Journal Policies

Principal Editorial Policies 

Publishing Ethics and Research Integrity Statement 

For the Thieme Group, the integrity of our content and publishing process is of the utmost importance. The following principles provide a set of best practices that pertain to all our journals. They are intended for a variety of stakeholders, including authors, peer reviewers, editors, societies, publishing partners, and funders.

In addition to these general principles, there may be specific guidelines and policies for authors on research integrity and ethics that are appropriate to their subject matter and discipline. All are based on the recommendations of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and, where appropriate, the International Council of Medical Journal Editors (ICJME) and other relevant industry agencies.

Research Integrity 

Basing ourselves on the European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity, we support the production of scientific knowledge according to the tenets of accuracy, honesty, reproducibility, and transparency. In so doing, we expect that all research submitted to us for publication has been conducted along the following four principles:

• reliability in regard to the quality of the research;
• accountability from the research idea to its publication;
• honesty and transparency in all ways the research is developed, undertaken, reported, and communicated; and
• respect for the researcher and non-researcher colleagues as well as for the objects of the research, be they human beings, animals, society, the environment, etc.

Any concern will be handled by our internal research integrity group and dealt with according to COPE principles and practice. For further queries, please contact publishingethics@thieme.de.

Editorial Process

For us, editorial independence is pivotal to the enterprise of publishing research, and we strive to protect it from competing interests and other influences. We do not discriminate against authors, editors, or peer reviewers because of race and ethnicity, sex, gender, sexual orientation, nationality, religious beliefs, and disability, but actively encourage collaboration of scholars from all backgrounds.

All editorial decisions on manuscripts submitted are the responsibility of our editors, who are external academic subject experts. Editors commission and take into account independent peer review reports, in line with every journal’s peer review policy as stated in their Instructions for Authors.

Thieme will not allow any abusive behavior or correspondence towards its staff or anyone else engaging in the publishing process on our behalf. We reserve the right to take action to protect our staff as well as authors, editors, or reviewers from abuse, whether verbal, written or physical. This may include manuscript withdrawal, cancellations of contracts and other actions appropriate to the committed offense.

Appeal Procedure

The appeal procedure allows authors to respond to the editorial decisions on their manuscript at any stage. To appeal, the authors can send a rebuttal letter addressed to the editor dealing with their manuscript. The letter should explain the reason for the appeal and provide clear point-by-point detailed explanations why the authors disagree with the decision. The editor will evaluate the appeal and, if it is granted, further assessment of the manuscript may be carried out by an external reviewer. The editor will then decide on the manuscript, and this will be a final decision. An appeal will be considered at the discretion of Thieme and will be handled on a case-by-case basis.

Peer Review

Peer review plays a pivotal role in maintaining the quality of our publications. To ensure this, we:

• provide the necessary resources, training, and support to make sure that the peer review process is rigorous, fair, and effective for all our publications;
• urge our editors and peer reviewers to be knowledgeable about and follow the best practices for peer review as outlined by COPE and ICMJE;
• expect those who manage the peer review process to be able to identify any signs of manipulated or fraudulent peer review and report any concerns to publishingethics@thieme.de;
• help our editors and peer reviewers with inquiring into and taking action on any instances of suspected fraudulent or manipulated peer review;
• maintain confidentiality about those involved in the peer review process if anonymity is part of the publication's peer review process, and we expect our authors, publishing partners, and peer reviewers to respect and uphold any relevant confidentiality agreements for each journal.
  
  

Peer Review Model 

All scientific journals at Thieme perform either single- or double-anonymized peer review. Some journals use Select Crowd Review. We require our journals to display their peer review model on the journal homepage. 

Recommending Reviewers 

Some journals ask their authors to recommend reviewers to assess their work. Proposed reviewers must have no conflict of interest in relation to the content of the paper or its authors. This includes that they may not:

• have a personal conflict or close personal relationship or association with any of the authors
• work in the same department as any of the authors
• be in any way dependent on any of the authors, be it financially or career related
• stand to gain if the publication is accepted and published
• have collaborated with the authors recently
  
  

Transparency 

We aim to abide by the COPE Principles for Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing and encourage our partners in the publishing industry to do the same. 
Integrity of the Scientific Record 
Every version of record published by Thieme is recorded and stored on our servers. If we must alter this record in any way, for instance if we must retract articles due to research misconduct or need to publish an erratum, we aim to maintain the integrity of the scientific record. You can find more information on how we handle such instances in the paragraph on corrections and removals of this statement.
When selling or licensing our journal products, we always do so according to the specific license attached to the item. In case of open access publications this means the product may be used in agreement with the CC-license stipulated.

