Publishing ethics

Ethics issues

---

Artificial Intelligence (AI)

Any use of AI tools, including Large Language Models (LLMs), for the creation, development, or generation of an Emerald publication must be flagged, clearly and transparently, by the author(s) within the Methods and Acknowledgements (or another appropriate section) of the article, chapter, or case study. The author(s) must describe the content created or modified as well as appropriately cite the name and version of the AI tool used; any additional works drawn on by the AI tool should also be appropriately cited and referenced. Standard tools that are used to improve spelling and grammar are not included within the parameters of this guidance. The Editor and Publisher reserve the right to determine whether the use of an AI tool is permissible in a submitted article, chapter, or case study. Emerald reserves the right to reject submissions and to take appropriate post-publication action on published material found to feature inappropriate or undisclosed use of generative AI.

In accordance with COPE’s position statement on AI tools, Large Language Models cannot be credited with authorship as they are incapable of conceptualising a research design without human direction and cannot be accountable for the integrity, originality, and validity of the published work.

Generative AI usage key principles

• Copywriting any part of an article using a generative AI tool/LLM would not be permissible, including the generation of the abstract or the literature review, for as per Emerald’s authorship criteria, the author(s) must be responsible for the work and accountable for its accuracy, integrity, and validity.
• The generation or reporting of results using a generative AI tool/LLM is not permissible, for as per Emerald’s authorship criteria, the author(s) must be responsible for the creation and interpretation of their work and accountable for its accuracy, integrity, and validity.
• The in-text reporting of statistics using a generative AI tool/LLM is not permissible due to concerns over the authenticity, integrity, and validity of the data produced, although the use of such a tool to aid in the analysis of the work would be permissible.
• Copy-editing an article using a generative AI tool/LLM in order to improve its language and readability would be permissible as this mirrors standard tools already employed to improve spelling and grammar, and uses existing author-created material, rather than generating wholly new content, while the author(s) remains responsible for the original work. Authors should be conscious of the potential for bias, fabrication, inaccurate attribution, and plagiarism when using such tools, and should therefore verify the work prior to submission.
• The submission and publication of images created by AI tools or large-scale generative models is not permitted.

AI and peer review

Articles, case studies, and chapters submitted to Emerald for consideration and review should be treated as confidential, meaning that sharing this material with another person or uploading it to a generative AI tool or LLM for assessment or evaluation would violate the author’s confidentiality, as well as any proprietary and/or data privacy rights.

This would also be the case for the peer review report itself if uploaded to a generative AI/LLM for copy-editing or copy-writing purposes, as it may contain confidential or identifiable information pertinent to the article or the author(s). There are additional concerns regarding the use of generative AI tools for peer review due to biases in the datasets of these models and the reliability of their ability to assess content, with the risk of generating false, flawed, or inaccurate results.

As such, to maintain trust in the integrity of the published record, Emerald does not permit the use of generative AI tools or LLMs to assist in the review, evaluation, or decision-making process of any part of an article, case study, or chapter by either a member of a journal’s Editorial Team or a reviewer, in accordance with Emerald’s principles of peer review. Peer reviewers are responsible for the reviews they provide and accountable for their accuracy, rigour, and validity, which, as per COPE's position statement on AI tools, cannot be replicated by a non-human generative AI. Any breach of the integrity or trust of the review process as described above will be perceived as peer review misconduct.

Animals in research

If your research involves animals, we expect you to follow the 3R principles:

• Replacement of animals in research, wherever possible
• Reduction of animal use, i.e. minimising the number involved
• Refinement by improving the welfare of any animals you work with.

You must also provide an appropriate ethical statement confirming that your study received institutional and national (or international) ethical approval and was in compliance with all relevant animal welfare guidelines and regulations.

Details of this should be included in the methods section of the work, making reasonable efforts to ensure that author anonymity is not compromised on submission. Specifically, the statement should contain the name and location of the institutional ethics reviewing committee or review board, the approval number, the date of approval, and the details of the national or international guidelines that were followed, as well as any other relevant information.

