Ethics Statements & Policies

The Journal of Restorative Reproductive Medicine Journal (JRRM) is committed to publishing content that meets the highest standards of research and publication integrity. Our publication ethics policies are aligned with industry best practice guidelines as defined by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE),  and the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE).

Criteria for Authorship

Only those persons who contributed directly to the intellectual content of the manuscript should be listed as authors. Authors must meet all the following criteria:

  • Substantial contributions to the conception or design of the work; or the acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data for the work; AND
  • Drafting the work or reviewing it critically for important intellectual content; AND
  • Final approval of the version to be published; AND
  • Agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved.

Holding positions of administrative leadership, contributing patients, and collecting and assembling data, are not, by themselves, criteria for authorship. Other persons who have made substantial, direct contributions to the work but cannot be considered authors should be listed in the Acknowledgements section.

Acknowledgements

Contributors who do not meet the criteria for authorship should be listed in an Acknowledgements section. Examples of those who might be acknowledged include a person who provided technical help, writing assistance, or a department chair who provided general support. Because acknowledgment may imply endorsement by acknowledged individuals of a study’s data and conclusions, the corresponding author must obtain written permission to be acknowledged from all acknowledged individuals.

Role of the Corresponding Author

The corresponding author is the one individual who takes primary responsibility for communication with the Journal during the manuscript submission, peer review, and publication process. Only one author can be the corresponding author. The role of the corresponding author is to:

  • meet submission requirements and submit the manuscript to the Journal
  • ensure all authors have reviewed and approved the final version of the manuscript prior to submission
  • ensure that all the Journal’s administrative requirements are met – including submission of all required forms
  • ensure the Journal’s editorial and publication ethical policies are met by all authors
  • distribute decision letters, reviewer comments, and other messages from the Journal, and distribute proofs among co-authors for review
  • return corrections and ensure that all authors approve each version of the article
  • be available after publication to respond to critiques of the work and cooperate with any requests from the Journal for data or additional information should questions about the paper arise after publication

Author Affiliations

Authors should identify their institution(s) as the facility where the work was performed and executed.  Changes in an author’s affiliation after the work was completed but prior to the submission or publication of the manuscript should be noted by including an asterisk as a superscript to the name in the author listing, as well as a corresponding footnote on the title page indicating “Current Affiliation” listing the new affiliation. 

Changes to Authorship

Authors should carefully consider the list and order of authors before submitting their manuscript and provide the definitive list of authors at the time of the original submission. Any addition, deletion, or rearrangement of author names in the authorship list should be made only before the manuscript has been accepted and only if approved by the Editor. To request a change, the Editor must receive the following from the corresponding author: (1) the reason for the change in author list and (2) written confirmation (email or letter) from all authors that they agree with the addition, removal, or rearrangement. In the case of addition or removal of authors, this includes confirmation from the author being added or removed.

Author Responsibilities

Authors should ensure that

  • their work is original and written by them
  • their work has not been previously published and has been submitted only to the journal 
  • where material is taken from other sources (including their own published writing) the source is clearly cited and where needed, appropriate permission is obtained
  • their work does not infringe on any rights of others, including privacy rights and intellectual property rights
  • their data are true and not manipulated
  • their data are their own or that they have permission to use data reproduced in their paper
  • any real or possible appearance of conflicting or competing interest is clearly stated on submission of their paper (this would include funding assistance)
  • they adhere to all research ethics guidelines of research, particularly where human or animal subjects are involved
  • they contact the Editor to identify and correct any material errors upon discovery, whether prior or subsequent to publication of their work
  • authorship of the paper is accurately represented, including ensuring that all individuals credited as authors participated in the actual authorship of the work and that all who participated are credited and have given consent for publication

Above all, authors should be transparent and inform the editor about all potential issues with the article both before and after publication.