Thieme's Archival Strategy 

Thieme ensures the long-term preservation and future availability of its digital journal content by cooperating with the digital archive providers CLOCKSS and Portico. The journals are digitally preserved, and the papers remain available and accessible via CLOCKSS and Portico, even if the content is no longer offered by Thieme. All published papers remain part of the scholarly record through this archival strategy.

Bias-Free Language: Ethnicity and Race

Thieme expects authors to submit manuscripts that use language free from bias when describing a population. As such, authors should use language that indicates ethnicity as opposed to race.  The American Psychological Association has published guidance on Racial and Ethnic Identity that authors should follow.

Sex and Gender in Research

Thieme expects authors to use the terms sex and gender correctly as defined by the World Health Organization below:

• Sex – refers to biological differences between females and males, including chromosomes, sex organs, and endogenous hormonal profiles.
• Gender – refers to socially constructed and enacted roles and behaviors which occur in a historical and cultural context and vary across societies and over time.

Thieme endorses the “Sex and Gender Equity in Research – SAGER – guidelines” and expects authors to follow the guidelines. 

Authorship: Definition and Responsibilities

Authorship

Thieme follows the guidelines of the International Council of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) to base authorship on the following criteria:

• substantial contributions to the conception or design of the work; or the acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data for the work
• drafting the work or revising it critically for important intellectual content
• final approval of the version to be published
• agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved
  

Authors who fulfil all these authorship criteria must be included amongst the authors.

Authors of large, multi-center studies should agree on authorship status before work is started and before the paper is submitted for publication. All members of the authors group should fulfil all four criteria outlined above.

Acknowledgements 

Individuals who contribute to a scientific work but who do not fulfil all four authorship criteria outlined above should be mentioned in the Acknowledgements.

Authorship Disputes

In authorship disputes, we recommend consulting the best practices outlined by COPE, ICMJE, and CRediT. Undissolved authorship disputes are referred to the authors' institutions.

Corresponding Author

Thieme follows the guidelines of ICMJE on defining the role of the corresponding author.

The corresponding author:

• takes responsibility for the manuscript during the submission, peer review, and production processes
• is responsible for acting, communicating, and approving all tasks related to the manuscript on behalf of all co-authors, and for keeping all co-authors informed throughout the whole process
• is available post publication to respond to questions and requests for data.

The corresponding author ensures the accuracy of the submitted information during submission, peer review and production, including but not limited to:

• providing details of authorship
• clinical trial registration
• funding
• obtaining ethics committee approval
• collecting conflict of interest statements
• ensuring transparency and permissions on use or re-use of all parts of the manuscript including figures and videos
• removing any information that identifies study participants

A paper can have more than one corresponding author if all corresponding authors understand the responsibilities attached to the role. We allow multiple corresponding authors from a display perspective and for post-publication queries. However, technically only one corresponding author can be accommodated in the submission systems, in the processes for signing publishing agreements, and to determine eligibility for discounted or waived article processing charges (APCs) under Open Access (OA) agreements.

The affiliation of the corresponding author identified in the submission system is used to determine eligibility for discounted or waived article processing charges (APCs) under OA agreements. If there are multiple corresponding authors and no submission system is used, the first corresponding author is deemed the author eligible under OA agreements.

Submitting Author

The corresponding author may delegate the requirement of ensuring the accuracy of the submitted information from submission until acceptance to a submitting author as long as both authors work closely together. 

The submitting author:  

• must be listed as an author on the paper
• physically submits the paper online
• does not have to be the corresponding author but needs to assign the corresponding author in the submission system
• is responsible for uploading and entering all data and files related to the manuscript including metadata, such as affiliations, funding information, and conflicts of interest

Shared First Authorship

If authors are not listed alphabetically, by tradition the first author has usually made the largest, most substantial contribution to a paper. Assigning equal first authorship is possible when authors have made an equal contribution and no author has made a dominant contribution.

Equal first authorship is usually indicated by a lozenge (^◊) and the statement "^◊ These authors contributed equally".

Artificial Intelligence and Authorship

Thieme aligns itself with the COPE Position Statement on Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Authorship.

Generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) tools must not be listed as authors, as they do not fulfil all criteria for authorship. They cannot take responsibility for the integrity and the content of a paper, and they cannot take on legal responsibility.

Instead, GenAI use must be transparently documented in the Acknowledgements or Material and Methods sections (see Disclosure and Transparency paragraph). 

Deceased and Incapacitated Authors

If an author who has made a significant intellectual contribution to a paper dies or becomes incapacitated before submission, the co-authors must vouch for any potential conflict of interest and declare it during submission.

If the deceased or incapacitated author is the sole corresponding author, a co-author should be nominated as the corresponding author. If an author dies or becomes incapacitated before the license to publish (LTP) is signed, a legal representative (e.g., inheritor or attorney) should sign the LTP, or the co-authors should obtain written permission to sign the LTP. If the deceased author is the sole author, the author's inheritor must sign the LTP.

