RESEARCH INTEGRITY
Checks across the publication lifecycle
Research integrity
Authors are expected to submit original work, represent methods and results accurately, disclose relevant conflicts, obtain appropriate approvals and follow accepted standards for authorship and attribution.
Editorial safeguards
The platform supports controlled authorship changes, editorial screening, reviewer management, audit history and structured decision workflows. These controls help reduce silent changes and improve accountability.
Concerns and corrections
Potential integrity concerns should be evaluated proportionately and documented. When the scholarly record requires correction, clarification or other action, the journal should follow an evidence-based process appropriate to the issue.
Originality, citation and responsible use of tools
Describe prior work fairly, distinguish new findings from earlier publications and attribute images, datasets, measures and software appropriately. Plagiarism, fabricated references, manipulated data and undisclosed duplicate submissions are incompatible with a trustworthy scholarly record. Use of generative tools does not relieve authors of responsibility for every claim, citation, image and calculation.
Research involving people and sensitive information
Studies involving participants should identify the applicable institutional ethics review, informed consent process and privacy protections when required. Human-centered research frequently involves behavioral traces, workplace measures, clinical information or identifiable recordings; these must be handled with proportionate safeguards and lawful permissions.
Authorship and manuscript record integrity
All listed authors should have an appropriate scholarly contribution and approve the submitted work. Author order and contact details must be accurate. Material changes to authors, titles, abstracts or keywords should be disclosed and reflected consistently in the system and manuscript; changes should not be hidden within a revised file.
Reproducible evidence and limitations
Provide sufficient detail on sampling, apparatus, design, analysis and uncertainty for informed evaluation. Distinguish confirmatory claims from exploratory observations, report important negative findings and discuss biases, generalizability and limitations. Where data cannot be shared, explain the access restrictions accurately.
Handling concerns without presumption
Potential overlap, image anomalies, incomplete disclosures or unusual writing patterns require careful contextual review rather than automatic assumptions. Editors may seek source files, methodological clarification or author explanations. Decisions about corrections, rejection or other actions must be proportionate, documented and grounded in evidence.
Use your manuscript ID when contacting the journal office. The secure AHFE Discoveries submission platform remains the authoritative record for your manuscript's current status and required actions.
Open manuscript workspace → Contact the journal office →