Publication & Ethics

Publication Ethics Statement

JGEM's publication ethics statement is based on the “Code of Conduct and Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors” document developed by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE.)

Research Integrity

JGEM aims to support all those involved in scholarly publishing with a summary of best practice guidance with respect to editorial policies regarding research integrity and publishing ethics. Our best practice guidelines on research integrity and publishing ethics are written for researchers, in their various roles as editors, authors and peer reviewers; societies; librarians; funders; corporations; publishers; and journalists.

Duties of Editors

Publication Decisions

JGEM's editorial leadership team is responsible for deciding which of the articles submitted to the journal should be published. Members of the board confer and refer to reviewer recommendations in making this decision, constrained by legal requirements related to libel, copyright infringement, and plagiarism. Editorial decisions are not affected by the origins of the manuscript, including the nationality, ethnicity, political beliefs, race, or religion of the authors.

Confidentiality, Disclosure, and Conflicts of Interest

During the review process, editors must not disclose information about a submitted manuscript to anyone other than the corresponding author, reviewers, potential reviewers, and other editorial advisers. Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in an editor's, reviewer’s, or any other reader’s own research without the express written consent of the author. Readers should be informed about who has funded the research or other scholarly work and whether the funders had any role in the research and its publication and, if so, what this was.

Author Relations

Editors strive to ensure that peer review at JGEM is fair, unbiased, and timely. The journal has established policies for handling submissions from editorial board members to ensure unbiased review. Author instructions provide guidance about criteria for authorship.

Reviewer Relations

JGEM encourages reviewers to comment on ethical questions and possible misconduct raised by submissions (e.g. unethical research design, insufficient detail on patient consent, inappropriate data manipulation), and to be alert to redundant publication and plagiarism. Reviewers’ comments should be sent to authors in their entirety unless they contain offensive or libelous remarks. Contributions of reviewers to the journal are regularly acknowledged, and JGEM ceases to use reviewers who consistently produce discourteous, poor quality, or late reviews.

Quality Assurance

Editors should take all reasonable steps to ensure the quality of the material they publish, recognizing that different sections have different aims and standards. Editors should seek assurances that the research they publish has been approved by an appropriate body (e.g. research ethics committee, institutional review board) where one exists. Editors should be alert to intellectual property issues and work with their publisher to handle potential breaches of laws and conventions. Errors, inaccurate, or misleading statements must be corrected promptly and with due prominence.

Duties of Reviewers

Reviewers assist the editorial board in making editorial decisions. JGEM uses a blind peer review model, where the authors do not know the identity of the reviewers, but reviewers do know the identity of the authors. JGEM typically uses two peer reviewers per article. Reviews should be conducted objectively, and observations should be formulated clearly with supporting arguments so that authors can use them for improving the paper. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate. Reviewers acknowledge that during the peer review process, the use of Microsoft Word track changes or comments is NOT allowed.

Qualification of Reviewers

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 excuse himself from the review process. Reviewers should not consider manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers.


Any manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage.


Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors. References to the ideas of others should be accompanied by the relevant citation. A reviewer should also call to the editor's attention any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published paper of which they have personal knowledge.

Duties of Authors

Reporting Standards

Authors of reports of original research 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. Review articles should be objective, comprehensive, and accurate accounts of the state of the art. Authors should be prepared to provide public access to raw data in connection with a paper and retain such data for at least two years after publication. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behavior and are unacceptable.

Originality, Plagiarism, and Malpractice

Authors should ensure their work is entirely original and that any work and/or words of others have been appropriately acknowledged. Plagiarism is forbidden in all its forms and constitutes unethical publishing behavior. Submitting essentially the same manuscript to more than one journal concurrently constitutes unethical publishing behavior. Both behaviors are unacceptable and will result in an automatic rejection.

Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest

All authors should disclose in their manuscript any financial or other substantive conflict of interest that might be construed to influence the results or interpretation of their manuscript. All sources of financial support for the project should be disclosed.

Authorship of the Paper

The corresponding author should ensure that all appropriate 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. All those who have made significant contributions should be listed as co-authors. Authorship requirements are fulfilled by those who have contributed original ideas, provided data collection and/or analysis, wrote the manuscript, and/or substantially edited the manuscript. All authors must have sufficient knowledge to defend the content of the manuscript. Others who have participated in certain substantive aspects of the research project should be acknowledged or listed as contributors. For accepted works, all attributions will be disclosed within the published article.

Fundamental Errors in Published Works

JGEM adheres to the retraction guidelines recommended by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE.) When an author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in the published work, it is the author’s obligation to promptly notify the journal editor and work with the editor to retract or correct the paper.

Artificial Intelligence

Authors are prohibited from using artificial intelligence technology to write their articles or contribute to the manuscript in any way. JGEM strives for authenticity and requires each article is written by experts in their respective fields rather than AI.


Following a rejection, authors may request an appeal if they feel it is appropriate. Appeals will override earlier decisions made by the Editors following appropriate reconsideration of the editorial process and decision making (for example, additional input by the authors, revisions, extra material in the manuscript, or appeals about conflicts of interest and concerns about biased peer review). Author protest alone will not affect or change an original "reject" decision. Editors will mediate all exchanges between authors and peer reviewers during the second peer-review process. Editors may seek comments from additional peer reviewers to help them make their decision. The editor’s decision following an appeal is final and the manuscript cannot be appealed again.

Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion

JGEM supports the efforts to create a more welcoming environment for all people and to foster more diverse, inclusive and equitable communities. Diverse perspectives offer new ideas, avenues of discovery, and solutions to research problems and scholarly communication. Expanding equity and inclusivity initiatives increase the likelihood that research will benefit everyone in our global communities. Journal editorial teams and publishers therefore have a responsibility to foster these values within the research communities they represent, ensuring diverse representation and an equitable and inclusive experience for all involved.

JGEM aims to promote diversity, equity, and inclusion in the editorial processes and policies, within the journals’ editorial team, reviewer pools, and authorship base. Harassment or discrimination against an individual on the grounds any of the following will not be tolerated: age, ancestry, color, religious creed, physical or mental disability, marital status, medical condition, genetic information, military and veteran status, national origin, race, sex, gender, gender identity, gender expression, sexual identity, sexual orientation, political affiliation, or any other category protected by law.