Publication Ethics, Malpractice and Generative AI Policy

Last updated: 28 August 2026

Purpose and scope

The International Journal of Nutrology (IJN) is committed to protecting the integrity, reliability, transparency, and accessibility of the scholarly record. This policy applies to all manuscripts submitted to IJN, all content published by the journal, and the conduct of authors, reviewers, editors, Editorial Board members, editorial staff, the publisher, and service providers acting on behalf of the journal.

IJN uses guidance issued by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE), and the Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing when developing and applying its editorial procedures. Use of these resources does not imply membership of, certification by, or endorsement from any organization.

Core ethical principles

Editorial decisions are based on scientific merit, relevance, methodological quality, ethical compliance, and the integrity of the work.
Decisions are independent of commercial interests, advertising, sponsorship, Article Processing Charges, waiver requests, institutional affiliation, nationality, seniority, or personal relationships.
Manuscripts are handled confidentially and evaluated fairly, without discrimination or retaliation.
Editors, reviewers, and authors must disclose actual, potential, or perceived conflicts of interest.
Authors must report research honestly, retain supporting records, obtain all required approvals and consent, and cooperate with legitimate editorial inquiries.
Peer review must be independent, confidential, evidence-based, and free from identity, citation, or review manipulation.
Errors and integrity concerns are addressed through transparent and proportionate actions that protect readers and the scientific record.

Research and publication misconduct

Research or publication misconduct may include, but is not limited to:

fabrication, falsification, selective alteration, suppression, or inappropriate manipulation of data, images, results, methods, or documentation;
plagiarism, substantial unattributed copying, inappropriate text recycling, duplicate or redundant publication, and simultaneous submission;
guest, gift, honorary, purchased, coerced, or ghost authorship; omission of qualified authors; or misrepresentation of contributions;
failure to disclose relevant financial or non-financial interests, funding, sponsorship, institutional support, or the funder's role;
research involving humans, identifiable information, human biological material, or animals without the required ethical approval, consent, safeguards, or accurate reporting;
breaches of confidentiality, privacy, copyright, licensing terms, permissions, or data-protection requirements;
peer-review manipulation, fabricated reviewer identities, impersonation, undisclosed conflicts, unauthorized sharing of manuscripts, or interference with editorial decisions;
citation manipulation, coercive citation, or adding references for purposes unrelated to the scientific content;
misleading statements about originality, approvals, registration, data availability, competing interests, authorship, or the use of artificial intelligence; and
harassment, intimidation, discrimination, retaliation, or deliberate obstruction of a legitimate integrity inquiry.

An honest error or a difference in scientific interpretation is not automatically misconduct. IJN assesses the available evidence, the reliability of the work, the conduct involved, and the effect on the scholarly record before deciding what action is appropriate.

Editorial screening and integrity checks

Submitted manuscripts may undergo technical, ethical, authorship, registration, reporting-guideline, reference, image, data, and text-similarity checks. IJN may use appropriately authorized software to support these checks. A similarity score, automated flag, or software output is not by itself proof of misconduct and must be assessed by a qualified person in context.

When clarification is needed, the journal may request original data, unprocessed images, protocols, ethics approvals, consent documentation, trial-registration records, authorship confirmations, permissions, disclosure forms, or other relevant material. Requests will be limited to information reasonably necessary for editorial assessment and will take account of legal, ethical, privacy, and confidentiality restrictions.

Reporting an ethical or integrity concern

Anyone may report a concern about a submitted manuscript, published article, peer review, editorial process, or the conduct of a person acting for the journal. Reports should be sent to the IJN editorial office at [email protected] with the subject line RESEARCH INTEGRITY CONCERN – [manuscript ID, DOI, or article title].

The report should identify the manuscript, article, DOI, person, or process involved; describe the concern clearly; and provide supporting evidence when available. Anonymous reports may be considered when they contain enough verifiable information to permit an assessment. Good-faith concerns will not be dismissed because the person reporting them is junior, unaffiliated with an institution, or wishes to remain confidential.

Complaints about editorial decisions, service, delays, fees, or procedural fairness should follow the Complaints Policy.

Assessment and investigation procedure

Receipt and preservation: the editorial office records the concern and preserves the relevant manuscript files, correspondence, reviews, decisions, and supporting material.
Preliminary assessment: an editor determines whether the matter falls within the journal's responsibility, whether immediate action is needed to protect participants or readers, and whether further information is required.
Independent handling: anyone with a relevant conflict of interest must recuse themselves. A qualified person who was not involved in the disputed conduct or decision will handle the matter whenever practicable.
Opportunity to respond: the person or persons whose work or conduct is questioned will normally receive a clear description of the concern and a reasonable opportunity to provide an explanation and supporting evidence.
Consultation: IJN may consult independent experts and may contact an institution, research ethics committee, funder, registry, data custodian, another journal, publisher, or competent authority when it is necessary to establish facts or protect the scholarly record.
Decision and record: the responsible editor evaluates the evidence and documents the reasons for the outcome. The action must be proportionate to the reliability, ethical status, and integrity of the work.
Communication and appeal: the relevant parties are informed of the outcome when appropriate. A procedural complaint or editorial appeal may be submitted under the Complaints Policy.