In a published paper, a deceased author should be indicated with a dagger (†) symbol and a footnote added to the published article indicating the date of death. 

ORCID 

Thieme strongly recommends that authors use Open Researcher and Contributor IDs (ORCIDs). An ORCID is a free, unique, and persistent identifier.

It ensures that an author is distinguished from other researchers and helps readers, reviewers, funders, institutions, and publishers to reliably identify an author.

It helps to attribute work correctly by ensuring that the author's work is distinguished from other researchers' works. 

Changes to Authorship 

Changes to authorship after original submission may be necessary. For example, the inclusion of a new author during a major revision may be justified when new experiments need to be conducted in response to reviewer comments.

A simple email is not sufficient. Change requests, e.g. the addition and removal of authors before publication (see COPE guidelines), require:

• an explanation why the author was omitted in the first place
• a detailed description of the various tasks performed by individual authors and contributors according to CRediT taxonomy
• explicit written agreement of all co-authors of the original and new version declaring that they

agree with the new author list

This information must be provided in an 'Authorship change request form' available here. In ScholarOne, before acceptance authors may be able to use the new authorship change function.

Any requests to change the author list, including changes in corresponding authorship, will undergo a thorough examination. After acceptance, any requests will be subject to both final approval of the Editor-in-Chief (for the editorial ethics aspects) and the publishing editor (for the commercial aspects).

Changes to authorship after publication require the publication of a linked corrigendum.  

Name Changes

Thieme supports equity and inclusion, including allowing authors to change or update their name on articles hosted on our publication platform Thieme Connect. Given the potentially sensitive and private nature behind name change requests – including (but not limited to) alignment with gender identity, or as a result of marriage, divorce, or religious conversion – we will update and republish the paper without a correction notice and without informing the co-authors of the change. Authors wishing to change their name on a publication should contact publishingethics@thieme.de.

Thieme re-exports updated data to all indexing services but cannot guarantee that they will implement the changes and has no control over how long this takes.

Due to changes in the production processes over the years, Thieme may no longer be able to produce an updated version of the paper. 

Affiliations

The affiliation of an author should represent the institution where the majority of the research was conducted, approved, and supported. The affiliations of all authors must be listed on the paper in an own section. The primary affiliation shall be listed first.

Authors who have recently moved must list the affiliation where the research was conducted, and the new affiliation should be included in a note in the Acknowledgement or References sections. For non-research papers, the current institutional affiliation shall be listed. Authors without a current relevant institutional affiliation should state their independent status.

The affiliation of the corresponding author identified in the submission system is used to determine eligibility for discounted or waived article processing charges (APCs) under Open Access (OA) agreements. If there are multiple corresponding authors and no submission system is used, the first corresponding author is deemed the author eligible under OA agreements.

There may be instances in which it is necessary due to an honest error to change affiliation details after submission, after editorial acceptance, or after publication. Authors should contact the publishing editor of the journal to assess the request. The completion of an Affiliation Change Request Form may be required, and if approved the change will be made at the page proof stage. The publishing editor of the journal assesses if the change in affiliation has a commercial impact, e.g. change in open access agreement, discount/waiver eligibility, and sanctions violations. In case the change has an impact, the publishing editor reaches out to the open access support team (OA-support@thieme.com).

As for the change in author role, the Editor-in-Chief must approve the change and consider the editorial integrity perspective.

After publication, changes in affiliations, if granted, require the publication of a linked corrigendum. The same commercial and editorial integrity approval as defined above is required.

Thieme respects the views of authors and editors in identifying their own country and takes a neutral position on territorial claims in affiliations. These geographical designations do not represent an opinion on the legal status of countries and regions.

Research Ethics 

Ethical Approval and Patient Consent

Research Involving Human Subjects

All research involving human subjects must have been conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki; including the planning, conduct and reporting of the research. In accordance with and quoting from the recommendations of the ICJME, we also require that, if there is any reason to believe that the research may not have been conducted according to the Helsinki Declaration, “the authors must explain the rationale for their approach and demonstrate that the local, regional or national review body explicitly approved the doubtful aspects of the study.”

Research that involves human participants, tissue, or data must be approved by the appropriate institutional ethics committee and must follow international ethical and legal standards for research. The manuscript must include the name of the ethics committee that approved the research and the ethics committee approval number. If formal ethics committee approval was waived, the name of the ethics committee that granted the waiver must be included.

The authors must also secure permission from individual participants to publish any data that may identify them, such as photographs, videos, clinical data, quotes, demographic information, and other details. For children under 18 years of age, consent must be obtained from the child's parent or legal guardian. We provide downloadable forms in our Journal Author Lounge.

