning, and publication records
  • Material published through external partners, providers, platforms, institutions, funders, or co-publishing arrangements where the Commons has an editorial, publication, Repository, commissioning, or governance role

The Commons should apply the following principles.

Editorial independence

Editorial decisions should be based on the purpose, scope, relevance, quality, originality, methodological or intellectual rigour, clarity, ethical standards, legal and practical risks, accessibility, and public-interest value of the submission or output.

Editorial decisions should not be determined by:

  • Membership status or institutional affiliation
  • Payment of a fee, funding contribution, sponsorship, donation, or commercial relationship
  • The author’s status, seniority, wealth, professional prominence, personal network, political influence, or institutional power
  • Pressure from a funder, sponsor, donor, provider, partner, employer, government, regulator, institution, campaign group, or another external party
  • A person’s identity, disability, religion or belief, race, ethnicity, nationality, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, age, class, geography, language, caring responsibilities, health status, or another protected or personal characteristic
  • Personal friendship, family relationship, rivalry, prior dispute, professional alliance, supervisory relationship, or other unmanaged conflict of interest
  • A desire to avoid legitimate criticism, protect reputation, secure favourable coverage, obtain funding, increase traffic, satisfy a powerful interest, or promote a predetermined conclusion

The Commons may set a Journal scope, publication standard, editorial priority, thematic Call, format requirement, word limit, language expectation, ethical requirement, review process, or access condition.

Such criteria should be relevant, clear, proportionate, and applied fairly.

Integrity and accuracy

Publication should represent evidence, sources, authorship, methods, findings, quotations, interpretation, limitations, uncertainty, funding, conflicts of interest, permissions, and corrections accurately.

The Commons should not knowingly publish material that:

  • Fabricates, falsifies, manipulates, selectively omits, plagiarizes, or misrepresents evidence
  • Misstates authorship, contribution, affiliation, funding, review status, conflict of interest, approval, consent, data availability, or publication history
  • Uses another person’s work, data, image, recording, idea, text, translation, cultural knowledge, community knowledge, or intellectual property without appropriate permission, attribution, licensing, or justification
  • Presents speculation, opinion, advocacy, political position, commercial promotion, or commentary as established fact without clear distinction
  • Overstates findings, certainty, novelty, generalizability, causality, consensus, effectiveness, significance, or public support
  • Omits material limitations, contradictory evidence, uncertainty, relevant context, or conflicts of interest in a way that makes the output misleading
  • Contains harassment, discriminatory abuse, dehumanization, targeted hostility, intimidation, incitement, exploitative content, unlawful disclosure, or other material inconsistent with Commons Principles and Values
  • Exposes a participant, child, adult at risk, contributor, community, author, reviewer, editor, or another person to unjustified risk of harm

The Commons should distinguish clearly between research, editorial material, commentary, analysis, review, opinion, advocacy, news, learning resources, promotional material, institutional statements, partner material, and other forms of publication where that distinction would help readers understand the content.

Fairness and respectful disagreement

The Commons should make room for rigorous, respectful, evidence-informed disagreement.

Publication should not be refused solely because a submission challenges a widely held view, critiques Commons activity, raises difficult questions, presents an unpopular position, questions institutional practice, or reaches a conclusion that editors, funders, Members, partners, or other interested parties dislike.

However, freedom of expression does not require the Commons to publish content that is misleading, unsupported, abusive, discriminatory, unsafe, exploitative, defamatory, improperly disclosed, excessively harmful, or outside the Journal’s purpose and standards.

The Commons should assess disputed, sensitive, controversial, or high-impact material with particular care.

It may seek additional evidence, specialist advice, ethical review, legal advice, independent review, safeguarding advice, privacy review, fact checking, sensitivity review, community input, or other proportionate safeguards.

Accessibility and public understanding

Publication should be as accessible as reasonably possible.

