Publication Ethics and Research Integrity Policy

Policy owner: Editorial Office, Open Access Cases (OAC)
Applies to: Editor-in-Chief, editors, associate editors, editorial-board members, guest editors, authors, reviewers, and other individuals involved in the preparation, evaluation, publication, or oversight of content published by OAC
Effective date: Upon formal adoption by OAC
Review cycle: Every two years, or earlier if required

1. Purpose

Open Access Cases (OAC) is committed to maintaining the integrity, accuracy, transparency, and credibility of the scholarly and educational record. This Publication Ethics and Research Integrity Policy establishes the ethical standards applicable to manuscripts submitted to and content published by OAC.

The policy defines unacceptable publication practices, establishes procedures for addressing suspected misconduct, and specifies the responsibilities of authors, editors, reviewers, and the publisher in protecting the integrity of scholarly communication.

OAC expects all participants in its publishing process to act honestly, disclose relevant information, respect intellectual property, maintain appropriate research records, and cooperate with legitimate investigations into potential ethical violations.

The journal's commitment to publication integrity applies regardless of an author's institutional affiliation, geographic location, seniority, financial resources, or professional standing.

2. Scope

This policy applies to all manuscripts submitted to OAC, including case studies, research-based cases, analytical articles, and other scholarly contributions considered or published by the journal.

It also applies to concerns arising after publication, including allegations that published content contains fabricated information, materially misleading claims, plagiarism, undisclosed conflicts of interest, or other breaches of research or publication ethics.

The policy covers conduct by:

• Authors and co-authors.

• The Editor-in-Chief, editors, and associate editors.

• Editorial-board members and guest editors.

• Peer reviewers and other external assessors.

• Individuals responsible for research data, documentation, or supporting materials.

• The publisher and other personnel involved in editorial and publication operations, within their respective responsibilities.

Where a matter falls primarily under another OAC policy, the relevant policy will be applied alongside this document. These may include the Peer Review Policy, Conflicts of Interest Policy, Authorship and Contributorship Policy, Research Ethics, Consent and Confidentiality Policy, and Corrections, Retractions and Expressions of Concern Policy.

3. Governing Principles

OAC's publication ethics framework is based on the following principles.

3.1 Honesty and accuracy

Authors must represent their research, evidence, sources, methods, findings, and conclusions accurately. Information must not be knowingly fabricated, falsified, materially distorted, or presented in a manner that misleads readers.

3.2 Originality and proper attribution

Authors must acknowledge the intellectual contributions, data, wording, ideas, and other material derived from third parties. Direct quotations, paraphrased material, adapted figures, and reproduced content must be attributed appropriately and supported by permissions where required.

3.3 Accountability

Authors remain responsible for the accuracy and integrity of their submissions, including material prepared with assistance from artificial intelligence tools, research assistants, external contractors, or other third parties.

Editors and reviewers must fulfil their responsibilities impartially, confidentially, and in accordance with the journal's policies.

3.4 Fairness and independence

Editorial decisions must be based on the journal's scope, scholarly merit, evidentiary quality, ethical compliance, and applicable editorial standards. Personal relationships, institutional status, commercial interests, financial considerations, or external pressure must not improperly determine publication outcomes.

3.5 Transparency

Relevant funding, conflicts of interest, ethical approvals, consent arrangements, material limitations, and other disclosures must be provided where applicable.

3.6 Proportionality and due process

Allegations must be assessed fairly and confidentially, with an opportunity for relevant parties to respond. Editorial action must be proportionate to the nature, seriousness, and evidentiary basis of the concern.

An allegation is not, by itself, proof of misconduct.

4. Responsibilities of Authors

Authors submitting work to OAC are responsible for ensuring that their manuscripts comply with the journal's publication ethics requirements.

Authors must:

1. Ensure that the manuscript accurately represents the underlying research, case materials, evidence, and analysis.

2. Provide appropriate citations and acknowledgements for all material derived from other sources.

3. Avoid plagiarism, fabrication, falsification, and other forms of research or publication misconduct.

4. Ensure that the manuscript is not simultaneously under consideration elsewhere where this would violate OAC's submission requirements or the other publisher's applicable rules.

5. Disclose relevant financial and non-financial conflicts of interest.

6. Identify funding and other material support where applicable.

7. Obtain required permissions for third-party content and appropriate consent for identifiable or confidential information.