Consent to participate does not mean consent to publish. Authors must obtain prospective consent from the individuals involved to participate in the research and/or for their tissues (e.g., biopsy material) or data to be used, and the method of obtaining consent must be specified. The details of consent to participate should be included in the manuscript.

The requirements for consent and the method of obtaining it can be established by the authors' institutional ethics committee or other appropriate institution. In cases where consent was not or could not be obtained, the editor may request evidence that the ethics committee waived the need for consent.

Clinical Trial Registration

To be considered for publication, registration of clinical trials in a publicly accessible registry is mandatory. The ICMJE defines a clinical trial as any research project that prospectively assigns human participants to one or more health-related interventions to evaluate their effects on health outcomes. Trials must be registered before enrolling patients. The registry must be managed by a non-profit organization, accessible to the public for free, have a mechanism to validate registration data, and be electronically searchable. An acceptable registry must include a unique trial number, trial information, funding source, contact information, study details, ethical review, medical condition, interventions, inclusion/exclusion criteria, study type, start date, target sample size, recruitment status, and primary and secondary outcomes. Registry name, ID number, and URL must be included in the manuscript and/or entered during submission.

Recommended trial registries are ClinicalTrials.gov and any of the primary registries that participate in the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform.

Reporting Guidelines

When reporting on health-related research, authors are best following the Enhancing QUAlity and Transparency Of Health Research (EQUATOR) guidelines. For randomized controlled trials, we recommend authors follow the CONSORT reporting guidelines, ideally providing a flow chart to show how participants progressed through the study. This flow chart should be submitted as a separate file.

Research Involving Animal Studies

Research involving animals must comply with relevant national and institutional animal welfare guidelines. Authors must name the institutional ethics committee and reference number that granted approval for the experiment in the manuscript. If the institutional ethics committee has granted an exemption, it must be included in the manuscript. Examples of regional regulations include:

- EU Authors: European Union’s Directive 2010/63/EU on the protection of animals used for scientific purposes.

- UK Authors: UK government’s guidelines concerning Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 and Amendment Regulations (SI 2012/3039).

- US Authors: National Institutes of Health’s Office of Laboratory Animal Welfare’s Public Health Policy on Human Care and Use of Laboratory Animals Policy in addition to the Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals by the National Research Council. Authors must also consult the American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) Guidelines for the Euthanasia of Animals (2020) for guidance on veterinary best practice for the anesthesia and euthanasia of animals.

- Australian Authors: Australian Code for the Care and Use of Animals for Scientific Purposes by the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC).

Authors must detail the ethical treatment of their research animals using the ARRIVE guidelines.

Research Involving Cell Lines

When submitting research papers involving cell lines, the Materials and Methods section must clearly indicate the origin of the cell lines used. If established cell lines were used, it is important to mention their source and provide references to either a published paper or a commercial supplier. In the case of newly created cell lines that have not been published before, including those received as gifts from other laboratories, approval by the institutional review board or ethics committee must be provided. Additionally, if the cell line originates from humans, written informed consent must be provided.

Research Involving Biological Samples and Specimen

We expect all our authors submitting research papers involving the collection of biological specimens and samples to have done so in accordance with the Nagoya Protocol on Access to Genetic Resources and the Fair and Equitable Sharing of Benefits Arising from their Utilization, which is aligned with the Convention on Biological Diversity. Legal permits from the country of origin must have been obtained and must be made available upon request. It is imperative that all such samples are collected in a manner that is both ethical and fair, in accordance with the applicable laws that are relevant to the specific context.

Safety

Authors should highlight risks, include appropriate safety precautions, and cite relevant codes of practice, especially when there are concerns about chemical and biosecurity threats. This will allow readers to safely reproduce and build on the work by taking precautionary measures.

Dual-Use Research of Concern

Dual-Use Research of Concern (DURC) research has clear potential benefits and could also be directly misapplied to do harm with broad consequences to health and safety, security, plants, animals, the environment, and materiel.

Thieme reserves the right to peer review papers specifically to assess the risks and benefits of publishing the research. If the benefit of publishing a paper is outweighed by the potential harm, it may be rejected. Published papers may be retracted, removed, or corrected.

Authors should take steps to minimize misuse of their research and are expected to comply with any national regulations as well as their institutional and funder’s requirements. They should disclose in the cover letter to the editor whether their study is subject to consideration as dual-use research of concern.

Competing Interests 

Authors must disclose any conflict of interest during the submission process and a conflict of interests statement is mandatory in all published articles, even if it is to declare that there is no conflict of interest. Referees and editors of our journals must inform the Editor, Publisher, or Editorial Office of any potential conflicts of interest that could compromise the quality, impartiality or authenticity of the publication. Competing interests refer to circumstances that may be seen as exerting undue influence on the creation, evaluation, or publishing of a piece of work and can be financial, non-financial, professional, contractual, or personal in nature. The relevant editor or publishingethics@thieme.de should be informed if there is an undisclosed conflict of interest related to a published or pending publication. 

