Publication Ethics and Malpractice Policy

1) Purpose & Scope

MEMOIR&C is committed to advancing scholarship that empowers communities, mobilises knowledge, and fosters innovation across research and community settings. This policy sets out ethical norms, responsibilities, and procedures to prevent, identify, and address publication malpractice for all submission types: Original Articles, Review Papers, and Short Communications documenting community outcomes.

2) Core Ethical Principles

• Integrity: Accuracy in methods, data, analysis, and interpretation; honesty in limitations.
• Originality: Work must be new, not under review elsewhere, and appropriately cite prior scholarship.
• Transparency: Disclose funding, roles, competing interests, and use of specialised tools (including AI, statistics, image processing).
• Respect: Uphold dignity, rights, privacy, and cultural values of individuals and communities.
• Accountability: Authors, reviewers, and editors share responsibility for safeguarding the scholarly record.

3) Authors’ Responsibilities

• Authorship criteria: Only contributors who made substantial scholarly contributions should be listed; all listed authors approve the final version and agree to submission.
• Originality & citation: Submit original work; cite sources accurately; avoid redundant/duplicate publication and salami-slicing.
• Data integrity: Present data truthfully; do not fabricate, falsify, or selectively omit; retain raw data and make it available on request where feasible.
• Images & figures: No inappropriate manipulation; adjustments must preserve meaning and be disclosed in Methods.
• Human/animal research: Provide ethics approval identifiers (if applicable) and detail consent/assent, risk mitigation, and privacy safeguards.
• Community-engaged research: Describe participatory design, local permissions, cultural sensitivity, benefit sharing, and respect for Traditional Knowledge (TK) where applicable.
• Competing interests: Disclose financial and non-financial interests that could influence the work.
• Corrections: Promptly notify the editor of significant errors and cooperate with corrections or retractions when warranted.

4) Editors’ Responsibilities

• Editorial independence: Decisions are based on scholarly merit and relevance; commercial and institutional relationships must not influence outcomes.
• Fair process: Apply consistent criteria; manage conflicts of interest; ensure timely, unbiased peer review.
• Confidentiality: Handle submissions, identities, and reviewer reports with strict confidentiality.
• Integrity checks: Use appropriate tools and procedures to detect plagiarism, image manipulation, data/peer-review irregularities.
• Remedies: Implement proportionate actions (e.g., corrections, expressions of concern, retractions) if significant issues are verified.

5) Reviewers’ Responsibilities

• Objectivity & rigour: Evaluate methods, clarity, originality, and ethics, providing constructive, evidence-based feedback.
• Conflicts of interest: Declare any potential conflicts and decline review when necessary.
• Confidentiality: Treat manuscripts and data as confidential; do not use or share information for personal gain.
• No unauthorised delegation: Do not involve others in the review without prior permission from the editor.
• Misconduct alerts: Inform editors promptly if suspected plagiarism, duplication, manipulation, or ethical breaches are detected.

6) Misconduct and Questionable Practices

• Plagiarism & text recycling: Unacceptable. Similarity screening is used; substantial overlap may lead to rejection or retraction.
• Data fabrication/falsification: Unacceptable. Editors may request raw data/records for verification.
• Image manipulation: Inappropriate enhancement, duplication, or splicing without disclosure is prohibited.
• Authorship manipulation: Guest, gift, or ghost authorship is prohibited; changes to authorship post-submission require written consent of all authors.
• Peer-review manipulation: Fabricated reviewer identities, coercive citation, or citation cartels will trigger sanctions.
• Community harm: Any practice that misrepresents communities, violates local norms, or compromises safety/privacy is unacceptable.

7) Human Subjects, Community Consent, and Traditional Knowledge (TK)/IP

Studies involving people or communities must demonstrate appropriate approvals, consent/assent, and safeguards tailored to local contexts. For community-engaged work, authors should explain how participants and local partners were informed, consulted, and—where feasible—benefited from the research. Respect for TK and community IP is essential; permissions and benefit-sharing arrangements must be clarified when relevant.

8) Conflicts of Interest and Funding Transparency

All financial and non-financial interests that could be perceived to influence the work must be disclosed in the manuscript. Funding sources and the role of funders (if any) in study design, data collection, analysis, interpretation, and publication decisions must be stated explicitly.

9) Editorial Independence and Business Model Separation

Advertising, sponsorship, or publication charges (if any) do not influence editorial decisions. All editorial processes—from initial screening to final decision—are governed by scholarly merit, ethical compliance, and fit with the journal’s scope.

10) Complaints and Appeals

Authors may appeal editorial decisions by providing a reasoned, evidence-based response that addresses reviewers’ and editors’ critiques. Complaints regarding editorial conduct, conflicts of interest, or publication ethics are handled by the Editor-in-Chief (or designate) following a documented, impartial process. Outcomes and rationales are communicated in writing.

11) Corrections, Expressions of Concern, and Retractions

If significant errors or ethical issues are identified post-publication, the journal will issue appropriate notices—Corrigendum/Erratum, Expression of Concern, or Retraction—linked to the original article to maintain the integrity of the scholarly record. Authors are expected to cooperate in good faith with these processes.

12) Community-Focused Addendum (Short Communications)

• Authenticity of outcomes: Report community outcomes faithfully, including constraints and contextual factors.
• Do-no-harm: Ensure materials avoid stigmatisation, preserve privacy, and reflect local sensitivities.
• Reciprocity: Where feasible, articulate tangible benefits or capacity-building returned to communities.
• Permissions: Provide documentation for local approvals/endorsements when required.

13) Ethical Approval & Consent Checklist (to include in Methods)

• Ethics committee/IRB approval ID (if applicable) and date.
• Consent/assent processes (including for minors or vulnerable groups) and privacy safeguards.
• Data handling: anonymisation/pseudonymisation, storage, and access control.
• Community permissions/agreements and benefit-sharing (where relevant).
• Disclosure of risks, mitigation steps, and support/referral mechanisms (if applicable).

14) How We Handle Allegations (Process Outline)

1. Receipt & logging: The editorial office records the allegation and acknowledges receipt.
2. Preliminary assessment: An editor screens available materials and determines whether a full inquiry is warranted.
3. Information gathering: Where appropriate, editors seek clarifications, request raw data, and consult reviewers or independent experts.
4. Decision & actions: Outcomes may include no action, revision, rejection, notice (corrigendum/concern/retraction), and/or institutional notification.
5. Documentation: The journal maintains internal records of findings and correspondence.

15) Required Declarations (copy-ready templates)

A) Ethics Approval & Consent

B) Competing Interests

C) Data Availability