Editorial Endogeny & Self-Publication Policy

The policy applies, where relevant, to manuscripts authored or co-authored by:

• the Editor-in-Chief;
• associate or section editors;
• Editorial Board members;
• guest editors;
• special-issue editors;
• reviewers with a current journal role;
• publisher directors or employees;
• journal administrative personnel;
• close collaborators of journal editors;
• current trainees or supervisees of handling editors;
• authors from the same institution where a material conflict exists; or
• other persons whose relationship with the journal could reasonably affect impartiality.

Endogeny may become problematic where:

• a journal publishes a disproportionate volume of work from its own editors;
• editorial personnel repeatedly handle manuscripts from close colleagues;
• reviewers are selected from the same internal academic network;
• publisher-associated authors receive preferential processing;
• guest editors make decisions on their own work;
• institutional relationships influence acceptance; or
• the journal's publication pattern creates a reasonable appearance of self-publishing without adequate independent oversight.

The existence of institutional or professional relationships does not automatically invalidate a submission. The relevant question is whether the manuscript can be handled through a sufficiently independent process.

An editor who is an author or co-author must not:

• assign the handling editor;
• select reviewers;
• invite reviewers;
• access reviewer identities;
• view confidential reviewer discussions beyond ordinary author access;
• participate in editorial deliberations;
• make or influence the decision;
• control an appeal concerning the same manuscript; or
• receive accelerated or preferential treatment.

The manuscript should be assigned to another suitably qualified editor with sufficient independence from the authors.

Where the Editor-in-Chief is an author or has a material conflict, responsibility should be transferred to:

• an independent senior editor;
• another appropriately qualified Editorial Board member;
• an external academic editor; or
• another suitably independent person capable of making the final editorial decision.

The Editor-in-Chief must not control reviewer selection, decision making, or appeal handling for the manuscript.

Board-member manuscripts should:

• undergo the same editorial screening as other manuscripts;
• receive independent peer review where applicable;
• be handled by an editor without a material conflict;
• be evaluated against the same scientific and ethical standards;
• receive no guaranteed acceptance; and
• be subject to the same correction and retraction policies after publication.

A manuscript authored by:

• a publisher director;
• a publisher employee;
• a person involved in journal administration;
• a financial officer;
• a technical administrator; or
• another person with a material publisher relationship

must be handled independently from that person's publisher or administrative authority.

Publisher personnel must not use financial, technical, or ownership authority to influence acceptance or rejection.

An editor should consider recusal where an author is:

• a current departmental colleague with whom the editor works closely;
• a current research collaborator;
• a recent co-author;
• a current supervisor or supervisee;
• a current student or trainee;
• part of the editor's immediate research group;
• in a close professional partnership; or
• otherwise connected in a way that could reasonably impair impartiality.

Mere employment by a large shared institution does not necessarily require recusal if the editor and author have no meaningful professional relationship and impartiality can reasonably be maintained.

Potentially relevant relationships include:

• recent co-authorship;
• active research collaboration;
• joint grant participation;
• supervisor-trainee relationships;
• close mentorship;
• business partnerships;
• significant personal relationships;
• active academic disputes; or
• direct professional competition capable of affecting impartiality.

Editors should disclose uncertainty and arrange reassignment where a reasonable observer could question independence.

For submissions involving journal personnel, editors should take particular care to avoid reviewers who:

• work directly with the authors;
• are recent co-authors;
• belong to the same immediate research group;
• have a supervisory relationship with an author;
• have a significant financial relationship with an author;
• are otherwise dependent upon the authors; or
• have another material conflict affecting independent review.

Where feasible, reviewers should be selected from outside the immediate institutional and professional network associated with the conflicted editor or author.

Guest editors must not make final decisions on:

• their own manuscript;
• a manuscript they co-authored;
• a manuscript from a close collaborator;
• a manuscript from a current supervisee;
• a manuscript where they have a significant financial interest; or
• another submission involving a material competing interest.

Such submissions should be transferred to an independent editor outside the conflicted guest-editor pathway.

Journal oversight may include:

• approval of the collection scope;
• assessment of guest-editor conflicts;
• independent handling of guest-editor submissions;
• reviewer-quality monitoring;
• verification of ordinary peer-review standards;
• review of unusual acceptance patterns;
• research-integrity checks; and
• authority to override or reassess a process where editorial integrity is at risk.

A guest editor does not obtain autonomous authority outside JPMHR's governing policies merely because a collection has been delegated to them.

Affiliation with JPMHR, an editor, BMU Ventures, or a represented institution does not justify:

• waiving external peer review where it would otherwise be required;
• reduced methodological scrutiny;
• lower ethical standards;
• waiving disclosure requirements;
• ignoring plagiarism or similarity concerns;
• accelerated acceptance;
• guaranteed publication;
• suppression of reviewer criticism; or
• protection from post-publication correction or retraction.

A waiver, discount, institutional arrangement, or publisher-funded publication must not influence:

• peer review;
• reviewer recommendations;
• revision requirements;
• acceptance;
• rejection;
• integrity assessment; or
• post-publication action.

Authors and editors should disclose relationships such as:

• editorial office held within JPMHR;
• Editorial Board membership;
• guest-editorship;
• publisher employment or ownership;
• close collaboration with a handling editor;
• current supervisory relationships;
• significant financial relationships; and
• other relationships capable of affecting impartiality.

Where the editorial platform permits, a conflicted editor should be excluded from functions such as:

• reviewer assignment;
• reviewer identity access;
• confidential review reports before author release;
• editorial notes;
• internal recommendations;
• decision controls;
• appeal assignment; and
• other restricted handling information.

Where technical permissions cannot provide complete isolation, procedural controls should be used and the conflicted individual must not participate in the decision process.

Records may include:

• identification of the conflict;
• the editor who recused;
• the independent handling editor;
• reviewer assignments;
• decision responsibility;
• appeal arrangements where relevant; and
• other information necessary to reconstruct the editorial pathway.

Internal documentation should be retained confidentially and need not expose reviewer identities publicly.

An article may include a statement indicating that:

• an author holds an editorial role with JPMHR; and
• the author was excluded from peer-review and editorial decision-making for the manuscript.

Such disclosure provides transparency without implying that the author's editorial role itself constitutes misconduct.

Review may consider:

• proportion of articles authored by editors;
• proportion authored by Editorial Board members;
• publisher-associated authorship;
• institutional concentration of published authors;
• repeated use of the same reviewers;
• special-issue acceptance patterns;
• unusually rapid handling of affiliated manuscripts;
• recusal documentation; and
• other patterns relevant to editorial independence.

A numerical pattern should prompt contextual assessment rather than an automatic conclusion of misconduct.

Depending on the seriousness of the failure, JPMHR may:

• reassign the manuscript;
• replace reviewers;
• repeat independent review;
• reconsider an editorial decision;
• document the conflict;
• correct a published disclosure;
• conduct a publication-integrity review;
• issue a correction or other notice; or
• take further action where the compromised process materially undermines the publication.

Retraction is not automatic merely because an editorial conflict was imperfectly managed. The journal should assess whether the failure materially compromised the reliability or integrity of the publication.

A conflicted author-editor must not:

• appoint the appeal reviewer;
• control access to appeal records;
• participate in the appeal decision; or
• use their journal position to influence reconsideration.

• COPE Guidance and Resources
• ICMJE Recommendations
• Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing

Reference to external guidance does not imply membership, accreditation, certification, or endorsement unless independently established.