The Commons should consider:

  • Clear language, structure, titles, headings, summaries, abstracts, metadata, keywords, citation information, and version information
  • Accessible digital formats and readable page structure
  • Alternatives for visual, audio, or technical content where possible
  • Captions, transcripts, alternative text, accessible tables, readable charts, descriptive images, and accessible supplementary materials where appropriate
  • Whether specialist language is explained sufficiently for intended readers
  • Whether a summary, plain-language explanation, community-facing output, accessible abstract, translation, interpretation, or another format would improve understanding
  • Whether publication fees, submission requirements, technical processes, language requirements, or access arrangements create unnecessary barriers for authors, reviewers, contributors, readers, or communities
  • Whether accessibility needs can be supported without compromising research integrity, editorial independence, privacy, confidentiality, rights, safety, or other legitimate requirements

Open access should not be treated as sufficient if material remains difficult to locate, open, understand, navigate, or use.

Privacy, consent, and participant protection

Publication should protect personal data, confidential information, participant welfare, safeguarding, consent, cultural rights, and the rights of others.

Before publication, the Commons should consider whether an output includes:

  • Personal data, special-category information, identifying details, contact information, images, recordings, quotations, locations, case information, or linked data
  • Confidential research information, unpublished data, peer-review information, complaints information, safeguarding information, legal information, commercial information, institutional information, or restricted material
  • Information about children, adults at risk, research participants, communities, identifiable groups, authors, reviewers, editors, or other people who may face harm or disadvantage through disclosure
  • Community knowledge, cultural knowledge, Indigenous knowledge, sacred knowledge, traditional knowledge, local knowledge, lived-experience information, or material subject to collective rights, restrictions, or expectations
  • Information that could expose a person or community to harassment, discrimination, retaliation, stigma, loss of livelihood, professional disadvantage, legal risk, safeguarding risk, or another avoidable harm

The Commons should not publish such information without an appropriate basis, necessary permissions or consent where required, proportionate assessment, and suitable safeguards.

Anonymisation does not always remove risk.

A person or community may still be identifiable through context, location, role, institution, unusual experience, linked information, detailed narrative, image, recording, quote, or combination of characteristics.

Accountability

Editorial and publication decisions should be appropriately documented, reviewable, and accountable.

The Commons should maintain proportionate records of submissions, editorial decisions, peer-review arrangements, conflicts of interest, author communications, permissions, publication agreements, corrections, complaints, withdrawals, retractions, access restrictions, versioning, and other significant publication activity.

Not every editorial discussion or review record can be made public.

The Commons should balance accountability with editorial confidentiality, reviewer protection, author privacy, safeguarding, data protection, legal obligations, research integrity, cultural rights, security, and the rights of others.

Editorial Roles, Authority, and Independence

The Commons should maintain clear editorial structures, role descriptions, authority limits, conflict-of-interest arrangements, appointment routes, review arrangements, and escalation routes.

Editorial Authority

The Commons should designate an Editorial Authority, Editor-in-Chief, Editorial Board, or another appropriate authorized body responsible for editorial standards and significant publication decisions.

The exact title and structure may vary.

The Editorial Authority should:

  • Protect the purpose, scope, quality, integrity, independence, accessibility, and public-interest value of Commons publication activity
  • Approve or oversee editorial policies, publication standards, peer-review arrangements, authorship standards, correction procedures, retraction procedures, Repository publication arrangements, and related guidance
  • Ensure that editorial roles have clear authority, responsibilities, appointment conditions, conflict-of-interest requirements, confidentiality arrangements, and review routes
  • Ensure that editorial decisions are protected from improper influence
  • Oversee significant editorial risks, concerns, complaints, corrections, expressions of concern, retractions, publication disputes, conflicts of interest, safeguarding issues, privacy issues, data issues, and other material matters
  • Ensure that appropriate independent review or specialist advice is available where needed
  • Receive proportionate reports on publication activity, integrity issues, decisions, performance, learning, accessibility, complaints, and risks
  • Ensure that publication arrangements remain compatible with research integrity, privacy, safeguarding, accessibility, legal obligations, public trust, and the Commons’ Principles and Values

The Editorial Authority should not use its role to favour its own submissions, affiliations, collaborators, institutions, research interests, political commitments, commercial interests, or personal relationships.

Editors and editorial staff

Editors may include an Editor-in-Chief, managing editor, associate editor, section editor, guest editor, commissioning editor, copy editor, production editor, publication administrator, or another approved role holder.