Funding Information

A funding statement is mandatory in all published papers in the form of a Funding Information section that facilitates transparency and attributes credit to funders.

During submission, authors must disclose all applicable funding sources, grant numbers, the names of the people to whom the grant was awarded, and roles of the funders. Authors can also declare that no funding was obtained.

Funding sources provide financial support, for example:

• that helps to cover the expenses associated with the research presented in the paper (e.g., equipment, materials, analysis)
• for publication of the paper (e.g., through payment of article processing charges or language editing services)

Funding sources can be internal funds, for example provided by the author's institution, and external funds, such as those obtained from for-profit companies, foundations, and charities.

Author should describe the role of any funders in relation to:

• the design of the study
• data collection, analysis, or interpretation
• paper writing
• publication of the study

If the funder has no involvement in the points above, the authors should state this.

Artificial Intelligence: Disclosure and Transparency

If authors use substantive tools to create text, the use must be transparently documented in the Acknowledgements or Material and Methods sections by including the following statement: 

                Declaration of GenAI use
                During the writing process of this paper, the author(s) used ((tool name)) in order to ((description)). The author(s) reviewed and edited the text and                              take(s)  full responsibility for the content of the paper. 

Artificial Intelligence and Text

GenAI tools generate text by 'predicting' the next word in a sequence rather than 'knowing' the meaning of the response. GenAI tools:

• can generate authoritative-sounding output that is incorrect, incomplete, or replicates and amplifies bias
• may lack standards of academic practice of attributing ideas properly and citing correctly
• may infringe on privacy, confidentiality, copyright, and other rights of authors and publishers

Authors are accountable and liable for every part of their paper. Any content they create or alter with the help on a GenAI tool must be properly reviewed and edited before inclusion in a paper.

Authors must check and verify the authenticity and validity of each suggestion.

Authors must determine whether to accept the suggestions provided by GenAI, and authors bear the ultimate responsibility.

For example:

Artificial Intelligence and Images, Videos, and Illustrations

Research integrity, privacy, and copyright issues relating to AI-generated visual content remain unresolved. Therefore, Thieme Science journals do in general not permit images, videos, and illustrations that have been created using GenAI.

Authors who have legitimate reasons to include AI-generated image in their paper for a specific purpose should contact the publishing editor of the journal, and if approved, signing the 'Publication of AI-generated images' form is required. 

Images, e.g. of Western blots, tissue cell staining, and cell technology analysis, must be obtained through experiments.

Authors may use non-generative machine learning tools to enhance their existing images in accordance with accepted scientific practises if the use is disclosed in the caption.

Artificial Intelligence Overview

Thieme also aligns itself with the STM Generative AI Paper 2023.

*This statement refers to cases when researchers are using AI to mimic or manipulate existing research outcomes. When AI is the topic of research, this will be allowed. For example, it is allowed to develop and use AI tools to predict physical properties of molecules.

Data and Supporting Evidence  

Data Availability Policy 

Reproducibility of scientific research is at the heart of the scientific enterprise. Hence, we promote transparency and openness of research data. Authors should keep accurate records of their data that are needed to help others understand, check, and reproduce new discoveries. When it is appropriate and permitted, we encourage authors to:

• deposit their data in a suitable repository in way that is suitable for sharing and further use by others;
• include a Data Availability Statement (see below) in their publication indicating where the evidence can be found;
• make their data available in accordance with the FAIR principles of data sharing.

Some publications also allow authors to submit and publish supplementary materials that are not essential to the main text but would be beneficial to the reader. Unless stated otherwise, these supplementary materials are not subjected to peer review. 

As we hold patient privacy in the highest regard, Thieme encourages all authors to make the underlying data of their articles publicly available, where ethically and legally possible. As every community is different, we have developed different levels of our data availability policies. Prior to submission, please visit the journal’s Instructions for Authors for more information on the particulars of the journal’s policy. 

Data Availability Policy Levels  

• Level 1: Journal encourages data sharing. Data Availability Statement is not required. The journal encourages all authors, where legally and ethically possible, to make all underlying research data publicly available. A data availability statement is encouraged, but not required.
  
  
• Level 2: Journal encourages data sharing. Data Availability Statement is required. The journal encourages all authors, where legally and ethically possible, to make all underlying research data publicly available. A data availability statement is required at the time of article publication. Please see below for examples. 
  
  
• Level 3: Journal requires data sharing. Data Availability Statement is required. The journal requires all authors, where legally and ethically possible, to make all underlying research data publicly available as a formal requirement of publication. A data availability statement is required at the time of article publication. Please see below for examples.
  
