Publishing Ethics

This journal follows the core practices of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and handles cases of research and publication misconduct accordingly.

Ethical Guidelines for Authors

1. The Medinformatics does not allow dual publication (the same material published twice in the peer-reviewed literature) or dual submission (the same material simultaneously submitted to more than one journal).

2. The Medinformatics does not tolerate plagiarism, data or figure manipulation, knowingly providing incorrect information, inaccurate author attributions, failures to declare conflicts of interest and fraud. This list is not well-rounded - if there is uncertainty of what constitutes such actions, then more resources may be found at the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

3. Conflict of Interest

All authors must disclose all relationships or interests that could inappropriately influence or bias their work. Examples of potential conflicts of interest include, but are not limited to, financial interests (such as membership, employment, consultancies, stocks/shares ownership, honoraria, grants or other funding, paid expert testimonies, and patent-licensing arrangements) and non-financial interests (such as personal or professional relationships, affiliations, personal beliefs).

Authors should declare any and all conflicts involving myself or my co-authors in the "Comments for the Editor" field via the online submission system.

If no conflicts exist, the authors should state: the authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Ethical Guidelines for Journal Editors

Journal editors are requested to adhere to the COPE Code of Conduct and Best Practice Guidelines for Journal editors and follow the following ethical guidelines:

Journal editors should:
• strive to ensure that peer review in their journal is fair, unbiased, and timely.
• ensure that all published reports and reviews of research have been reviewed by suitably qualified reviewers. 
• make decisions to accept or reject a paper for publication should be based on the paper's importance, originality and clarity, and the study's validity and its relevance to the scope of the journal without interference from the journal owner/publisher or other third parties.
• require reviewers to disclose any potential competing interests before agreeing to review a submission.
• keep the peer-review process confidential, information or correspondence about a manuscript should not be shared with anyone outside of the peer-review process.

Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers

Reviewers are strongly recommended to comply with the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers and adhere to the following ethical guidelines: 

Peer reviewers should:
• only agree to review manuscripts for which they have the subject expertise required to carry out a proper assessment and which they can assess in a timely manner.
• respect the confidentiality of peer review and not reveal any details of a manuscript or its review, during or after the peer-review process, beyond those that are released by the journal.
• not use information obtained during the peer-review process for their own or any other person's or organization's advantage, or to disadvantage or discredit others.
• declare all potential conflicting interests, seeking advice from the journal if they are unsure whether something constitutes a relevant interest.
• not allow their reviews to be influenced by the origins of a manuscript, by the nationality, religious or political beliefs, gender, or other characteristics of the authors, or by commercial considerations.
• be objective and constructive in their reviews, refraining from being hostile or inflammatory and from making libelous or derogatory personal comments.
• acknowledge that peer review is largely a reciprocal endeavor and undertake to carry out their fair share of reviewing in a timely manner.
• provide journals with personal and professional information that is accurate and a true representation of their expertise.
• recognize that impersonation of another individual during the review process is considered serious misconduct.

Allegations of Misconduct

Plagiarism and Data Fabrication

The Office of Research Integrity described plagiarism as "theft or misappropriation of intellectual property and the substantial unattributed textual copying of another's work." It may be intentional or unintentional. Attribution is crucial. Proper credit is necessary and mandatory. Duplicate publication occurs when an author reuses substantial parts of their own published work without providing the appropriate references.

Other unethical behaviors, like the fabrication of data and the manipulation of visual objects, are strictly not allowed. The authors must provide a correct account of their research, especially as regards data generation, presentation, analysis, and interpretation.

Allegations should be sent to the Editor-in-Chief (Email:, except that if the allegations concern an Editor-in-Chief, the allegations can be sent to the Journal Editorial Office (Email: Upon receiving an allegation of research misconduct, we will immediately assess the allegation to determine whether the allegation is sufficiently credible and specific so that potential evidence of research misconduct may be identified. The investigation should, in the first instance, be handled by the Editor-in-Chief. If the Editor-in-Chief is the subject of the allegations, the Managing Editor will send the relevant materials to a designated Editorial Board Member. If possible, a definitive response will be made within 4 weeks. If this is not possible, an interim response will be given within 4 weeks.

Recommended reading:

Plagiarism in a submitted manuscript

Redundant (duplicate) publication in a published article

Fabricated data in a submitted manuscript

Fabricated data in a published article

Reviewer suspected to have appropriated an author's ideas or data

Suspected ethical problem in a submitted manuscript

Responding to whistleblowers when concerns are raised directly


Authors may appeal if they feel that the decision to reject was based on: i) a major misunderstanding over a technical aspect of the manuscript; or ii) a failure to understand the scientific advance shown by the manuscript. Appeals requesting a second opinion without sufficient justification will not be considered. To lodge an appeal, please contact the Journal Editorial Office by email, quoting your manuscript number. Appeals will only be considered by the original submitting author.

Human or Animal Subjects Research

Research involving human or animal subjects must ensure all procedures are performed in compliance with relevant laws and institutional guidelines. Manuscripts relying on clinical trials should quote the trial registration number at the end of the abstract. The author must obtain review and approval (or review and waiver) from their Institutional Review Board (IRB) before manuscript submission if the work involves the use of animal or human subjects. Manuscript authors that describe multisite research must get approval from the IRB at each respective institution.

For human subjects, the authors must ensure that their research was carried out following the rules of the Declaration of Helsinki, as revised in 2013. Authors should include a statement in the manuscript that informed consent was obtained for experimentation with human subjects. Human subjects' right to privacy must always be observed. A statement of IRB approval or waiver (and reason for waiver) or a statement of adherence to the Declaration of Helsinki must be included in the manuscript. An example of the Institutional Review Board Statement: "All subjects gave their informed consent for inclusion before they participated in the study. The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki, and the protocol was approved by the Ethics Committee of XXX (Project identification code)."

For animal subjects, all experiments should comply with the ARRIVE guidelines and should be carried out in accordance with the U.K. Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 and associated guidelines, or EU Directive 2010/63/EU on the protection of animals used for scientific purposes, or the U.S. Public Health Service Policy on Humane Care and Use of Laboratory Animals. A statement identifying the institutional and/or licensing committee approving the experiments, including any relevant details must be included in the manuscript. If no animal ethics committee is available to review applications, the ethics of research will be evaluated by reviewers and editors. Authors should provide a statement justifying the work from an ethical perspective.