Editors should:

  • Apply the Journal’s scope, standards, procedures, and ethical requirements fairly
  • Assess submissions on relevant editorial grounds
  • Identify and disclose actual, potential, or perceived conflicts of interest
  • Recuse themselves from a submission, decision, review, or dispute where a conflict cannot be managed safely and credibly
  • Protect author, reviewer, participant, and editorial confidentiality
  • Select reviewers fairly and appropriately
  • Ensure that peer review, specialist review, fact checking, sensitivity review, legal review, accessibility review, or another process is used where proportionate
  • Communicate decisions, requests for revision, conditions, and timelines respectfully and clearly
  • Ensure that publication decisions are not improperly influenced
  • Escalate significant concerns, including research-integrity, authorship, safeguarding, privacy, data, legal, conflict-of-interest, harassment, or reputational concerns
  • Support timely correction, clarification, restriction, withdrawal, or retraction where this is justified
  • Maintain appropriate editorial records
  • Avoid hostile, humiliating, discriminatory, dismissive, or unnecessarily obstructive conduct toward authors, reviewers, contributors, colleagues, or participants

Editorial work should be carried out respectfully.

An editor may reject a submission, request revision, seek further review, pause a process, or decide not to proceed. Such decisions should be communicated proportionately and should not be used to demean, punish, retaliate against, or silence a person improperly.

Editorial Board and Advisers

An Editorial Board or group of editorial advisers may support the Commons by providing strategic advice, subject expertise, peer-review support, policy guidance, quality assurance, community insight, or another approved function.

Editorial Board members and advisers should understand that:

  • Advisory status does not entitle them to direct decisions outside their authority
  • They should disclose and manage conflicts of interest
  • They should respect editorial and peer-review confidentiality
  • They should not use privileged access to obtain advantage for themselves, a collaborator, an institution, a funder, a partner, or another party
  • They should not pressure editors to publish, reject, delay, expedite, alter, promote, or suppress particular material improperly
  • They should treat authors, reviewers, participants, contributors, staff, and other Board members respectfully
  • They should support accessibility, inclusion, research integrity, editorial independence, participant protection, and public trust

Authors and Contributors

Authors and contributors should submit work honestly and responsibly.

They should:

  • Submit material that is accurate, original, appropriately attributed, and within the Journal’s scope and standards
  • Declare relevant authorship, contributor roles, funding, support, affiliations, conflicts of interest, permissions, ethical approvals, participant-consent arrangements, data availability, prior publication, related submissions, and material limitations
  • Ensure that all listed authors have made a genuine contribution, have seen the final version where appropriate, and agree to be identified as authors
  • Ensure that people who made a genuine contribution are acknowledged appropriately, subject to their wishes and confidentiality requirements
  • Avoid ghost authorship, guest authorship, honorary authorship, coerced authorship, plagiarism, duplicate submission, duplicate publication, salami publication, fabricated citation, citation manipulation, undisclosed text recycling, and other misleading practice
  • Respond to reasonable editorial, factual, methodological, ethical, accessibility, permissions, privacy, safeguarding, data, or production queries
  • Inform the Commons promptly if they identify a material error, conflict, consent issue, rights issue, privacy concern, safeguarding risk, data problem, or another matter affecting a submitted or published output
  • Cooperate with appropriate correction, clarification, review, restriction, withdrawal, or retraction processes

Submitting material does not guarantee publication.

Authors should not attempt to influence editorial decisions through pressure, personal relationships, institutional status, funding, public campaigning, threats, incentives, harassment, or another improper means.

Peer Reviewers and Specialist Reviewers

Peer reviewers, fact checkers, methodological reviewers, legal reviewers, sensitivity readers, accessibility reviewers, data reviewers, translators, and other specialists may support publication decisions.

They should:

  • Accept review only where they have appropriate expertise, capacity, and independence
  • Declare relevant conflicts of interest before accepting a review
  • Decline or withdraw from a review where a conflict cannot be managed appropriately
  • Keep submitted material and review communications confidential unless the Commons has expressly agreed otherwise
  • Not use unpublished information, ideas, methods, data, arguments, or findings for personal, professional, institutional, research, political, or commercial advantage
  • Provide fair, relevant, respectful, constructive, evidence-informed feedback
  • Avoid discriminatory, hostile, personal, humiliating, retaliatory, or irrelevant comments
  • Identify significant concerns about integrity, consent, privacy, safeguarding, data, ethics, permissions, authorship, attribution, plagiarism, publication overlap, or another relevant issue
  • Complete reviews within an agreed period where possible or notify the editor promptly if they cannot do so
  • Respect the review model used by the Journal, whether anonymous, double-anonymous, open, transparent, collaborative, post-publication, or another approved model

Reviewers advise.