8. Disclose relevant ethical approvals and limitations affecting the research.

9. Ensure that all listed authors meet the journal's authorship requirements and have approved the submitted version.

10. Cooperate with reasonable requests for clarification, source documentation, data, permissions, or other materials necessary to assess the integrity of the submission.

11. Notify OAC promptly if a significant error or ethical concern is discovered in a submitted or published manuscript.

Submitting authors must ensure that all co-authors are aware of the submission and agree to its consideration by OAC.

5. Research and Publication Misconduct

OAC treats the following practices as potential breaches of publication ethics. The list is illustrative rather than exhaustive.

5.1 Plagiarism

Plagiarism includes presenting another person's words, ideas, findings, data, images, or other intellectual contributions as one's own without appropriate acknowledgement.

It may include:

• Verbatim copying without proper quotation and attribution.

• Inadequate paraphrasing that reproduces the substance or expression of another work without acknowledgement.

• Use of figures, tables, photographs, datasets, or other content without appropriate attribution or permissions where required.

• Appropriation of unpublished manuscripts, research proposals, or confidential material obtained through peer review or other professional access.

Similarity-detection results may inform an assessment but do not independently establish plagiarism. Properly attributed quotations, references, standard terminology, and other legitimate similarities must be distinguished from inappropriate copying.

5.2 Self-plagiarism and redundant publication

Authors must not present previously published work as substantially new without transparent disclosure and appropriate justification.

Potential violations include:

• Reproducing substantial portions of previously published text without acknowledgement.

• Republishing substantially the same case study or analysis without disclosure.

• Dividing one body of work into multiple publications in a misleading manner.

• Reusing previously published figures, tables, or other material without appropriate attribution or permissions where required.

Legitimate reuse, translations, extensions, or related publications may be considered where the relationship to the earlier work is disclosed, the submission offers a justified contribution, and applicable copyright and publication requirements are satisfied.

Prior disclosure through an authorised preprint server is not, by itself, considered duplicate publication. Such submissions remain subject to OAC's Preprint Policy.

5.3 Fabrication and falsification

Fabrication means inventing data, observations, events, sources, interviews, documents, or research findings and presenting them as genuine.

Falsification means manipulating, omitting, altering, or misrepresenting data, evidence, research procedures, or results in a manner that materially compromises the integrity of the work.

In case-study publishing, these concerns may include inventing company events, misrepresenting interviews, creating fictitious business records, altering financial figures, or presenting hypothetical events as documented facts without adequate disclosure.

5.4 Citation manipulation

Authors, editors, reviewers, and other participants must not engage in practices intended to distort citation metrics or create a misleading impression of scholarly influence.

Unacceptable practices may include coercive citation requests, unnecessary citation padding, fabricated references, knowingly irrelevant citations, or coordinated citation arrangements intended to manipulate metrics.

References must support the claims for which they are cited and must be sufficiently accurate for readers to identify and verify the underlying sources.

5.5 Misrepresentation of sources and evidence

Authors must not knowingly misrepresent what a source states, cite sources that do not support the relevant claim, or rely on fictitious, unverifiable, or materially mischaracterised evidence.

Where a case study relies on interviews, company documents, financial information, archival records, datasets, or other primary materials, authors must accurately describe the nature and limitations of those materials.

Confidential sources may require protection. However, confidentiality must not be used to justify fabricated evidence or to prevent appropriate editorial assessment of a manuscript's reliability.

5.6 Image, figure and document manipulation

Images, photographs, figures, tables, screenshots, and other visual evidence must not be manipulated in a manner that materially misrepresents the underlying information.

Legitimate adjustments for clarity or presentation are permissible where they do not alter the meaning of the evidence. Material alterations, composites, omissions, or synthetic content must be disclosed where relevant and must not be presented as authentic documentary evidence.

5.7 Authorship misconduct

Misconduct relating to authorship may include:

• Gift or honorary authorship without a qualifying contribution.

• Ghost authorship where a substantial contributor is concealed in a misleading manner.

• Excluding a person who meets the journal's authorship criteria without proper justification.

• Listing individuals who have not approved the manuscript or do not accept responsibility for their contributions.

• Falsely claiming contributions or credentials.

• Changing the author list or order through misrepresentation or without the required agreement.

