PUBLICATION ETHICS & MALPRACTICE STATEMENT (PEMS)
The Link journal of Speech, Language and Audiology (JSLA) is committed to maintaining the highest standards of ethical scholarly publishing and to protecting the integrity of the scientific record. JSLA applies established international best practices for editorial governance, peer review, authorship accountability, research integrity, and post-publication stewardship. This statement defines the ethical responsibilities of authors, reviewers, editors, and the publisher, and describes how the journal responds to suspected misconduct before and after publication.
JSLA expects all stakeholders to act in good faith, to communicate transparently, and to prioritize accuracy, reproducibility, and fairness. (COP)Ethical compliance is considered an essential condition of consideration for publication and is assessed throughout the editorial lifecycle, including at submission, during peer review, during production, and after publication when concerns are raised.
Duties of Authors
1.1 Originality & Plagiarism
Authors must ensure that all submitted work is original and that any material derived from other sources is appropriately cited and clearly distinguished from the authors’ own contributions. Unattributed copying, inappropriate paraphrasing, and reuse of text, data, or images without proper acknowledgment are not acceptable. Redundant publication and inappropriate text recycling, including self-plagiarism that misrepresents novelty, are also prohibited. JSLA screens manuscripts using similarity-checking tools and editorial assessment; where overlap is detected, authors may be asked to provide explanations, revise the manuscript, or the submission may be declined depending on severity and intent.
1.2 Data Accuracy & Integrity
Authors must present research findings honestly and accurately. Fabrication, falsification, selective reporting intended to mislead, and inappropriate manipulation of images or data are unacceptable. Methods and analyses must be described with sufficient clarity to allow evaluation and replication where feasible. Where necessary for verification, editors may request raw data, analysis outputs, de-identified datasets, or supporting documentation. Authors are expected to retain study records and essential data for a reasonable period after publication and to cooperate with legitimate editorial inquiries.
1.3 Multiple or Duplicate Submission
Authors must not submit the same manuscript to more than one journal at the same time and must not publish substantially similar work in multiple venues without transparent disclosure and proper cross-referencing. Prior dissemination as a preprint should be declared at submission where applicable, and any overlap with previously published or submitted work must be clearly explained. Duplicate or redundant publication, including “salami slicing” that fragments result to create multiple papers without scientific justification, may result in rejection or post-publication action.
1.4 Authorship Criteria
Authorship must reflect genuine intellectual contribution and accountability. All listed authors should have made a substantial contribution to the conception or design of the work, or to data acquisition, analysis, or interpretation; should have participated in drafting or critically revising the manuscript; should approve the final version; and should accept responsibility for the integrity and accuracy of the work. Gift, guest, and ghost authorship are not permitted. The corresponding author is responsible for ensuring that author order is agreed upon, that all eligible contributors are appropriately acknowledged, and that contributor roles are accurately stated. Where disputes arise, the journal may pause evaluation until authors provide a unified, documented resolution or institutional clarification. (COP link)
1.5 Conflicts of Interest
Authors must disclose all relationships that could reasonably be perceived to influence the work, including financial interests, employment or consultancies, patents, institutional ties, personal relationships, or any other competing interests. Funding sources must be declared and the role of funders (if any) in study design, data collection, analysis, interpretation, and publication decisions should be stated. Failure to disclose relevant competing interests may result in rejection, correction, or other actions depending on the impact on interpretation and trust.
1.6 Ethical Approval and Participant Protection
For studies involving humans, human data, human biological material, animals, or sensitive datasets, authors must confirm compliance with applicable ethical standards and regulatory requirements. Where required, approval from an ethics committee or institutional review body must be obtained before the study begins, and the approval details should be provided in the manuscript. Informed consent must be obtained and documented when applicable, and authors must protect privacy and confidentiality through appropriate de-identification and secure handling of data. For case reports or images where individuals may be identifiable, explicit permission for publication is required. If ethical approval was not required, authors must provide a clear justification aligned with local governance.