Reviewers

Reviewers must:

  • maintain the confidentiality of the review process
  • refrain from contacting the authors directly without permission of the journal
  • immediately alert their journal editor of any real or potential competing interest that could affect the impartiality of their reviewing and decline to review where appropriate
  • conduct themselves fairly and impartially

We are aware, of course, that academics will come from a particular school of thought and/or may have strong ties to a particular interest. All we ask is that reviewers strive to act fairly. If in doubt about whether a conflict exists, a reviewer should be transparent and seek the views of the journal editor.

Editors

Editors should:

  • follow the ethical policies for the journal
  • oversee and act to enforce those policies as needed in a fair and consistent manner
  • ensure the confidentiality of the review process
  • exercise the highest standards of personal integrity in their work as editor of the journal, recognising and planning for instances where they could have a competing interest or the appearance of a competing interest

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

JRRM follows COPE (publicationethics.org) and ICMJE guidance (icmje.org/recommendations) on the declaration of conflicts of interest by authors, reviewers, and editors. A conflict of interest is defined as any direct or indirect interest that might influence the reading, assessment of or conducting of the research reported in the submission.

What do Authors Need to Declare?

Authors are required to disclose any direct or indirect interests that may relate (or be perceived as being related) to their submission to JRRM so that the editor, reviewers and readers may be able to make informed judgements about any potential bias in the research process, writing or publication. The following interests may present a conflict and should be declared upon submission: 

The time frame for disclosure is within the past 36 months. 

  • Grants or contracts from any entity
  • Royalties or licenses
  • Consulting fees
  • Payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers’ bureaus, manuscript writing or educational events
  • Payment for expert testimony
  • Support for attending meetings and/or travel
  • Patents planned, issued or pending
  • Participation on a Data Safety Monitoring Board or Advisory Board
  • Leadership or fiduciary role in other board, society, committee or advocacy group, whether paid or unpaid
  • Stock or stock options
  • Receipt of equipment, materials, drugs, medical writing, gifts or other services
  • Other financial or non-financial interests

How Should Authors Make This Declaration?

Your declaration of conflicting interests  should be added under the heading ‘Declaration of conflicting interests’ after any Acknowledgments and before Funding, Notes and References. Please see the submission guidelines for more information. If there are no conflicting interests, we’ll publish this statement: ‘The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article’.

In your Author Agreement you will be asked to certify that:

  • All financial support is acknowledged in your article.
  • Any commercial or financial arrangements related to your article have been discussed with your Editor, who will advise whether details should be declared.
  • You have not signed an agreement with any sponsor that might compromise the impartial reporting of data.

Submissions will be evaluated fairly and will not necessarily be rejected when any conflicting interests are declared. If a relevant conflict that was not declared by authors becomes apparent at any time during the peer review or publishing process, the Editor reserves the right to reject the submission. JRRM will follow COPE guidelines for any conflicts that come to light post-publication.  

What do Editors Need to Declare?

All Editors are required to declare any conflicts of interest that may impact the peer review and decision-making process. If a conflict arises, an alternative member of the Editorial board must be appointed and the Editor with the conflict must recuse themselves from the decision-making process. These conflicts include financial and non-financial interests listed above.

Funding Statements

All research articles need a funding statement. It should appear under the heading ‘Funding’ after any Acknowledgments and Declaration of conflicting interests, and before References.

It should comprise of the full name of the funding agency or other entity and grant numbers (if applicable).

Multiple grant numbers should be separated by commas, multiple agencies by semicolons.

All industry funding, including in-kind support, must be clearly and fully acknowledged.

If there was no external funding, this should be stated.

Studies Involving Humans

All studies involving humans, for example including patients, their samples, data or any other study involving human participants must be evaluated by a suitably qualified research ethics committee prior to undertaking the research in line with the Declaration of Helsinki.

Ethics statements should be included in the methods section if relevant and must include the name and location of the review board, and date approved.

In all cases, it’s important to state that consent has been granted to use any personal information, and how that consent has been gathered. For research articles, you need to state in the methods section whether the participants provided written or verbal informed consent.