All studies involving animals should comply with the ARRIVE guidelines and the following, depending on the location of the research:

• UK Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 (SI 2012/3039)
• EU Directive 2010/63/EU on the protection of animals used for scientific purposes
• US Public Health Service Policy on Humane Care and Use of Laboratory Animals and, as applicable, the Animal Welfare Act
• The 3R principles
• The American Veterinary Medical Association Guidelines for the Euthanasia of Animals or an appropriate equivalent.

Any work submitted without a suitable ethical statement will be returned to the authors and will not be considered further until appropriate and clear documentation is provided.

Attribution

You should appropriately cite and reference any previous publication or presentation of the ideas or work featured in your submission, describing its contribution to, and development of, the current research, and ensure that credit is properly attributed to avoid potential authorship disputes or allegations of plagiarism and unethical academic behaviour, such as the unreferenced use of the ideas of others, redundant publication, or the replication of sections of text from other sources without sufficient attribution or indication.

This includes citing and referencing your own prior research, as well as dissertations, conference papers, workshop presentations, and listserv communications, and means that a complete history of the work is documented.

Further, to ensure greater transparency and accountability surrounding the work published, Emerald requires full and proper asset attribution so that all figure and table captions should include the necessary credit line, acknowledgment, or attribution where the author has been given permission to use the figure or table; if the figure or table is the property of the author(s), this should also be acknowledged in the caption.

References to other publications should be in Harvard style for Emerald journals – you will find additional details in your chosen journal’s author guidelines. All references should be carefully checked for completeness, accuracy, and consistency.

Authorship

Authorship is a fundamental aspect of transparency in the publication process as it bestows recognition and credit for contributions made to an academic work, while ensuring accountability and responsibility for reported research, as well as conferring moral and legal rights.

When it comes to listing the authors of your work, we understand that it can be tempting to include everyone who has assisted you; it is also easy to overlook someone who may have been involved at the very start of the process.

Please be aware that improper or inappropriate authorship additions, removals, or changes are considered unethical and unacceptable; any such activity where identified will be duly investigated and actioned.

It is imperative that authors should be transparent, and that all who participated in the work are credited and have given consent for publication.
 

Citation manipulation

Citations and referencing are essential aspects of accountability and transparency in the research process, and aid reproducibility and robustness. Authors should ensure that works are cited appropriately and accurately where relevant and in moderation.

Citation manipulation may, however, include the following inappropriate and unethical citation behaviours:
 

Emerald takes citation manipulation very seriously and will act in accordance with the guidelines set out by the Committee on Publication Ethics; where suspected or detected, it will be subject to an investigation as per our commitment to ethical publishing and research integrity.

If an investigation confirms the presence of citation manipulation, unpublished works may be rejected, or if published, may be subject to a post-publication notice.  Emerald may also escalate the matter to the individual’s institution if there is there is evidence of repeated and deliberate attempts to engage in citation manipulation.

Clinical trials

We can only accept submissions featuring clinical trials if the following applies:

• The trial is registered in a publicly accessible database. This must have been done prior to the start of the trial or enrolment of the participants. Examples of publicly accessible databases include these sites by the National Institutes of Health and the World Health Organization. When submitting your work to Emerald, please include the name of your trial register and your clinical trial registration number.
• You must demonstrate you obtained clearance from your institutional ethics board for the trial; further details can be found under our guidance on informed consent.

Conflicts of interest

Conflicts of interest are any circumstances that could be perceived to exert an undue influence on, or undermine, the impartial and objective handling and review of a submission, or the presentation and value of a publication, and may be financial, professional, contractual, or personal in nature.

Possible conflicts of interest include:

• A prior relationship between author and editor or reviewer
• A financial or personal interest in the outcomes of the research
• Undisclosed financial support for the research by an interested third party
• A financial or personal interest in the suppression of the research
• A pending patent.

Authors, reviewers, and members of our editorial teams are expected to act within the spirit of the Nolan principles of public life, and a duty to disclose any conflict(s) of interest that may influence the handling of a submission to an Emerald publication.