They do not determine publication unless a formal delegation explicitly provides otherwise.

Funders, Partners, Sponsors, and External Parties

Funders, sponsors, donors, institutions, partners, providers, Members, and other external parties may support Commons publication activity.

They should not direct editorial decisions, peer-review outcomes, author selection, publication timing, findings, corrections, retractions, access decisions, or public communications unless they hold an expressly authorized role and the arrangement is compatible with editorial independence.

Where a funder, sponsor, donor, institution, partner, provider, or another external party has supported an output, the relationship should be disclosed appropriately.

The Commons should maintain clear boundaries between editorial activity and:

  • Fundraising
  • Sponsorship
  • Advertising
  • Membership administration
  • Provider procurement
  • Partnership negotiation
  • Institutional promotion
  • Political advocacy
  • Commercial activity
  • Personal reputation management
  • Other interests that may create improper influence

Submission, Review, and Publication Decisions

The Commons should use a fair, clear, proportionate, and documented process for receiving, assessing, reviewing, revising, accepting, publishing, correcting, restricting, withdrawing, and preserving material.

Not every publication requires the same process.

A short event notice or routine administrative update may require a simple editorial check.

A research article, sensitive commentary, commissioned report, high-impact evidence review, output involving participant information, contested public issue, or work connected to a funder or partner may require enhanced editorial assessment, multiple reviewers, specialist advice, fact checking, privacy review, safeguarding review, legal review, independent decision-making, or a formal Decision Record.

Submission and Initial Assessment

The Commons should provide clear information about submission routes, publication scope, expected standards, format requirements, review processes, timelines, author responsibilities, conflicts of interest, fees if applicable, accessibility arrangements, rights, licensing, data expectations, and contact routes.

On receipt, an editor or authorized publication administrator may conduct an initial assessment to determine whether a submission:

  • Falls within the Journal’s purpose and scope
  • Meets basic requirements for completeness, format, legibility, accessibility, and submission information
  • Raises immediate concerns about safety, safeguarding, privacy, consent, confidentiality, rights, legal risk, data, research integrity, editorial integrity, conflict of interest, duplication, plagiarism, or another significant issue
  • Requires a standard review route, expedited review, specialist review, additional information, revision before review, referral, or decline
  • Is substantially similar to a submission already under consideration, previously rejected, previously published, or submitted elsewhere
  • Requires a conflict-of-interest assessment or alternative editor
  • Requires restricted handling because it contains confidential, sensitive, controlled, legally sensitive, culturally restricted, or participant-related material

An initial assessment should not be used to exclude a submission unfairly because of the author’s identity, affiliation, status, language, location, disability, professional background, access need, or another irrelevant characteristic.

Peer Review and other Review Routes

The Commons may use peer review, editorial review, methodological review, fact checking, data review, ethics review, sensitivity review, legal review, accessibility review, community review, technical review, translation review, or another proportionate process.

The review approach should be appropriate to the form, purpose, risk, evidence base, likely impact, and intended audience of the output.

A review process may consider:

  • Relevance to the Journal’s scope and public-interest purpose
  • Originality, contribution, clarity, coherence, and accessibility
  • Methodological quality, evidence use, reasoning, source accuracy, citation practice, and analytical transparency
  • Appropriate treatment of uncertainty, limitation, alternative interpretation, and context
  • Ethical practice, participant welfare, consent, safeguarding, privacy, confidentiality, data use, permissions, and community rights
  • Authorship, attribution, acknowledgements, licensing, intellectual-property rights, and conflicts of interest
  • Potential public, professional, institutional, cultural, legal, financial, reputational, or community impact
  • Whether publication requires clarification, amendment, anonymisation, additional evidence, more careful language, a content note, access restriction, independent review, or another safeguard

The Commons should explain the broad review model used for a publication route.

It should not disclose confidential reviewer information, unpublished material, internal deliberation, or personal data beyond what is appropriate.