  
• Level 4: Journal requires data sharing. Underlying research data has been peer reviewed. Data Availability Statement is required. The journal requires all authors, where legally and ethically possible, to make all underlying research data publicly available as a formal requirement of publication. The underlying research data must be submitted to the journal as it will undergo peer review. A data availability statement is required at the time of article publication. Please see below for examples.
  
  

Data Availability Statements 

Please see below for examples of Data Availability Statements that all authors are welcome to use. 

Data Repository 

Thieme has partnered with Zenodo, a generalist open access repository developed by CERN, The European Organization for Nuclear Research, that allows researchers to easily deposit underlying research data sets.

Authors who wish to make their underlying research data publicly available should deposit the data to Zenodo prior to submission. Zenodo will assign a DOI to the underlying research data, which should then be uploaded with the primary data at the time of manuscript submission. Please visit the respective journal’s Instructions for Author for more information.

Data Mining 

Our terms of use allow for the text and data mining of its content for any lawful purpose as long as access to the content being mined has been obtained legally. For further details, please contact ejournals@thieme.de.

Misconduct

Following the ICJME, we define misconduct in research and non-research publications to include (though not necessarily be limited to) data fabrication, data falsification (including deceptive image manipulation), plagiarism, or purposeful failure to disclose relationships and activities. We also consider non-compliance with agreed protocols that results in harm to humans, animals, or the environment, and knowingly aiding or concealing such acts, as misconduct.

Misconduct is not to be confused with honest mistakes, differing interpretations or assessments of research methods or results, all of which are part of the normal course of conducting and reporting research. We aim to differentiate between misconduct and mistakes and handle all allegations with diligence and care, realizing that academic careers may be at risk.

Our Approach to Reported Misconduct 

If there are any concerns about misconduct or inaccuracies in our published content, we follow the recommendations given by COPE.

In the event of suspected misconduct, our first step will be to inform the authors and editors involved. Then, the journal editor will investigate the concern and, if necessary, resolve it through discussions with relevant parties or by referring it to a proper institution for further investigation. If the investigation shows that the content needs to be corrected or retracted, we will do so following COPE’s Retraction Guidelines, while still preserving the integrity of the scientific record and of any other related works by keeping associated metadata and the abstract (if legally possible).

Any actions taken due to proven or suspected misconduct will follow COPE's guidance. For more information, please see the Corrigenda, Retractions, and Expressions of Concern section below. 

Our Malpractice Policies  

Research Misconduct

Conducting research on humans, human tissue, or data without obtaining informed consent from the individuals involved, or without considering their safety, dignity, or privacy rights, is considered misconduct. Additionally, it is also misconduct if the research is conducted without obtaining necessary approvals and permissions or failing to comply with national laws.

Research that does not abide by our policies regarding human subjects or data, or that violates the ethical and humane conduct policies for animal research and collection of biological specimens and samples, may be subject to retraction.

Publication Misconduct: Data and Image Falsification and Fabrication

Altering data or images in a deceptive manner (referred to as data falsification) or creating fake data, images, or results (known as data fabrication) is considered clear misconduct and will most likely result in the retraction of the affected publication. We are investing in the use of software to help detect image manipulation and fabrication.

Publication Misconduct: Paper Mills

We strongly believe that paper mills and the fake research papers they turn out pose a serious threat to the integrity of the scientific record. We are doing our best to train our editors and staff to recognize these papers and are investing in appropriate software. Confirmed cases of paper mill publications are retracted and the authors are banned from submitting further papers to Thieme journals.

Publication Misconduct: Plagiarism

We follow COPE’s definition of plagiarism as instances “when somebody presents the work of others (data, words or theories) as if they were his/her own and without proper acknowledgment.” This can involve all types of sources and media, including text, illustrations, and may include material obtained from websites, manuscripts, or other sources, both published and unpublished, including lectures, presentations, and grey literature. 

We do not allow plagiarism in our publications and reserve the right to check submissions to our journals by means of suitable plagiarism detection tools. Submissions found to contain plagiarism, in whole or in part, will be rejected. Should plagiarism be discovered after publication, we follow the guidance outlined in the Corrigenda, Retractions, and Expressions of Concern section of this statement.

Thieme expects readers, reviewers, and editors to report any suspected plagiarism by contacting the relevant editor.

Publication Misconduct: Text Recycling

Text recycling is a form of self-plagiarism and occurs when an author reuses parts of their own previously published material without proper citation or acknowledgement. This is different from “redundant” or “duplicate” publication, which describes repeating text or data with at least one common author on a much larger scale.

Whether text recycling in a manuscript is deemed acceptable is determined by considering

• The amount of text being recycled.
• In which parts of the article the recycling occurs.
• Whether the source of the recycled text is cited or acknowledged.
• The type of article (research or non-research).
• If there is a breach of copyright.