1.7 Corrections, Retractions, and Cooperation
Authors are expected to notify the journal promptly if they discover a material error in their submitted or published work. When serious concerns are raised, authors must cooperate with editorial investigations by providing clarifications, documentation, and data where appropriate. Where errors are confirmed, authors are expected to participate in issuing corrections. Where findings are unreliable due to serious error or misconduct, authors must cooperate with retraction processes to protect the scholarly record.
1.8 Use of Generative AI and Automated Tools
If authors use automated tools (including generative AI) to support language editing, summarization, or other non-substantive assistance, such use must not compromise confidentiality, participant privacy, or proprietary data, and must not introduce fabricated citations or unverifiable claims. Automated tools must not be listed as authors and cannot take responsibility for the work. Authors remain fully accountable for the accuracy, originality, and integrity of all content, including text, data, analyses, and references.
Duties of Reviewers
2.1 Confidentiality
Reviewers must treat all manuscripts, associated files, and editorial correspondence as confidential documents. Manuscript content must not be shared, discussed externally, or used for any purpose outside the review process. Where a reviewer believes external consultation is necessary for a competent review, this must be disclosed to and approved by the editor in advance.
2.2 Objectivity and Constructive Review
Reviews must be fair, impartial, and grounded in scientific merit. Reviewers should provide clear, evidence-based critiques, identify methodological or interpretive weaknesses, and recommend improvements that strengthen rigor, transparency, and reporting quality. Personal criticism, discriminatory language, or irrelevant commentary is not acceptable. Reviewers should distinguish between essential revisions that affect validity and optional suggestions that improve presentation.
2.3 Conflicts of Interest
Reviewers must decline invitations when conflicts of interest could compromise objectivity or create a reasonable perception of bias, including close collaboration with authors, direct competition, financial interests, or personal relationships. Where uncertainty exists, reviewers should disclose the situation to the editor, who will determine whether reassignment is appropriate.
2.4 Timeliness
Reviewers should submit reviews within the agreed timeline and promptly notify the journal if delays are expected. Timely peer review supports efficient editorial decisions and respects authors’ time while preserving the quality of scientific evaluation.
2.5 Ethical Vigilance
Reviewers should alert editors to suspected plagiarism, duplicate publication, manipulated images, questionable data patterns, unethical research conduct, undisclosed competing interests, or citation practices that appear coercive or inappropriate. Reviewers must not use knowledge gained through peer review for personal advantage and must not attempt to influence editorial decisions outside official review channels.
2.6 AI and Confidentiality in Peer Review
Reviewers must not upload, paste, or otherwise disclose any part of a manuscript into generative AI tools or third-party systems that could store, learn from, or redistribute confidential content. Reviewers remain responsible for protecting unpublished ideas, methods, and data. Any breach of confidentiality may result in removal from the reviewer pool and further actions deemed necessary to safeguard authors and the journal.
Duties of Editors
3.1 Editorial Independence and Fair Decision-Making
Editors make publication decisions based on scientific merit, methodological quality, relevance to the journal’s scope, ethical acceptability, and clarity of reporting. Decisions must not be influenced by discriminatory factors or by commercial considerations such as author fees, institutional prestige, or geographic origin. Editors are responsible for ensuring that peer review is applied consistently and that submissions are evaluated using appropriate expertise for the study design and topic area.
3.2 Integrity of the Review Process
Editors must manage peer review in a way that is objective, confidential, and free from conflicts of interest. This includes selecting suitably qualified reviewers, minimizing bias through the journal’s review model, and ensuring that reviewer comments are substantive and respectful. Editors should address peer review manipulation risks, including inappropriate reviewer suggestions, fabricated reviewer identities, or coercive citation behavior, using verification and oversight where necessary.