Authorship questions will be handled under this policy and OAC's Authorship and Contributorship Policy.

5.8 Undisclosed conflicts of interest

Failure to disclose a material financial, professional, personal, institutional, or other relevant interest may constitute an ethical concern when the omission compromises transparency or materially affects the assessment of the work.

The existence of a conflict does not automatically establish misconduct. OAC will consider whether the conflict was disclosed, appropriately managed, or deliberately concealed.

5.9 Unethical research and unlawful acquisition of material

Authors must comply with applicable ethical requirements for research involving human participants, personal information, confidential business records, and other protected material.

Potential violations include the absence of required informed consent, inappropriate disclosure of identifiable information, misuse of confidential documents, misrepresentation of ethical approval, or acquisition of material through deception or unauthorised access.

OAC may request supporting information concerning consent, permissions, ethics approval, or lawful access to materials where relevant.

5.10 Undisclosed or inappropriate use of artificial intelligence

Authors must comply with OAC's Artificial Intelligence Use and Disclosure Policy, where applicable.

AI tools must not be used to fabricate evidence, generate fictitious citations, misrepresent research procedures, conceal substantive contributions, or produce material presented as verified when it has not been appropriately checked.

Authors remain responsible for the accuracy, originality, attribution, confidentiality, and ethical acceptability of the entire manuscript.

5.11 Manipulation of peer review

Unacceptable practices include fabricating reviewer identities, supplying misleading reviewer contact information, interfering with confidential review materials, improperly influencing reviewers, or arranging sham reviews.

Any concern involving compromised peer review will be assessed independently of the manuscript's scholarly content and may result in suspension of the editorial process or other appropriate action.

6. Research Integrity in Case-Study Publishing

Because OAC publishes case-based scholarship, authors must take particular care to distinguish documented events from interpretation, illustrative scenarios, hypothetical examples, and reconstructed narratives.

Authors should:

• Identify the principal sources supporting material factual claims.

• Explain relevant limitations in the availability or reliability of evidence.

• Obtain appropriate consent and permissions for confidential or identifiable materials.

• Avoid unsupported allegations concerning identifiable individuals or organisations.

• Distinguish actual events from hypothetical or composite cases.

• Disclose material relationships with the organisations or individuals discussed.

• Correct material factual errors when they are identified.

Where an article contains fictionalised, composite, simulated, or hypothetical elements, those elements must be clearly identified so that readers are not misled into believing that invented details are verified historical facts.

OAC may request supporting documentation, clarification of methodology, source verification, or other evidence reasonably necessary to evaluate a manuscript's reliability. Any request for confidential material will take account of privacy, contractual obligations, applicable law, and the journal's confidentiality requirements.

7. Responsibilities of Editors and Reviewers

7.1 Editorial responsibilities

Editors must assess submissions impartially and maintain appropriate confidentiality throughout the editorial process.

Editors must:

• Apply the journal's published policies consistently.

• Disclose and manage conflicts of interest.

• Refer manuscripts to independent editors where recusal is required.

• Treat allegations of misconduct seriously and assess them fairly.

• Avoid disclosing allegations or confidential information beyond those who reasonably need to know.

• Document significant decisions concerning ethical concerns.

• Initiate appropriate corrective action where a published record is materially unreliable.

An editor must not personally manage a manuscript where a relevant conflict prevents impartial handling. Editor-authored manuscripts must be handled in accordance with OAC's Editor-Authored Manuscripts and Editorial Independence Policy.

7.2 Reviewer responsibilities

Reviewers must evaluate manuscripts honestly, constructively, and confidentially.

Reviewers must not:

• Use unpublished material for personal, professional, or commercial advantage.

• Share confidential manuscript content without authorisation.

• Accept a review where an unmanageable conflict of interest exists.

• Intentionally delay a review to benefit their own work or interests.

• Make unsupported accusations of misconduct.

• Demand irrelevant citations or otherwise attempt to manipulate citation practices.

Reviewers who identify a credible concern about research integrity should report it confidentially to the responsible editor, providing a clear explanation and supporting evidence where available.

8. Identification and Reporting of Ethical Concerns

Concerns may be raised by authors, reviewers, editors, editorial-board members, readers, institutions, publishers, or other persons with relevant information.

Reports should identify the article or manuscript concerned, describe the alleged issue, and provide supporting information where reasonably available.