While it is difficult to specify the threshold at which a conflict of interest becomes significant, two practical guidelines are: to declare any conflict of interest that could embarrass you were it to become publicly known after publication; to declare any information which, when revealed later, would make a reasonable reader feel misled or deceived. If you are unsure whether something is a conflict of interest, always check with the editor or commissioning editor ahead of submission.

Any suspected undisclosed conflict(s) of interest in either an active or published work should be addressed via our ethical publishing and research integrity guidance.
 

Defamation/libel

You are required to obtain written proof of consent for studies about named companies, organisations, or people before you submit your work.

While Emerald champions and respects editorial independence and freedom of expression, if inaccurate, unsubstantiated, or emotive statements are made about companies, organisations, groups, or people in a submission that may cause harm, we may ask you to change the text or we may reject the work prior to publication. Emerald reserves the right to refuse to publish any content that could be deemed defamatory, distasteful, illegal, libellous, or offensive, including, but not limited to, hate speech and incitement to violence.

Critiques and reviews of products and services are acceptable, but comments must be constructive and not malicious. If statements made in a work published by Emerald are found to be defamatory, a retraction notice will be published. In some cases, and when legally required, the work will be withdrawn from the online version of the book or journal. Privileged information obtained via peer review or through an editorial capacity must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage.

We advise all authors of studies where a company, individual, or organisation is named or identifiable to inform the subject (person or company/organisation) and to seek written proof of consent to publish.

Dignity at work

As part of Emerald’s commitment to the integrity and transparency of the scholarly record and the subsequent strengthening of trust in academic research and the research communities that we serve, we support all individuals’ right to dignity, respect, and safety in their work. As such, we believe everyone is entitled to civility and courtesy, and expect people to communicate with respect, in an environment free from discrimination; we do not tolerate behaviour, conduct, or speech that is intimidating, malicious, or offensive. We also do not tolerate aggressive behaviour and abusive treatment or bullying of our staff, or of any other parties involved in any aspect of the editorial, review, submission or publication processes.

We expect our staff to adhere to these principles by behaving professionally and respectfully at all times when engaging in interactions with our colleagues, customers, authors, reviewers, editorial teams, and readers in a manner that is fair and without bias. Likewise, we expect the same standards of behaviour from the academic community in their interactions with Emerald and our representatives. This applies to any setting, including in-person and electronic communication. We reserve the right to refrain from further engagement with any person or party whose behaviour or activity contravenes these principles.

Emerald also reserves the right to terminate or not engage in an interaction or publishing agreement or relationship where we have evidence of discrimination, harassment, or victimisation, or determine that doing so would compromise our values, as per our Supplier Code of Conduct. We may take further action with employers, institutions, or local authorities as we deem appropriate under the circumstances.

Editorial independence

Emerald supports editorial independence, and our editors have full autonomy and authority in deciding which submissions should enter peer review and be accepted or rejected for publication without any external input, as per the guidance on editorial freedom by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE). We expect our editors to maintain best practice and editorial accountability by making decisions on submissions based on thorough assessment of the validity of their conclusions following peer review and on their contribution to the academic literature. We will not comment on decisions made by our editors, unless there is evidence the work was not handled in accordance with best practice. In the event of such cases, we will work with the editor and in accordance with the relevant best practice guidelines from the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) to resolve any concerns, as per our commitment to ethical publishing and research integrity.

Emerald is a progressive publisher, passionate about bringing research to life in ways that lead to meaningful real-world change, and we believe that the editorial decision-making process should be independent of all commercial concerns to ensure the integrity of the scholarly record and foster trust in the work that we publish. While we do not shy away from controversial or divisive topics, we support a respectful and inclusive environment where rigorous academic debate and legitimate free expression can thrive. Authors should be free to pursue ideas and communicate their knowledge without fear of repression or censorship. We equally expect our authors to be aware of and adhere to the ethical obligation and responsibility to conduct research in adherence to national and international research ethics guidelines, and avoid preventable harms that may arise in the course of that research or its communication.

Fabricated data

Emerald is committed to publishing research that adheres to high standards of transparency and robustness in the methods used and results presented to support the principle of reproducibility.