3.3 Confidentiality
Editors must protect manuscript confidentiality throughout submission handling, peer review, decision-making, and post-decision communications. Unpublished content must not be disclosed outside those directly involved in editorial evaluation and peer review, and confidential reviewer identities must be protected under the journal’s review model.
3.4 Handling Allegations of Misconduct
Editors are responsible for responding to suspected misconduct in a timely, consistent, and evidence-based manner. Allegations may involve plagiarism, data fabrication or falsification, image manipulation, authorship disputes, undisclosed competing interests, ethical approval deficiencies, reviewer misconduct, or duplicate publication. Editors may request explanations and documentation from authors, seek additional expert assessment, and where appropriate refer concerns to affiliated institutions or oversight bodies.
3.5 Corrections, Retractions, and Expressions of Concern
Editors may issue corrections when errors are confirmed but do not invalidate the core findings, and may issue retractions when findings are unreliable due to serious error, misconduct, unethical research, or duplicate publication. When serious concerns exist but an investigation is incomplete or inconclusive, the journal may issue an expression of concern to alert readers while due process proceeds. These notices are published transparently, are linked to the affected article, and remain part of the permanent scholarly record.
Duties of the Publisher (Ventures)
The publisher of JSLA, Link Medical Interface, Ventures (Private) Limited, supports editorial independence and the integrity of the scholarly record. The publisher is responsible for providing a stable publishing environment, ensuring appropriate preservation arrangements, and enabling transparent post-publication actions such as corrections and retractions. The publisher works with editors to address confirmed misconduct, to protect authors’ intellectual property rights, to uphold reader trust, and to ensure that published content remains accessible through recognized preservation mechanisms. The publisher does not interfere in editorial decisions regarding acceptance, rejection, or retraction, except to ensure that due process and policy consistency are maintained.
Misconduct Handling Procedure
When potential misconduct is suspected or reported, JSLA follows a structured process designed to be fair, confidential, and evidence-based. Initial assessment typically involves verifying the allegation, reviewing similarity reports, checking image integrity where relevant, and examining editorial records and peer review history for irregularities. Authors may be contacted for explanation, clarification, or provision of underlying data and approvals. If concerns appear credible and material, the journal may pause review or publication, consult independent experts, and request institutional input when appropriate. Outcomes may include rejection prior to publication, publication of a correction, issuance of an expression of concern, retraction, notification to institutions or funders where warranted, and proportionate sanctions such as temporary submission restrictions in cases of serious or repeated misconduct. The journal prioritizes correction of the literature and protection of research participants and readers, while respecting due process for all parties.
Retraction & Withdrawal Policy
Retraction Conditions
An article may be retracted when there is clear evidence that findings are unreliable due to fabrication, falsification, major error, unethical research conduct, plagiarism, duplicate publication, or proven authorship misconduct that materially affects accountability. Retractions are implemented in a manner that preserves the scholarly record, meaning the retracted article remains accessible but is clearly labeled as retracted, typically with prominent notices and linkage to a retraction statement that explains the reason in an objective, non-defamatory manner. Where necessary to prevent misuse, the journal may apply visible marking on the article PDF while maintaining access to the historical record.
Article Withdrawal
Withdrawal requests are generally considered only prior to acceptance and must be justified in writing. After acceptance, withdrawal is rarely permitted and may be considered only in exceptional circumstances, such as legal constraints, confirmed ethical violations, or serious integrity concerns that require formal editorial action rather than withdrawal. JSLA does not support withdrawal as a means to avoid peer review outcomes, publication ethics inquiries, or legitimate post-publication correction processes.
Compliance with Ethical Standards
JSLA adheres to widely adopted ethical publishing principles and best practices expected of reputable peer-reviewed journals. The journal continuously refines its editorial safeguards and policies to align with evolving standards in research integrity, privacy protection, transparency, and responsible publication, particularly in areas central to precision medicine such as genomics, sensitive health data, and advanced analytical methods.