Editorial Decisions

Editorial decisions may include:

  • Declining a submission before review
  • Requesting clarification, additional information, permissions, declarations, accessibility improvements, ethical information, data information, or conflict-of-interest information
  • Sending a submission for peer review or another specialist review
  • Requesting revision
  • Accepting subject to specified revisions or conditions
  • Accepting for publication
  • Referring a submission to another publication route, editor, institution, process, or service where appropriate
  • Pausing the process pending advice, consent clarification, conflict management, review, investigation, privacy assessment, safeguarding assessment, or another matter
  • Rejecting a submission
  • Publishing with an editor’s note, clarification, limitation statement, disclosure, correction, access restriction, or other proportionate measure
  • Withdrawing an acceptance or suspending publication where a material concern emerges before publication

Editors should record material decisions and reasons proportionately.

A decision should not be reversed merely because an author, funder, institution, partner, Member, reviewer, public figure, or another party applies improper pressure.

Revisions and Author Response

Where revision is requested, the Commons should explain the required changes clearly enough for the author to understand the concern.

An author may disagree with a reviewer or editorial request.

The author should be able to provide a reasoned response, propose an alternative revision, supply further evidence, correct a misunderstanding, or request clarification.

Editors should consider author responses fairly.

They are not required to accept every author response or reviewer recommendation, but should make a reasoned editorial judgment within the Journal’s standards and authority.

Publication, Licensing, and Preservation

Before publication, the Commons should confirm, where relevant:

  • Final authorship, contributor roles, acknowledgements, affiliations, and declarations
  • Permissions for quotations, images, tables, data, recordings, translations, third-party material, and other protected content
  • Licensing, copyright, intellectual-property, attribution, reuse, and Repository arrangements
  • Research, ethics, participant, safeguarding, privacy, consent, confidentiality, data, and access requirements
  • Funding, sponsorship, donor, partnership, provider, institutional, and conflict-of-interest disclosures
  • Accessibility of the final format
  • Title, abstract, metadata, keywords, citation, version, publication date, editorial note, correction status, and access conditions
  • Whether a Repository deposit, preservation copy, embargo, controlled-access arrangement, or another record is needed

The Commons should maintain an appropriate publication record.

A published item should not normally be silently changed in a way that alters its meaning, evidence, authorship, findings, correction status, access conditions, or publication history.

Where a post-publication change is necessary, the Commons should use clear versioning, correction, update, replacement, withdrawal, retraction, or explanatory notices as appropriate.

Publication Concerns, Correction, and Accountability

Publication integrity requires a clear route for raising concerns and an appropriate process for responding to them.

Anyone may raise a concern about a submission, review, editorial decision, published output, reviewer conduct, author conduct, editor conduct, publication process, access decision, licensing decision, correction, restriction, or other publication matter.

Concerns that may require review

A concern may relate to:

  • Fabrication, falsification, plagiarism, image manipulation, data manipulation, citation manipulation, selective reporting, duplicate submission, duplicate publication, undisclosed text recycling, or another form of research or publication misconduct
  • Inaccurate, misleading, incomplete, defamatory, discriminatory, unsafe, exploitative, or improperly contextualized material
  • Undisclosed or inadequately managed conflicts of interest
  • Inappropriate authorship, omitted authorship, coerced authorship, honorary authorship, ghost authorship, contributor disputes, acknowledgement disputes, or attribution concerns
  • Lack of necessary permission, consent, ethical approval, participant protection, safeguarding assessment, privacy assessment, confidentiality arrangement, data approval, rights clearance, or cultural permission
  • Unjustified disclosure of personal data, confidential information, research data, peer-review information, safeguarding information, cultural knowledge, proprietary information, or restricted material
  • Reviewer bias, breach of confidentiality, use of unpublished material, undeclared conflict, discriminatory conduct, inappropriate delay, or abusive review
  • Editorial bias, improper influence, conflict of interest, unfair process, failure to recuse, discrimination, retaliation, harassment, or misuse of editorial authority
  • An error, omission, missing declaration, incorrect citation, misleading claim, accessibility problem, metadata error, licensing error, versioning problem, or other issue requiring correction
  • A concern that publication may create a risk to an individual, participant, community, institution, group, or public interest
  • Failure to implement a justified correction, restriction, expression of concern, withdrawal, or retraction

Concerns should be raised through Contact and Support or the appropriate editorial-integrity, research-integrity, safeguarding, privacy, complaints, review, or governance route.