Authors must not fabricate, falsify, or manipulate data or the results drawn from that data; to do so is fundamentally unethical and a breach of research integrity. Data fabrication involves the creation of fictious research findings; data falsification involves the manipulation of research with the intention of creating a false impression of the study’s findings.

Emerald may review data or request the original data files for any work either under consideration or published at any time as part of our responsibility to the integrity of the academic record; and we reserve the right to request a dataset at any point as part of an investigation, and will investigate any instances of fraud or malpractice where identified. Authors are therefore expected to present complete and accurate reporting of the underlying data in their submissions to aid the future reproducibility of the work, and to adhere to established scientific best practice by retaining the source material of experiments and research results in an auditable manner that allows for scrutiny and verification. If there is reason to suspect that the data are not plausible, we reserve the right to reject or retract that work, and to notify your institution, as appropriate.

Emerald also recognises that genuine errors can and do occur; when an error is discovered, the author(s) should contact the journal and acknowledge this through appropriate revision or post-publication action.

Grievance procedure

Emerald appreciates that there are times when things may go wrong or where authors may wish to disagree with an editorial decision. The following guidance is provided to help you to raise a concern where appropriate.

Historical content

At Emerald we recognise that some of our older published material may contain research that is now potentially unethical and discriminatory, no longer valid, or feature language and ideas that were once accepted by the academic community but are now considered offensive or systematically biased.

While we are committed to preserving the integrity and transparency of the historical scholarly record, we will address potentially harmful content in our archive on a case-by-case basis as we become aware of it. Where concerns are identified with regard to content that is potentially unethical, discriminatory, or based on discredited science, we will alert readers where appropriate through corrective post-publication action while endeavouring to remain impartial in academic debates.

Any investigations will focus on identifying methodological weaknesses or where the work may lack scientific rigour in terms of the robusticity of the analysis presented, statistical limitations, or the vulnerability of data to bias. Such cases will be first assessed in-house alongside the journal editor in accordance with the relevant Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) guidelines and our principles on ethical publishing and research integrity.

Image or figure manipulation

Image or figure manipulation falls into two categories, and Emerald considers this to be unethical activity:

1. Inappropriate manipulation: the adjustment of an image or figure that violates established research guidelines but does not impact the interpretation of the data shown.
2. Fraudulent manipulation: the deliberate adjustment or manipulation of an image or figure to affect the interpretation of the data.

Manipulation may include the addition or removal of elements from an image or figure, or adjustments to its formatting with the intention of obscuring or highlighting a particular result.

Images or figures submitted to Emerald should be minimally processed, and it is not permitted to enhance, introduce, move, obscure, or remove a specific feature within an image or figure. We recognise, however, that there can be legitimate reasons for modifying images, such as improving clarity, but we expect authors to avoid this where it leads to the fabrication, falsification, or misrepresentation of results.

Adjustments to the brightness, contrast, or colour balance of an image or figure are acceptable if, and as long as, they do not eliminate, misrepresent, or obscure any information present in the original. Such adjustments should not be excessive and must be applied equally across the entire image or figure, and, if appropriate, across comparison images in the figure.

If cropping, grouping, or splicing of images is required, the borders should be clearly demarcated in the figure and the alterations described in the legend. The final image(s) or figure(s) submitted should correctly represent the original data and conform to recognised community standards and best practice. If controls are re-used across figures, this must be stated and clearly labelled. The software used to adjust images or figures should be stated in the work.

Emerald may screen images and figures for evidence of potential manipulation. To aid investigation, we may request the original data used in the research; any allegations of such unethical activity will be similarly addressed in accordance with our investigation process. Authors should therefore make every effort to retain the unprocessed raw data. If intentional manipulation is found without appropriate declaration, we reserve the right to reject the work if under consideration or issue a post-publication notice for published material as per the guidelines specified by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE); we may also contact your institution.

Informed consent

As a researcher and member of a trusted academic community, you have an ethical obligation and responsibility to conduct your research in adherence to national and international research ethics guidelines, as well as the ethical principles outlined by your discipline and any relevant authorities, and to be transparent about your research methods in such a way that all involved in the publication process may fairly and appropriately evaluate your work.