If text recycling is found to be unacceptable, a submitted manuscript may be rejected. For a published article, retraction or a post-publication change may be necessary, as outlined in the Corrigenda, Retractions, and Expressions of Concern section.

Publication Misconduct: Redundant Publication

According to COPE, redundant (duplicate) publication happens when an author(s) publishes the same work, or sizeable parts of it, more than once without proper referencing or explanation for the repetition; independent of publication languages.

Authors must not submit manuscripts to our journals when they have already submitted the same material to another publication or entity (such as a journal, book, or similar). Authors should also share information about any related works they have published or that are currently under review at another journal, even if written in a different language. We do not tolerate extensive overlap in publications unless the editors decide that it will improve the academic discourse, there is permission from the original source and the proper citation included.

We expect our readers, reviewers, and editors to report any suspected cases of duplicate or redundant publication by reaching out to the appropriate editor. Handling redundant publication when they are discovered after publication is in alignment with the procedures outlined in the Corrigenda, Retractions, and Expressions of Concern section below.

Placing a preprint on the author’s personal website, in an institutional repository, or in a preprint archive will not be considered prior or duplicate publication.

Publication Misconduct: Duplicate Submission

Submitting the same paper to different journals simultaneously is publication misconduct. Authors must not submit a paper to our journals while it is under consideration or under revision elsewhere. A paper submitted to a Thieme journal may only be submitted to another journal after it is rejected or withdrawn.

Journal Policy on Prior Publication

Thieme journals encourage the submission of papers that have been deposited in an initial draft version in preprint repositories such as ChemRxiv, arXiv, bioRxiv, Research Square, arXiv, and medRxiv. When posting to a preprint server, authors should retain copyright on their publication. Drafts of short conference abstracts or degree theses posted on the website of the degree-granting institution, and draft manuscripts deposited on authors’ or institutional websites are also welcome. All other prior publication is not acceptable.

During submission, authors should (1) note use of the preprint repository in the cover letter, (2) state what adjustments and/or updates the draft has undergone between deposition and submission and (3) cite the preprint, including the DOI, as a reference in the manuscript.

The submitted manuscript (which is under review for publication in a journal) may be deposited on a preprint server at any time. Upon publication authors should add a link from the preprint to the published article.

In subscription and hybrid open access journals, the preprint version may be updated with the author accepted manuscript (AAM) twelve months after publication. The author accepted manuscript (AAM) is the version that has been accepted for publication. It usually includes revisions resulting from peer review but will be further modified by copyediting and typesetting before final publication.

What and when authors may post to non-commercial preprint repositories:

Publication Misconduct: Undeclared Conflict of Interest

Not disclosing a potential conflict of interest (COI) can be considered misconduct and may result in the rejection of a submission or the retraction of a publication.

Other Types of Misconduct and Fraud

The following behaviors may be considered fraud and, in addition to fabricating or falsifying data and images, may also be regarded as misconduct:

• Deliberately providing false or fraudulent information about author(s) affiliation(s)
• Selling or buying authorship in a publication
• Attempting to influence peer review to achieve a desired outcome.

If any of the above is suspected, it may lead to the rejection or retraction of the affected paper(s).

Corrigenda, Retractions, and Expressions of Concern

Safeguarding the Integrity of the Version of Record

After a paper has been published in the Version of Record (VoR), it may be necessary to correct or even retract it. The journal editors will evaluate retractions, corrections, or expressions of concern in accordance with COPE’s Retraction Guidelines. Changes are made transparent to ensure the integrity of the VoR of a published paper, in line with the Guidelines of the International Association of Scientific, Technical & Medical Publishers (STM).

Corrigenda 

A corrigendum may be necessary due to errors made either during the article's production process (such as during typesetting) or to rectify mistakes made by the authors.

Generally, we consider publishing a correction note (1) if the integrity of the scientific record is substantially compromised and (2) in situations where a minor portion of an otherwise reliable publication is found to be wrong or misleading, particularly if due to inadvertent errors. 

A correction note is published in the next journal issue with the article type corrigendum and the title Corrigendum: "(Article Title)".

- It is freely available, clearly describes the details of the error, and is transparent about the changes made to the VoR. It links to the corrected article.

- The online article is corrected. The article PDF contains a footnote linking to the correction note, and the html version displays a link to the correction note.

The correction note and the corrected paper are linked to each other.

We typically refrain from publishing correction notes on alterations that have negligible impact on the overall contribution or do not significantly hinder readers' comprehension of the work. Typically, the online version is corrected with a footnote detailing the nature of the correction.