Plagiarism Review

The editorial office carefully monitors papers submitted to JRRM for plagiarism. Submitted manuscripts may be compared to published papers using similarity checking software. Plagiarism includes: literal copying (reproducing a work word for word, in whole or in part, without permission and acknowledgment of the original source, including the author’s own prior work); paraphrasing (reproducing someone else's ideas while not copying word for word, without permission and acknowledgment of the original source); and substantial copying (copying images, or data from other sources). All works that may have inspired a study’s design or manuscript structure must be properly cited.

If plagiarism is detected during any part of the peer-review process, the manuscript may be rejected. For published papers where plagiarism is detected, the journal reserves the right to issue a correction or retract the paper, whichever is deemed appropriate. The journal reserves the right to inform authors' institutions about plagiarism detected either before or after publication.

Use of Artificial Intelligence-Assisted Technologies

At the time of submission, Authors must clearly declare any use of artificial intelligence (AI)-assisted technologies, such as generative algorithms, chatbots, or language models, and detail their usage in the manuscript and cover letter.

Contributions generated by AI-assisted technologies are not eligible for authorship recognition. The responsibility for the validity, originality, and accuracy of content produced with AI assistance lies with the human authors.

Authors are also responsible for ensuring that the work is original, including any text and images produced by AI-assisted technologies, and that all material is correctly attributed, including full citation where applicable.

Publication Decision Appeals Process

Peer review is a combination of evidence and opinion, which can be imperfect. If an author believes  significant errors in process or judgment have been made during the peer review process, the journal will consider an appeal. JRRM follows the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) guidelines on appeals to journal editor decisions and complaints about a journal's editorial management of the peer review process. Appeals must be made within 30 days of the decision notification.

The author(s) may:

  • Send a rebuttal letter to the assigned Editor by email. Your letter should explain clearly why you disagree with the decision on your manuscript. Please provide specific responses to any of the Editor’s and/or reviewers' comments that contributed to the reject decision. Other items that may be included in your rebuttal letter are:
  • The Editor will consider your appeal. All appeal requests are handled on a case-by-case basis and the Editorial team’s decision is final.

Corrections and Retractions

When errors are identified in published articles, the Editor will consider what action is required. Amendments (if actionable) will be published through a formal online notice since they affect the publication record and/or the scientific accuracy of published information. The online article is part of the published record, and the original published version is therefore maintained.

For peer-reviewed material, the modifications fall into the following categories:

Corrigendum (Author Errors): Author corrections will be judged on their relevance to readers and their importance for the published record and ethical responsibilities. Author corrections are published after discussion amongst the Editors and publishing team. The Journal will not usually publish a correction that does not affect the contribution in a significant way or if the issue does not considerably impair the reader's understanding of the contribution, such as a spelling mistake or grammatical error. The erratum notice will be published in a journal issue and linked to the article of record that it corrects.

Erratum (Journal Errors): Includes mistakes introduced by the Journal in production. Errata are generally not published for simple, obvious typographical errors, but are published when the error is significant (ie. spelling of author name is incorrect). The erratum notice will be published in a journal issue and linked to the article of record that it corrects.

Addendum: Includes an Editor’s note or editorial expression of concern, which provides additional information about a paper that is crucial to the reader's understanding of the published contribution. The addendum may be published in cases where we receive inadequate evidence of misconduct, investigation has not been or would not be impartial or conclusive, or an investigation is underway and the decision may not be made for a significant amount of time. Depending on the urgency, the addendum notice may be immediately linked to the published article that it refers to, prior to being officially published in a journal issue.

Retraction: The Journal will consider issuing a retraction notice if we have clear evidence that the published findings are unreliable because of misconduct or honest author error, the findings have been published elsewhere without the appropriate permissions or justification, the publication constitutes plagiarism, and/or the publication reports unethical research. The article of record will be digitally watermarked “RETRACTED” and the retraction notice will be immediately linked to the published article that it refers to, prior to being officially published in a journal issue.