OAC may also identify concerns through editorial assessment, similarity-detection tools, reference verification, post-publication comments, or other appropriate means.

Reports should be submitted through the journal's designated editorial contact channel. OAC will assess reports in good faith and will not dismiss a concern solely because it originates from a person outside the journal's editorial network.

Anonymous reports may be considered where they contain sufficiently specific and credible information to permit meaningful assessment.

Individuals raising concerns must not knowingly submit fabricated allegations or misuse the complaints process to harass authors or interfere improperly with editorial decisions.

9. Preliminary Assessment and Investigation Procedure

OAC will use a proportionate, evidence-based process to assess suspected breaches of publication ethics.

Stage 1: Receipt and initial assessment

The Editorial Office will record the concern and assess whether it falls within the scope of this policy.

The initial assessment may consider:

• The specificity and credibility of the allegation.

• The material available to support it.

• The potential seriousness of the alleged breach.

• Whether the concern affects a manuscript under review or an already published article.

• Whether urgent action is needed to protect readers or preserve evidence.

Where a concern is plainly unsupported or outside the journal's remit, OAC may close the matter with an appropriate record of its reasoning.

Stage 2: Conflict check and appointment of a responsible editor

The Editor-in-Chief or an appropriately authorised editor will oversee the matter, subject to conflict-of-interest requirements.

If the Editor-in-Chief, another editor, an editorial-board member, or the publisher is implicated, the matter must be referred to an unconflicted person with appropriate authority to oversee the assessment.

A person whose conduct is under investigation must not determine the outcome of that investigation.

Stage 3: Gathering information

OAC may request an explanation or supporting documentation from the corresponding author, relevant co-authors, reviewers, or other appropriate parties.

Depending on the concern, the journal may examine original sources, research records, data, permissions, ethics approvals, manuscript versions, correspondence, or relevant publication history.

Requests must be reasonable and proportionate. OAC will not assume that failure to provide a document automatically proves misconduct, particularly where legitimate confidentiality or access restrictions exist. However, an inability to verify material evidence may affect the journal's assessment of the work's reliability.

Stage 4: Opportunity to respond

Where an allegation is sufficiently credible to warrant further inquiry, the relevant person or persons will ordinarily be given a fair opportunity to respond to the material concerns.

The response period will be reasonable in light of the complexity and urgency of the matter. OAC may extend the period where justified.

The journal may proceed on the available evidence if a party does not respond after reasonable attempts to obtain a response. Non-response alone will not be treated as conclusive proof of misconduct.

Stage 5: Institutional or external referral

Where the matter requires access to institutional records, formal research-misconduct procedures, or expertise beyond the journal's remit, OAC may refer the concern to the relevant institution, research organisation, employer, funder, or other competent body, where appropriate and lawful.

The journal will distinguish its own editorial responsibility for the published record from any formal institutional determination of misconduct.

OAC is not a substitute for an institution's research-integrity investigation. It may nevertheless take appropriate editorial action when the reliability of a manuscript or published article cannot be established.

Stage 6: Decision and documentation

The responsible editor or authorised independent decision-maker will assess the available evidence, relevant responses, applicable policies, and the seriousness of the concern.

The decision and its rationale will be documented internally. Where appropriate, the decision may include no further action, a request for correction, rejection, withdrawal, an expression of concern, retraction, or another proportionate response.

10. Interim Measures

Where credible concerns raise an immediate risk to readers or the integrity of the publication record, OAC may take proportionate interim measures while an assessment is ongoing.

Such measures may include suspending editorial consideration, temporarily restricting access to disputed material where necessary, or publishing an expression of concern for an article already in the public record.

Interim measures are precautionary and do not constitute a final finding of misconduct.

OAC will seek to avoid unnecessary disruption to access and will restore or update the publication record when the circumstances warrant it.

11. Outcomes and Corrective Actions

Actions will depend on the nature, seriousness, evidentiary basis, and consequences of the concern.

11.1 No further action

Where the available evidence does not substantiate the allegation or no material breach is identified, OAC may close the matter without further action.

11.2 Clarification or correction

Where an article contains a limited but material error that can be corrected without undermining its overall reliability, OAC may publish a correction or clarification.

11.3 Rejection or withdrawal before publication

A manuscript may be rejected or withdrawn from consideration where a serious ethical breach is established or where its reliability cannot be adequately assessed.

