Brieflands is vigilant about potential misconduct in research and publications. As members of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), all Brieflands journals adhere to the COPE guidelines for handling cases of suspected misconduct. Each Brieflands journal features its specific COPE logo on its website, which redirects readers to the journal webpage on the COPE website. You can find the direct link to COPE on each journal's "journal info" or "List of Source" page.
Every Editor-in-Chief (EIC) at Brieflands has the capacity to seek advice from COPE. As a publisher, we commit to providing any requested data to authorized institutions or organizations like COPE.
Reporting a Suspicious Case
There are two methods to report misconduct (pre- or post-publication) to us:
- Submit a ticket via Publisher Support at Support.
- Post a comment on the article page (Post Publication Peer Review). The comment will be managed by the editor.
Addressing Direct Concerns Raised by Whistleblowers
We value whistleblowers among our readers and ensure the confidentiality of their information in all circumstances.
When handling cases brought forward by whistleblowers who directly contact the editor or publisher with concerns about a published article, it's crucial to follow structured guidelines. According to COPE's guideline, available as a detailed flowchart, these concerns may range from questions of scientific soundness to serious allegations like plagiarism, figure manipulation, or other misconduct, whether the whistleblower chooses to remain anonymous or not.
Submitting a ticket through our Support portal creates a written document that initiates the investigation process. It's also essential to respect the whistleblower's preference for anonymity throughout the process.
How to respond a concern raised by whistleblowers via social media
In today's digital age, discussions about scientific research and the integrity of published articles often extend beyond traditional platforms to social media and post-publication peer review sites. These discussions can include both anonymous and non-anonymous critiques concerning the scientific soundness of an article, or allegations of plagiarism, figure manipulation, and other forms of misconduct.
In alignment with COPE's guidelines, we have established protocols for responding to such concerns effectively:
Respect for Anonymity:
We prioritize the preference of whistleblowers for anonymity, ensuring that their identities are protected throughout the investigation process.
Moving the Discussion:
To maintain the integrity of the discourse and protect all parties involved, we aim to transition discussions from the public domain to a more controlled, private environment where issues can be addressed thoroughly and respectfully.
Public Acknowledgment:
When concerns are raised via social media, we respond publicly on the same platform to express our gratitude for the feedback and encourage the individual to raise a formal complaint through a designated contact point, such as our customer services. This ensures that the complaint is directed to the appropriate person for a detailed investigation.
Official Channel for Responses:
To address these concerns, responses are made from our publisher account, adhering to legal and ethical standards.
Communication of Outcomes:
Following the conclusion of our investigation, should there be any outcomes such as corrections or retractions, we consider sharing this information on the same social media sites or platforms where the initial concerns were voiced.
Ethics Committees at Brieflands
Every concern or claim is recorded in our ticketing system by the support team, which issues a ticket ID. It is then screened by the Head of the Ethics Department, who decides how the case is routed. A standard investigation takes up to four weeks from the date the ticket was submitted. High-priority concerns are screened and handled by the publisher’s Chief Executive Officer.
Depending on the nature of the problem, the case is communicated to all relevant parties and discussed at the next weekly meeting of the Primary Ethics Committee. That committee sits at the publisher and comprises the publisher’s chief director, two representatives of the journal owner, and the journal’s Editor-in-Chief.
Recusal. Where a case concerns the decision or the conduct of a committee member — most often the journal’s Editor-in-Chief — that member takes no part in deciding it, at either tier. The publisher fills the seat for that case with the Editor-in-Chief of another Brieflands journal. The member concerned is heard as a party to the case rather than as a decision-maker, and has no access to the file or the committee correspondence. See Complaints and Appeals.
Once the necessary documents have been collected and all involved parties interviewed, the publisher sends the preliminary decision to all authors, who have seven working days to respond.
If an author objects, or if the case is complex, the final defence and the supporting documents are referred to the Secondary Ethics Committee. That committee comprises the members of the Primary Ethics Committee, the Brieflands advisory and trustee board, a member of the national ethics committee, and either an official representative of the affiliated institution or a lawyer acting on its behalf. The case is referred to the COPE council at the same time, after anonymisation.
Where a case is referred to the Secondary Ethics Committee and the article concerned is already published, the journal publishes an Expression of Concern linked to that article, so that readers are alerted while the investigation continues. Its wording is decided by the Editor-in-Chief or the Head of the Ethics Department. Until the case closes the article remains available and is unchanged apart from that notice; the Expression of Concern is then replaced by a correction, a retraction, or a notice of resolution.
No further action is taken on the manuscript or the published article until the process concludes. The conclusion reached by the COPE council and the Secondary Ethics Committee is final, and it binds every party to the case, including Brieflands.
Where research or publication misconduct is established, Brieflands follows the COPE flowcharts. The remedy depends on how far the manuscript has progressed: a manuscript that has not yet been finally published may be withdrawn, whereas a finally published article can only be corrected, made the subject of an expression of concern, or retracted. Where a member of the journal staff bears responsibility, the publisher may additionally consider replacing a responsible journal staff like the editor-in-chief. Please refer to our related policies for the full rules.
COPE flowcharts for suspected misconduct
Brieflands follows these COPE flowcharts when handling the cases they cover. The full set is in COPE’s flowcharts index.
- What to do if you suspect peer review manipulation
- Image manipulation in a published article
- Systematic manipulation of the publication process