Editors at the Clinical Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology (CJOG) are entrusted with responsibilities that directly influence scientific integrity, publication credibility, and the reputation of the journal. The ethical obligations described in this document provide editors with a transparent framework to ensure fairness, confidentiality, objectivity, and professional conduct throughout all editorial activities. These guidelines align with COPE Core Practices, ICMJE Editorial Responsibilities, WAME Principles of Transparency, and internationally recognized editorial ethics.

1. Principles of Editorial Integrity

Editors must uphold uncompromising standards of integrity. Each editorial decision reflects the journal's credibility. Editorial integrity is built upon:

Honesty in evaluating manuscripts
Transparency in decision-making
Fairness to all contributors regardless of background
Accountability for decisions issued
Commitment to scientific rigor and ethical publishing

Foundational Rule: Editors must evaluate manuscripts solely based on scientific merit, clinical relevance, ethical compliance, and clarity — never on authors’ demographics, affiliations, nationality, or prior publication history.

2. Editorial Impartiality and Avoidance of Bias

Editors must avoid biases that may influence manuscript evaluation. These include:

Institutional prestige bias
Geographic or cultural biases
Gender or racial bias
Language proficiency bias
Bias favoring established researchers

2.1 Examples of Ethical vs. Unethical Behavior

Scenario	Ethical Action	Unethical Action
A submission from an early-career researcher with minor formatting issues	Assess scientific merit first	Reject due to formatting alone
Manuscript from institution previously associated with controversy	Review impartially	Reject based on past events
Authors with English-language errors	Suggest language editing after review	Reject without scientific evaluation

3. Confidentiality Obligations

Editors must treat all submissions and communications with the highest level of confidentiality.

3.1 Confidential Materials

Unpublished manuscripts
Reviewer identities
Review reports
Statistical analyses and supplementary data
Ethics approval documents

3.2 Prohibited Actions

Sharing manuscripts with unauthorized individuals
Using unpublished data for personal research
Discussing manuscript content outside editorial channels

4. Conflicts of Interest (COI) for Editors

Editors must proactively identify and disclose conflicts.

4.1 Types of COI

Personal relationships with authors
Professional collaborations in the past 3 years
Shared institutional affiliations
Financial ties to the study outcome
Academic rivalry or competition

4.2 Required Editorial Action

Immediately disclose conflict to the Editor-in-Chief
Recuse from handling the manuscript
Transfer responsibility to a non-conflicted editor

5. Ethical Responsibilities in Peer Review Management

Editors must ensure a transparent, fair, and unbiased peer-review process.

5.1 Reviewer Selection Ethics

Select qualified experts with relevant subject knowledge
Ensure reviewers have no conflicts of interest
Maintain reviewer diversity
Invite reviewers with a strong record of integrity and professionalism

5.2 Ethical Instructions to Reviewers

Editors must ensure reviewers understand ethical obligations:

Confidentiality of manuscript content
Constructive and respectful tone
Bias-free assessment
Reporting ethical or methodological concerns

5.3 Monitoring Reviewer Conduct

Indicators of Ethical Reviewer Behavior:

Providing objective feedback
Avoiding personal comments
Returning reviews on time
Disclosing conflicts promptly

6. Handling Ethical Misconduct

Editors play a key role in identifying and addressing ethical concerns.

6.1 Types of Misconduct Editors Must Watch For

Plagiarism and duplicate submission
Data fabrication or falsification
Manipulated images (ultrasounds, CT scans, microscope images)
Improper authorship claims
Unethical research design
Non-compliance with IRB/ethics approvals

6.2 Response Procedure (COPE-Aligned)

Document the concern clearly.
Consult the Editor-in-Chief.
Contact authors for explanations when appropriate.
If unresolved, follow COPE flowcharts.
Issue warnings, corrections, or retractions when necessary.

Editors must never ignore suspected ethical violations, regardless of author seniority or reputation.

7. Transparency and Reproducibility Ethics

7.1 Data Availability

Editors must check whether authors:

Provide raw or processed data on request
Explain data availability limitations
Maintain transparency regarding missing data

7.2 Statistical and Methodological Rigor

Editors must ensure:

Methods are described in adequate detail
Statistical tests are appropriately selected
Results are reproducible
Data integrity is maintained across figures and tables

8. Ethical Communication Standards

Editors must communicate respectfully, objectively, and professionally.

8.1 Tone Requirements

Constructive and supportive
Free from personal judgments
Clear, concise, and well-structured
Responsive and timely

8.2 Examples of Ethical vs. Unethical Editorial Communication

Situation	Ethical Response	Unethical Response
Reviewer delays feedback	Send polite reminder	Threaten or criticize reviewer
Author disagrees with decision	Encourage appeal with evidence	Dismiss concerns unfairly
Poor English writing	Recommend language editing	Reject without content review

9. AI-Ethics for Editors

Editors must adopt transparent and ethical use of AI tools.

9.1 Acceptable Editorial Uses of AI

Grammar correction in decision letters
Formatting assistance
Summarizing reviewer comments

9.2 Unacceptable AI Uses

Using AI to write editorial comments without verifying accuracy
Allowing AI to assess scientific merit
Using AI to identify authors in double-blind review

9.3 Required AI Disclosure

AI was used minimally and only for language improvement. All editorial decisions 
were made by qualified human editors.

10. Ensuring Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI)

Editors must foster diversity and inclusion across:

Reviewer selection
Special issue invitations
Editorial board recruitment
Manuscript evaluations

10.1 Avoiding Systemic Bias

Editors must avoid:

Favoring specific countries or institutions
Dismissing research from low-resource settings
Overlooking gender representation in reviewer pools

11. Editorial Accountability

Editors must take responsibility for:

The accuracy of decisions
The integrity of peer review
Upholding ethical standards
Addressing post-publication concerns

12. Appeals and Complaints

Editors must follow fair, structured procedures for handling appeals.

12.1 Steps in Appeals Handling

Review the appeal letter objectively.
Examine disputed reviewer comments.
Consult Editor-in-Chief.
Document findings transparently.
Issue a formal response.

13. Post-Publication Editorial Ethics

Handle errata swiftly.
Manage retractions transparently.
Create “Expressions of Concern” when necessary.
Ensure long-term availability of corrected content.
Cooperate with institutions investigating misconduct.

Conclusion

Ethical editors are the foundation of trustworthy scholarly communication. By adhering to the principles outlined in these guidelines, editors reinforce the credibility of CJOG and contribute to a fair, transparent, and scientifically rigorous publication ecosystem. Editorial decisions must always reflect integrity, professionalism, and respect for the scientific community.