Publication Ethics

Trustworthy scholarship depends on an accurate record, accountable authorship and fair editorial judgment. These requirements apply to authors, editors and reviewers throughout the publication process.

Originality and the scholarly record

Submissions must accurately distinguish the authors’ contribution from existing work. Quote and cite sources appropriately, including reused text, images, datasets and ideas. Fabrication, falsification, plagiarism, misleading image manipulation and manipulation of peer review are unacceptable.

Do not submit the same manuscript to another journal while it is under consideration at Discovery. Disclose closely related manuscripts, substantial overlap with earlier publications, translations and previous public versions. Posting a preprint does not by itself prevent consideration, but authors must identify it and explain how the submitted work relates to it. Avoid fragmenting one study into overlapping papers without a scholarly reason.

Authorship and contributions

Listed authors must have made a substantive contribution to the work, approved the submitted version and accepted responsibility for its accuracy and integrity. Describe each author’s contribution. Acknowledge assistance that does not qualify for authorship, with the contributor’s permission. The corresponding author is responsible for communicating with the journal and keeping co-authors informed.

Requests to add, remove or reorder authors must include an explanation and agreement from the affected authors. The journal may suspend consideration while an authorship dispute is resolved. Institutional authorities may be asked to investigate matters beyond the journal’s ability to establish.

Research involving people, animals or sensitive material

Authors must describe the relevant ethical oversight, approval or documented exemption for their work. Where applicable, identify the approving body and reference number, explain consent procedures, and report study registration. An exemption must have a stated basis; it is not a substitute for the oversight required for the research.

Protect participants’ privacy. Do not include identifiable information without an appropriate basis and any necessary consent for publication. Research involving animals must describe relevant oversight and welfare measures. Work involving sensitive communities, cultural material or restricted data should explain the permissions and safeguards used.

Competing interests and funding

Disclose financial and non-financial interests that a reader could reasonably consider relevant to the work. State the funding sources and describe any funder involvement in study design, data handling, interpretation, manuscript preparation or the decision to submit. If there are no relevant competing interests or no external funding, say so explicitly. Editors and reviewers must also declare conflicts and decline or withdraw when impartial evaluation is not possible.

Use of artificial intelligence

AI systems cannot take responsibility for a paper and must not be listed as authors. Authors remain responsible for every claim, citation, image and analysis in their submission. Disclose generative AI use that contributes to drafting, translation, coding, analysis or image production, identifying the tool and explaining its role. Ordinary spelling checks do not require a separate declaration. When AI is part of the research method, provide enough detail for the method to be evaluated.

Do not present generated material as observed data or use AI to fabricate sources. Do not upload confidential submissions, reviews or identifiable participant information to external AI tools without the necessary authorization and safeguards. This approach reflects the accountability principle in COPE’s position on authorship and AI tools.

Concerns, corrections and retractions

Anyone raising a concern should identify the relevant submission or article, describe the issue and provide verifiable supporting information. Concerns should be directed to the editorial office through the journal’s contact route; authors can also use the discussion area for their submission.

The journal may seek an explanation, examine relevant records, consult additional expertise or contact an institution. Authors should cooperate with reasonable requests for clarification. When a published error can be corrected without undermining the work as a whole, a linked correction is appropriate. An expression of concern or retraction may be needed when the reliability or integrity of the record is in question. Such notices should explain the reason and preserve a transparent connection to the original article. Publication decisions are separate from findings of personal misconduct.