The editor of a learned journal is solely and independently responsible for deciding which of the articles submitted to the journal should be published, often working in conjunction with the ISSMGE. The editor should evaluate manuscripts for their intellectual content without regard to race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy of the authors.

The editor must protect the confidentiality of all material submitted to the journal and all communications with reviewers, unless otherwise agreed with the relevant authors and reviewers. The journal is committed to ensuring that the potential for advertising, reprint or other commercial revenue has no impact or influence on editorial decisions.

Authors of original research articles should present an accurate account of the work performed as well as an objective discussion of its significance. Underlying data should be represented accurately in the paper. A paper should contain sufficient detail and references to permit others to replicate the work. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behavior and are unacceptable. Authors may be asked to provide the research data supporting their paper for editorial review and/or to comply with the open data requirements of the journal. Authors should be prepared to provide public access to such data, if practicable, and should be prepared to retain such data for a reasonable number of years after publication. Authors should ensure that they have written entirely original works, and if the authors have used the work and/or words of others, that this has been appropriately cited or quoted and permission has been obtained where necessary. Plagiarism in all its forms constitutes unethical behavior and is unacceptable. Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal concurrently constitutes unethical behavior and is unacceptable. Authors must cite relevant, timely, and verified literature to support the claims made in their article. Citations should generally be peer-reviewed. Authors should avoid excessive and inappropriate citations to their own work and should avoid excessive citations to support a single statement in their article.

Authorship should be limited to those who have made a significant contribution to the conception, design, execution, or interpretation of the reported study. All those who have made substantial contributions should be listed as co-authors. Where there are others who have participated in certain substantive aspects of the paper (e.g. language editing or medical writing), they should be recognized in the acknowledgements section. The corresponding author should ensure that all appropriate co-authors and no inappropriate co-authors are included on the paper, and that all co-authors have seen and approved the final version of the paper and have agreed to its submission for publication. Authors are expected to consider carefully the list and order of authors before submitting their manuscript and provide the definitive list of authors at the time of the original submission. Only in exceptional circumstances will the Editor consider (at their discretion) the addition, deletion or rearrangement of authors after the manuscript has been submitted, and the author must clearly flag any such request to the Editor. All authors must agree with any such addition, removal or rearrangement. Authors take collective responsibility for the work. Each individual author is accountable for ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved

Peer review assists the editor in making editorial decisions and through the editorial communications with the author may also assist the author in improving the paper. Peer review is an essential component of formal scholarly communication and lies at the heart of the scientific method. In addition to completing a scientific evaluation of the manuscript, a reviewer should also be alert to potential ethical issues in the paper and should bring these to the attention of the editor, including any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published paper of which the reviewer has personal knowledge. Any statement that an observation, derivation, or argument had been previously reported should be accompanied by the relevant citation. When writing reviewer reports, reviewers are asked generally to treat authors and their work as they would like to be treated themselves and to observe good reviewing etiquette. Any selected referee who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should notify the editor and decline to participate in the review process. Reviews should be conducted objectively.

Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate, and reviewers should express their views clearly with supporting arguments. Reviewers should declare potential conflicts of interest to the editor before agreeing to review a manuscript and should discuss with the editor whether they need to recuse themselves because there may be a concern of potential bias. Examples of potential conflicts of interest include (but are not limited to) collaborations between the reviewer and author(s) in the previous three years, reviewers and author(s) who are based in the same institution, and reviewers and authors who have close personal relationships or associations. Reviewers should not suggest citations to the reviewer’s (or their associates’) work unless the suggested citations are for genuine scientific reasons. Editors may remove citations that, in their view, are inappropriate from reviewer comments. Any manuscript received for review must be treated as a confidential document. Reviewers must not share the review or information about the paper with anyone or contact the authors directly without permission from the editor. Generative AI should never be used in reviewing journal articles.