The Commons should acknowledge and assess concerns proportionately.

It should seek appropriate independence where the concern involves an editor, Editorial Authority member, reviewer, author, funder, partner, provider, or another person with decision-making influence.

Corrections and updates

A correction may be appropriate where a published output contains a material error, omission, inaccurate statement, missing disclosure, incorrect attribution, metadata problem, accessibility issue, citation error, licensing error, formatting issue, privacy concern, or other matter that can be addressed without invalidating the central publication.

A correction process may include:

  • Updating the online item
  • Publishing a correction, clarification, addendum, or editor’s note
  • Correcting metadata, author information, affiliations, acknowledgements, funding, conflicts, permissions, citations, licensing, access conditions, or Repository information
  • Replacing a file while preserving an appropriate record of the original version
  • Adding an accessible format, transcript, captions, alternative text, plain-language summary, or another accessibility improvement
  • Notifying relevant indexing, Repository, partner, or preservation services where appropriate

A correction should be clear enough for readers to understand what changed and why.

Expressions of concern

An expression of concern may be appropriate where a serious issue has been identified but cannot yet be resolved, where an investigation or review is ongoing, where evidence is incomplete, where a relevant institution or authority is considering the matter, or where readers need to be alerted to a potential problem.

An expression of concern should be proportionate, factual, and carefully worded.

It should not prejudge an outcome or make unsupported allegations.

Withdrawal and Retraction

Withdrawal or retraction may be appropriate where a publication is materially unreliable, seriously misleading, unlawfully disclosed, published without necessary permission, substantially plagiarized, ethically unacceptable, compromised by serious undisclosed conflict, associated with serious research or publication misconduct, or likely to create significant harm if it remains available without restriction.

A retraction, withdrawal, removal, or access restriction should be considered carefully.

The Commons should seek appropriate editorial, governance, legal, research, privacy, safeguarding, data, cultural, technical, or other specialist advice where necessary.

Where possible, the Commons should preserve an appropriate publication record, retraction notice, metadata record, or explanation rather than erasing all evidence that the publication existed.

However, material may need to be removed or restricted promptly where continued availability creates a serious safeguarding, privacy, legal, security, rights, or other risk.

Review and Appeal

A person directly affected by an editorial decision may request review where an applicable Commons process provides for this.

Review is not a right to compel publication or to relitigate ordinary academic, editorial, methodological, political, intellectual, or stylistic disagreement.

A review may consider whether:

  • The decision was made by a person or body with appropriate authority
  • A relevant policy, procedure, criterion, agreement, or standard was applied
  • A material conflict of interest was disclosed and managed appropriately
  • The process was fair, proportionate, and free from improper influence or discrimination
  • Relevant information was considered
  • A material procedural error occurred
  • A significant new fact, evidence, or concern has emerged
  • The decision requires clarification, correction, reconsideration, independent review, variation, suspension, or another action

A review should normally be conducted by a person or body with appropriate authority and sufficient independence from the original decision.

The Commons should communicate the outcome appropriately and retain a proportionate record.

Operational Documents and Support

The Commons should maintain the following documents, templates, and procedures to support responsible editorial and publication practice.

Editorial Independence and Publication Ethics Policy

This should define the Commons’ publication principles, editorial authority, scope, independence safeguards, role responsibilities, review arrangements, authorship standards, correction routes, and accountability arrangements.

Journal Scope and Submission Guidance

This should explain the Journal’s purpose, publication types, audience, scope, submission routes, format requirements, accessibility expectations, ethical standards, review models, timelines, licensing, fees if any, and relevant support routes.

Editorial Roles and Terms of Reference

This should define the roles, authority, responsibilities, appointment conditions, term limits, conflict-of-interest expectations, confidentiality requirements, performance review, suspension, removal, and accountability arrangements of editors, editorial advisers, reviewers, and publication administrators.

Author and Contributor Declaration

This should support accurate declarations of authorship, contribution, affiliation, funding, conflicts of interest, consent, ethical approval, data arrangements, permissions, prior publication, copyright, licensing, and publication agreement.