Withdrawal of a manuscript from consideration does not necessarily prevent further investigation into the conduct concerned.

11.4 Expression of concern

OAC may publish an expression of concern where substantial questions remain about an article's reliability or ethical acceptability and the available evidence does not yet support a final determination.

11.5 Retraction

Retraction may be appropriate where an article is shown to contain materially unreliable findings, substantial plagiarism, fabricated or falsified evidence, serious ethical violations, or other defects that undermine its integrity.

Retractions will be handled under OAC's Corrections, Retractions and Expressions of Concern Policy. A retraction is intended to correct the scholarly record and does not, by itself, establish the intent or personal culpability of every author.

11.6 Other measures

Depending on the circumstances, OAC may also:

• Request additional disclosures or documentation.

• Require revisions before publication.

• Decline further submissions where justified under applicable policies.

• Notify an institution, funder, or other relevant body where appropriate and lawful.

• Review editorial or peer-review procedures that contributed to the problem.

Any restrictions on future submissions must be justified, proportionate, documented, and applied consistently.

12. Confidentiality, Fair Treatment and Protection Against Retaliation

OAC will handle ethical concerns confidentially to the extent reasonably possible and consistent with a fair assessment, applicable law, and the journal's obligations to protect the scholarly record.

Information will be shared only with individuals who reasonably require it to assess or resolve the matter, or where disclosure is otherwise justified.

OAC will take reasonable steps to avoid unnecessary reputational harm to persons who are the subject of an unsubstantiated allegation. At the same time, confidentiality will not prevent appropriate correction of a materially misleading or unreliable published record.

Good-faith reporting of suspected misconduct must not result in retaliation through the journal's editorial processes.

Knowingly false allegations, deliberate obstruction of an investigation, destruction of relevant evidence, or attempts to intimidate participants may themselves constitute grounds for further action.

13. Recordkeeping and Transparency

OAC will maintain appropriate internal records of material ethics concerns, investigation steps, responses, decisions, and corrective actions, subject to applicable privacy, confidentiality, and record-retention requirements.

Public notices concerning corrections, expressions of concern, and retractions will provide sufficient information to explain the nature of the action and its implications for the scholarly record, without disclosing unnecessary confidential information.

Where appropriate, notices will be linked to the original article and retained as part of the publication record. OAC will not silently alter or remove a published article merely to conceal an established error or ethical concern, except where removal or restricted access is necessary and justified under applicable law or other exceptional circumstances.

The journal may publish a notice of retraction or correction even where an author disputes the decision, provided that the action is supported by the evidence and handled under the relevant policy.

14. Cooperation with Institutions and Other Publishers

Where an investigation involves multiple institutions, journals, or publishers, OAC may cooperate with relevant parties to clarify facts, avoid unnecessary duplication of investigative work, and protect the integrity of the scholarly record.

Information will be shared on a need-to-know basis, subject to confidentiality, privacy, legal obligations, and appropriate safeguards.

OAC may request confirmation that an institution has received a referral or completed an investigation, but will not claim that an institution has reached a particular finding unless that finding has been appropriately established.

15. Relationship with Other Policies and Standards

This policy should be read alongside OAC's:

• Peer Review Policy.

• Conflicts of Interest Policy.

• Authorship and Contributorship Policy.

• Corrections, Retractions and Expressions of Concern Policy.

• Research Ethics, Consent and Confidentiality Policy.

• Artificial Intelligence Use and Disclosure Policy.

• Editor-Authored Manuscripts and Editorial Independence Policy.

• Complaints and Appeals Policy.

• Preprint Policy.

• Copyright and Licensing Policy.

The policy is informed by recognised scholarly publishing ethics principles, including the guidance of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), and should be interpreted consistently with applicable law and OAC's actual publishing procedures.

Where a specific procedure is governed by another OAC policy, the relevant policy should be applied together with this document. In the event of an inconsistency, the publisher and editorial leadership will review the relevant provisions and establish a consistent approach.

16. Policy Administration and Review

The Editorial Office is responsible for maintaining this policy and coordinating its implementation with the Editor-in-Chief, editorial team, and publisher.

The policy will be reviewed every two years, or earlier if required by changes in recognised publication ethics standards, applicable law, OAC's publishing model, or experience arising from its implementation.

Material revisions will be documented and communicated through the journal's website.