The Journal Draft – AI in Medicine

The Journal Draft is committed to upholding the highest standards of publication ethics. Our policies are based on the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) Code of Conduct and Best-Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors. These principles guide our editorial decisions, peer review practices, author responsibilities, and reviewer conduct to ensure the integrity, transparency, and ethical rigor of scholarly publishing in the field of medical AI.

1. Editors’ Responsibilities

1.1 Publication Decisions

The Editor-in-Chief is responsible for deciding which manuscripts are suitable for publication based on:

Research originality and scientific merit
Relevance to the journal’s aims and scope
Clarity and validity of the study
Ethical compliance and methodological robustness
Reviewer feedback

Decisions are made without discrimination based on race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, political philosophy, or any other personal characteristics. Legal and ethical considerations—including libel, plagiarism, and copyright—are strictly applied.

1.2 Confidentiality

Editors and editorial staff must maintain strict confidentiality. Manuscripts and associated materials may not be disclosed to anyone except:

Corresponding author
Peer reviewers
Potential reviewers
Editorial board members
Publisher (when required)

Unpublished content will not be used for personal research or gain by editors or staff.

1.3 Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest

Editors must not use unpublished materials from submitted manuscripts for their own research without written permission from the authors.
Editors should recuse themselves from decision-making in cases of potential conflict of interest, including:

Personal relationships with authors
Professional collaborations
Financial interests

2. Reviewers’ Responsibilities

2.1 Contribution to Editorial Decisions

Peer review assists editors in making informed publication decisions and helps authors improve their manuscripts. Reviewers provide constructive, unbiased, and evidence-based evaluations.

2.2 Promptness

Reviewers who are unable to complete a review within the agreed time frame, or feel unqualified to assess the manuscript, must notify the editor immediately and withdraw from the review process.

2.3 Confidentiality

All manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential. They should not be shared, discussed, or distributed without explicit authorization from the editor.

2.4 Objectivity and Professionalism

Reviews must be:

Objective
Clear and well-supported
Free from personal criticism
Focused on the scientific and methodological aspects of the work

2.5 Acknowledgement of Sources

Reviewers are expected to identify:

Missing citations of relevant published work
Unattributed sources or overlapping content
Possible plagiarism or duplication

Any such concerns must be reported to the editor immediately.

2.6 Conflicts of Interest

Reviewers must decline manuscripts where conflicts exist due to:

Competitive relationships
Personal or professional ties
Financial interests
Institutional affiliations

Privileged information obtained through peer review must not be used for personal advantage.

3. Authors’ Responsibilities

3.1 Reporting Standards

Authors must present accurate, transparent, and reproducible research. Manuscripts should include sufficient detail to allow replication and must objectively reflect the significance of the work.

Fabrication, falsification, or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behavior and are unacceptable.

3.2 Data Access and Retention

Authors may be asked to provide raw data for editorial review. They should:

Make data available in a public repository when possible
Retain data for at least ten years after publication
Ensure confidentiality of patient information
Comply with legal and ethical data-sharing requirements

3.3 Originality and Plagiarism

Manuscripts must be original, and all sources must be properly cited. Plagiarism, in any form—including self-plagiarism—is strictly prohibited.

Authors should cite influential work that informed their study.

3.4 Multiple, Redundant, or Concurrent Publication

Authors must not:

Submit the same manuscript to more than one journal
Submit work that is under review elsewhere
Reuse previously published work without proper justification and permission

Submitting previously copyrighted material is not permitted.

3.5 Authorship Criteria

Authorship should be limited to individuals who made significant contributions to:

Study conception or design
Data collection or analysis
Interpretation of results
Drafting or revising the manuscript

The corresponding author is responsible for ensuring that:

All contributors are listed as co-authors
No uninvolved individuals are included
All authors approve the final version
All authors agree to submission and publication

3.6 Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest

Authors must declare:

All financial support
Sponsorship
Grants
Any relationships that may influence results or interpretation

Transparency is essential to ethical scientific reporting.

3.7 Fundamental Errors in Published Work

If an author identifies a serious error in their published work, they must:

Notify the editor immediately
Cooperate in issuing a correction, retraction, or erratum as appropriate

4. Ethical Oversight and Misconduct Handling

The journal adheres to COPE procedures for addressing:

Plagiarism
Data fabrication/falsification
Unethical research practices
Conflicts of interest
Author or reviewer misconduct
Duplicate publication

Investigations are conducted confidentially, fairly, and transparently.

5. Reference

Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). Code of Conduct and Best-Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors (2011).
Retrieved from: https://publicationethics.org/

6. Contact Information

For questions related to ethical policies, manuscript submission, or research integrity, please contact:

Editorial Office – The Journal Draft
Email: editor@thejournaldraft.com

Publication Ethics