Information is shared only with people or organizations that reasonably need it for the assessment. Confidentiality cannot be guaranteed when disclosure is required by law, necessary to protect people, or essential for a fair and effective investigation. IJN does not determine employment or professional disciplinary sanctions; institutions and competent authorities are responsible for those decisions.

Possible editorial actions

Before publication, IJN may request clarification or correction, obtain additional review, suspend evaluation, reject a manuscript, close a submission affected by unreliable or unethical work, or refer the concern to an appropriate institution or authority.

After publication, IJN may publish a correction, addendum, expression of concern, retraction, or other notice; amend metadata; notify relevant databases and organizations; or take another action needed to protect readers and the scientific record. Retraction is intended to correct the literature and is not primarily a punishment. Detailed rules are provided in the Corrections, Retractions and Withdrawals Policy.

IJN does not impose an automatic or predetermined embargo merely because a concern has been raised or a manuscript has been rejected. Each matter is assessed individually through a fair, evidence-based, and documented process.

Generative artificial intelligence and AI-assisted technologies

General principles

Artificial intelligence (AI) and AI-assisted technologies cannot be listed or cited as an author because they cannot meet authorship responsibilities or accept accountability.
Human participants in the publication process remain fully responsible for the accuracy, originality, attribution, confidentiality, legality, and integrity of their work and decisions.
Material use of AI must be transparent. The tool, purpose, and manner of use must be disclosed as described below.
Confidential manuscripts, peer-review material, personal data, patient information, copyrighted content, and unpublished research must not be uploaded to a system unless the user is authorized to do so and confidentiality, data protection, retention, and intellectual-property safeguards are assured.
AI output must not replace expert judgment, source verification, ethical oversight, or human editorial responsibility.
No manuscript may be accepted or rejected solely by an automated system.

Use of AI by authors

Authors must disclose material use of generative AI or AI-assisted technologies in manuscript preparation, translation, summarization, coding, data processing, statistical analysis, literature review, or the creation or alteration of figures and other content. The disclosure must name the tool and version when available, identify its provider, state the purpose for which it was used, and explain how the authors reviewed and verified the output.

For assistance with writing or presentation, include a separate section before the references titled Declaration of Generative AI and AI-Assisted Technologies. The following model may be adapted:

During the preparation of this work, the author(s) used [tool, version, and provider] for [purpose]. The author(s) reviewed and verified the output, made all necessary revisions, and accept full responsibility for the accuracy, originality, and integrity of the final content.

When AI is part of the research method, its use must instead be described in sufficient detail in the Methods section, including the tool or model, version, provider, inputs, settings or prompts when relevant, validation procedures, limitations, and the role of human oversight, so that the method can be assessed and, where applicable, reproduced. Use limited to ordinary spelling, grammar, or reference-format checking does not require a declaration when the tool does not generate substantive content or influence scientific interpretation.

Authors must verify all AI-assisted content against reliable sources, cite the original sources supporting scientific claims, check references and quotations, obtain necessary permissions, and ensure that the manuscript contains no fabricated information, plagiarism, copyright infringement, undisclosed bias, or confidential information. AI output is not an acceptable primary source for a scientific claim.

Generative AI must not be used to create, remove, move, obscure, or introduce features in images or other primary research data. When AI-based image processing is itself part of the research design or method, it must be ethically appropriate, scientifically justified, reproducibly described, validated, and clearly disclosed. IJN may request original, unprocessed files and may decline illustrative or graphical material when its provenance, rights, accuracy, or integrity cannot be verified.

Use of AI by peer reviewers

A submitted manuscript and its associated files are confidential. Reviewers must not upload a manuscript, excerpt, table, figure, supplementary file, author information, editorial correspondence, or peer-review report to a public or external generative-AI system. Reviewers must not delegate the scientific assessment or preparation of substantive review comments to AI.

Any proposed use of an institutionally controlled AI system requires prior written authorization from the journal and must provide adequate confidentiality, data-protection, content-retention, and intellectual-property safeguards. Any authorized use must be disclosed to the editor. The invited reviewer remains personally responsible for every statement and recommendation in the review.

Use of AI by editors, Editorial Board members, and editorial staff

Editors and editorial staff must not upload submitted manuscripts, reviews, author or reviewer identities, decision letters, or other confidential information to public or unauthorized external AI systems. AI must not replace the editor's critical assessment, reviewer verification, conflict-of-interest evaluation, or final decision.

Secure and authorized tools may support limited administrative or integrity-checking tasks only when their purpose is documented and appropriate safeguards for confidentiality, privacy, security, retention, bias, and intellectual property have been evaluated. Material use must be disclosed when appropriate. Human editors remain accountable for the process and must independently evaluate every automated output.

IJN will identify publicly any AI-based editorial service that materially affects manuscript handling if and when such a service is adopted. Only tools, purposes, and safeguards that are actually in use and can be documented will be described publicly.

Suspected violation of the AI policy

Undisclosed or inappropriate use of AI will be assessed according to its nature, extent, intent, and effect on confidentiality, authorship, originality, reliability, copyright, privacy, or the scientific record. The journal may request an explanation, corrected disclosure, source material, original files, or additional validation and may take further action under this policy. Use of AI does not transfer responsibility from a human author, reviewer, or editor to a tool or service provider.

Related IJN policies

External guidance

Questions about this policy may be sent to the IJN editorial office at [email protected].