Informed consent means that you must inform all participants in your work (or their legal representative) as to why the research is being conducted, whether their anonymity is protected, how their data will be stored and used, and whether there are any associated risks from participation in the study. You must therefore ensure that the submitted work confirms that informed consent was obtained and details how this was addressed. This is required for all research involving human participants, and the need for permission is not limited to medical studies. You should equally be aware of and adhere to any legal or institutional requirements regarding data protection.

 

Jurisdictional neutrality

Emerald recognises that the geographic designation and legal status of certain countries or regions are disputed. We are committed to a neutral stance on such jurisdictional claims, and our authors and editorial teams are therefore able to designate their own affiliation information as appropriate in terms of their institution, country, or region. As a result, the affiliation information shown on published content does not reflect Emerald’s position on the geographic designation and legal status of any country or region.

Emerald Publishing Services also publishes content on behalf of institutions, organisations, and societies from around the world; as such, we respect their responsibility to comply with local laws and regulations related to published works.

Plagiarism

Emerald subscribes to the definition of plagiarism as provided by the UK Research Integrity Office: "Using other people's ideas, intellectual property, or work without their permission and/or acknowledging their input".

The deliberate misattribution or unattributed copying of another’s work can apply to all data, words, or ideas taken from any published or unpublished materials in electronic or print formats, without sufficient attribution. The use of any such material either directly or indirectly should be properly acknowledged in all instances, and authors should be credited for their work if it is being re-used through clear quotation, citation, and referencing; permission from the original publisher and rightsholder should also be secured where necessary. This is in accordance with international copyright laws and ethical conduct guidelines to ensure transparency in attribution to the original source(s) throughout the academic record.

Emerald does not tolerate plagiarism in its publications and considers it to constitute unethical behaviour; as such, we reserve the right to screen any submissions through appropriate, industry-recognised plagiarism-detection software, specifically Crossref Similarity Check powered by iThenticate. Where overlap is found, the results of the Crossref Similarity Check will be examined by the journal and publisher to establish whether it constitutes plagiarism or there are legitimate reasons for the overlap. When a submitted or published work is suspected or discovered to be based on plagiarism, we will investigate and take appropriate steps, whether that be rejection or post-publication action, such as a corrigendum, expression of concern, or retraction. The author’s institution may also be informed. If the work is still under consideration, it may be returned to the author with a request that they address the issues through appropriate citation and quotation. If the work is published, a correction notice can be issued for minor similarities only where there is no misattribution or deliberate lack of attribution of work, meaning that it cannot be used to rewrite plagiarised material.

Any allegations of plagiarism will be addressed in accordance with our investigation process and the relevant COPE guidelines for submitted or published work; we will always seek an explanation from the author(s) before we decide on a course of action. Emerald will remain unbiased in all investigations and will not be influenced by other parties. We are not obliged to discuss individual cases of alleged plagiarism with third parties, and we reserve the right not to proceed with a case if the concerns appear to be unfounded.

Submitted content to Emerald publications must therefore be the authors’ own work, expressed in their own words. We do, however, recognize that there can be legitimate reasons for overlap in some cases and subject areas, such as similarities in methods sections or in the references. These exceptions, including overlap with conference papers, pre-prints, and theses, will be taken into account during the course of an investigation.

There are various forms plagiarism can take and these are described below.
 

 

Redundant publication

Also known as dual publication. Any work you submit to us must be original and previously unpublished. It is an unacceptable academic practice to submit to more than one journal at the same time – you are expected to wait until receiving a decision from one journal before submitting to the next.

Simultaneous submissions

Any work that you submit to Emerald must be original, and it is unacceptable and unethical to submit the same, or an overtly similar, work to another publication while it is still under active consideration.

Emerald’s submission criteria emphasises that the work submitted should not currently be published, in press, or under consideration elsewhere. Where this activity is identified, Emerald reserves the right to reject any active duplicate or simultaneous submission reported across our portfolio or by another publisher without further review following an investigation to confirm whether such a breach of our submission criteria has occurred.