Some journals may differentiate: When an error was introduced during the production process, the correction note is termed "erratum," whereas "corrigendum" is used to indicate the correction of an author's error. Authors who notify a journal of errors in their published work are responsible for ensuring that all co-authors agree to having the paper amended before submitting any requests.

Retractions

The journal editors will evaluate retractions, corrections, or expressions of concern in accordance with COPE’s Retraction Guidelines.

If an investigation leads to a retraction:

• A retraction note is published in the next journal issue with the title Retraction Note: "(Article Title)". It is freely available, clearly states who is retracting the paper, describes the reason(s) for retraction, and is objective and factual. It is linked to the retracted article.
• The original article PDF and any supporting information PDF will be retained with a "Retracted Article" watermark on each page. Any HTML version of the document is removed, and the metadata remains online with "Retracted Article:" in front of the full title. It is linked to the retraction note.

The retraction note and the retracted article are bi-directionally linked.

Exceptionally, we may also remove the contents of an article from online publication, if we believe it to be necessary to comply with our legal obligations, for instance, if the article is defamatory, violates personal privacy or confidentiality laws, is subject to a court order, or poses a serious risk to public health. In these cases, the metadata remain online and we publish a note that clearly states why the content has been removed.

Expressions of Concern 

An Expression of Concern may be considered for complex situations where serious concerns have been raised and prolonged investigations are underway but have not yet been completed or where the outcomes of the investigation are inconclusive.

Post-Publication Discussion and Peer Review 

As per the COPE guidance, our journals encourage post-publication discussion and criticism of their published works. This usually takes the shape of follow-up letters and responses published; typically, only one criticism from a single source, along with one response from the author, will be considered for publication.

Guidelines Regarding International Sanctions Affecting Submitted Papers

March 2024

Thieme is obliged to comply with international sanctions imposed amongst others by the EU, USA, and UK, which sanction certain territories, persons, and entities.

Before a paper is considered for peer review and publication in a Thieme journal, these checks are carried out by the person responsible in the manuscript submission systems, including ScholarOne and Editorial Manager:

Does the submitted paper come from Russia, Belarus, Crimea, the Donetsk and Luhansk People’s Republics, Iran, North Korea, Syria, or Cuba?

If Yes, additional steps need to be taken: 

Do any authors (all authors, not just the corresponding author), institutions, or funders appear on these three lists of specific individuals and entities with whom it is illegal to conduct business? 

• The European Union consolidated list.
• The United States specially designated nationals or blocked persons list.
• The United Kingdom consolidated list.
  
  

If Yes, the paper is withdrawn.

Business Ethics 

Libel, Defamation, and Freedom of Expression 

As academic publishers, we regard freedom of expression as a fundamental human right. By the same token, we do not condone the publication of false information that damages the reputation of individuals, groups, or organizations. If allegations of libel are made in any of our publications, our legal team will handle the matter.

Fair Access 

We are a member of Research4Life and other programs that enable researchers in low- or middle-income countries to access our content; and we are also partaking in various global access initiatives to make sure that scholars from these countries have the opportunity to publish in our open-access journals. Additionally, we asses every request for waivers from scholars who do not have the sufficient funds to pay the article processing charges for our open-access journals.

Censorship 

We adhere to COPE’s Statement on Censorship.

Advertising

Thieme journals accept advertising. The advertising team reserves the right to reject advertising orders if their content violates laws, official regulations and health and safety standards, or if the content is deemed unsuitable for the journal. Advertisements are clearly identifiable as such and are kept separate from published content. In general, they are linked to the content (the journal), not to reader behaviour. Frequency caps are used to limit the number of times a user sees the same advertisement during a session. Advertising is not allowed to influence editorial decisions. For further details on advertising, see the terms and conditions.

Sponsorship

Some Thieme Science journals accept sponsorship, including journal, supplement, special issue, and APC sponsorship. For details, see the individual journal web pages. Sponsorship is not allowed to influence any decision through the publication process on any level.

The advertising team and the journal’s publishing editor assess requests for sponsorship based on transparency, aligned with values, our policies, maintenance of an independent editorial process, proportionality of benefits, and applicable law. Sponsorship may include a link and logo on the journal website, online ad banners on the Thieme journal website, and announcements in e-mail newsletters.

Metrics, Usage, and Reporting 

We aim to maintain compliance with industry standards and the COUNTER Code of Practice when assessing content usage. We collaborate with various third-party organizations, such as commercial services and Altmetric and Crossref, to provide users with metrics that show the impact and reception of our content. We support these third-party organizations, but we do not control or influence them and are not responsible for the metrics and rankings they produce.

Permissions

Permissions for a Thesis or Dissertation

In non-open access papers published in a subscription journal, after assigning copyright, authors still retain the right to include their article, including the Version of Record without embargo, in their thesis, and permission from Thieme is not needed for this use as long as it remains strictly non-commercial.