Scope

Research misconduct means a serious breach of research or publication integrity. In a journal on artificial intelligence in healthcare and the life sciences, this includes:

• Fabrication: inventing data, patient records, model results, or images.
• Falsification: manipulating data, datasets, test sets, performance metrics, or images, or leaving out results so that the findings are misrepresented.
• Plagiarism: using text, figures, code, or models from others without attribution.
• Misrepresenting data or tools: presenting synthetic or AI-generated data or images as real, or failing to disclose generative AI use where disclosure is required.
• Misreporting validation: for example, presenting results from data used in training as an independent test.
• Publication and authorship abuse: duplicate or redundant publication, and inappropriate authorship such as ghost or gift authorship.
• Citation and peer-review manipulation: including fake reviewer identities, review rings, and breaches of reviewer confidentiality.
• Unethical research: including using patient data without the approval or consent that is required.
• Concealed competing interests: such as an undisclosed financial tie to the developer of a system evaluated in the study.

Honest Error and Misconduct

Honest errors, including genuine coding or data-handling mistakes, are not misconduct and are corrected through the journal’s correction process. Misconduct involves intent or reckless disregard for accuracy. The journal follows COPE guidance to tell the two apart.

Raising a Concern

Concerns can be sent to editor@jaihl.org. Please identify the manuscript or article, describe the concern, and include any supporting evidence. Anonymous reports may be considered where they are specific and verifiable.

How Allegations Are Handled

• The allegation is assessed confidentially for specificity and plausibility.
• The authors, or others concerned, are informed and given a fair opportunity to respond.
• The journal may ask for supporting material such as raw data, code, model outputs, original images, or ethics documents.
• Where needed, the journal may consult the authors’ institution, an ethics committee, the funder, or independent experts.
• Findings are documented and a proportionate decision is made, following COPE guidance.

During an Investigation

The journal may pause processing of a manuscript while a serious concern is examined. For a published article, an expression of concern may be issued, as set out in the Retraction and Correction Policy.

Possible Outcomes

• No further action, where the concern is not supported.
• An author correction.
• Editorial rejection of a manuscript under review.
• An expression of concern, or retraction of a published article.
• Notification of the authors’ institution, funder, ethics body, or regulator, where appropriate.
• Restrictions on future submissions, in serious cases.
• Removal of a reviewer from the journal’s reviewer pool, where peer review was manipulated.

Timing
Investigations can take time, especially when institutions are involved. Where appropriate, and subject to confidentiality, the journal keeps the person who raised the concern informed of progress.

Good-Faith Reporting

Reviewers, readers, authors, and institutions are encouraged to raise good-faith integrity concerns. Information is handled confidentially to the extent reasonably possible, and no one is penalized for a good-faith report. Knowingly false or malicious allegations may be disregarded.

Concerns About Editors or Reviewers

Concerns about the conduct of an editor or reviewer are handled in the same way, by someone who is not involved in the matter.

Related Policies

See also the Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement, the Retraction and Correction Policy, the Appeals and Complaints Policy, the Image and Data Integrity Policy, the Artificial Intelligence (AI) and LLM Policy, and the Plagiarism and Content Integrity Policy.