Peer-Review and Specialist Review Procedure

This should explain reviewer selection, review models, conflicts, confidentiality, review standards, timelines, author response, decision-making, reviewer conduct, and escalation routes.

Authorship, Attribution, and Permissions Procedure

This should explain authorship criteria, contributor roles, acknowledgements, community recognition, citation, permissions, intellectual-property rights, copyright, licensing, third-party material, images, translations, recordings, data, and dispute routes.

Editorial Decision and Publication Record

This should record relevant submissions, editorial authority, conflicts declared, review routes, material advice, decisions, conditions, communication, publication status, correction status, Repository arrangements, and closure.

Correction, Expression of Concern, Withdrawal, and Retraction Procedure

This should explain how the Commons assesses, records, communicates, reviews, publishes, preserves, restricts, withdraws, retracts, replaces, or corrects publication material.

Publication Concern, Review, and Appeal Procedure

This should explain how authors, reviewers, readers, participants, partners, institutions, funders, and others may raise concerns, seek review, provide evidence, receive an outcome, and request appeal information where an applicable process provides for this.

Use Contact and Support if you need guidance about a Journal submission, editorial role, peer review, publication route, authorship, attribution, permissions, licensing, accessibility, correction, retraction, Repository deposit, publication concern, or another related matter.

You may use this route to:

  • Ask whether a proposed output is within Journal scope
  • Request Journal submission guidance, author information, or a contributor declaration
  • Ask about peer review, specialist review, editorial decision-making, or publication timelines
  • Seek guidance on authorship, contributor roles, acknowledgements, attribution, copyright, permissions, licensing, or reuse
  • Request support with accessible publication formats or accessibility arrangements
  • Raise a concern about editorial independence, peer-review conduct, conflict of interest, plagiarism, authorship, permissions, privacy, data, safeguarding, publication integrity, or another matter
  • Ask how to correct, clarify, update, restrict, withdraw, retract, preserve, or cite published material
  • Seek review or appeal information where an applicable process provides for this
  • Provide feedback on the Journal, Repository, publication standards, editorial processes, or public communication

Editorial Independence and Publication Ethics is working well when:

  • The Commons has clear editorial purpose, scope, standards, roles, authority limits, review arrangements, and accountability routes
  • Editorial decisions are made on relevant scholarly, evidential, ethical, public-interest, accessibility, and publication grounds
  • Editors, reviewers, authors, contributors, funders, partners, providers, institutions, and Members understand the limits of their authority and influence
  • Membership, funding, sponsorship, donations, institutional standing, partnerships, personal relationships, political pressure, commercial interests, and other external influences do not improperly affect editorial decisions
  • Authors are treated respectfully and receive clear information about submission, review, revision, acceptance, publication, rejection, and available review routes
  • Peer review and other specialist review are fair, proportionate, independent, appropriately confidential, constructive, and free from unmanaged conflicts of interest
  • Research, evidence, analysis, commentary, opinion, advocacy, and promotional material are distinguished clearly where this helps readers understand the output
  • Authorship, contributor roles, acknowledgements, citations, permissions, copyright, licensing, funding, affiliations, and conflicts of interest are accurate and transparent
  • Publication protects participant welfare, safeguarding, privacy, consent, confidentiality, data, cultural rights, intellectual-property rights, and the rights of others
  • Journal and Repository material is accessible, discoverable, clearly labelled, appropriately preserved, and responsibly versioned
  • Corrections, clarifications, expressions of concern, restrictions, withdrawals, and retractions are handled promptly, fairly, proportionately, and transparently
  • Concerns about editorial independence, review conduct, authorship, evidence, privacy, safeguarding, conflicts, publication ethics, or another matter can be raised safely and addressed fairly
  • The Commons protects rigorous disagreement without publishing misleading, abusive, discriminatory, exploitative, or unsafe material
  • Publication activity supports informed public understanding, credible research, responsible debate, ethical practice, and public trust
  • The Commons remains independent, fair, evidence-informed, accessible, accountable, and worthy of confidence
Complaints, Review, and Appeal

Complaints, Review, and Appeal explains how the Commons receives, assesses, investigates, reviews, resolves, records, communicates, and closes concerns, complaints, conduct matters, review requests, and appeals fairly, proportionately, independently, and with appropriate safeguards.