BJGP supports the ethical principles set out by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE): see their reviewer and author guidelines. Research must conform to the Helsinki declaration, and you will normally have to confirm that the study has been approved by a named research ethics committee. In addition, you must ensure that there is no risk of you being charged with duplicate publication.
Competing interests
- All authors of all articles that are being considered for publication in the BJGP must disclose any competing interests and we will publish all these competing interests.
- Competing interests can be personal or non-personal, financial, or non-financial. The BJGP expects full transparency in declarations and does not set an arbitrary time limit or monetary value on potential competing interests.
- The potential for conflicts of interest is as important to disclose as actual conflicts and readers should be able to come to their own judgements with full and transparent disclosure.
- We expect reviewers to declare competing interests or, if they identify a potential conflict and they feel it is appropriate, to decline to review an article. If a peer reviewer has any concerns they should contact the Editor.
- Editorial team members of the BJGP who may have competing interests, activities, or relationships related to manuscripts will be recused from editorial decisions. All Editors will provide their own disclosure statements. These are available online at BJGP.org.
- The Editors’ decision about eligibility of an article for publication will consider the competing interests and the context of the article. This applies to all articles, including commissioned ones, and articles may not be eligible for publication if any author has a competing interest that, in the Editors’ opinion, may detract substantially from the perceived credibility of the article.
- The BJGP reserves the right to publish additional information related to known potential competing interests when those details are in the public domain. For instance, in the UK the ABPI Disclosure UK database provides information on payments to healthcare professionals and organisations that may be pertinent.
- It is understood that, on occasion, authors will be writing commentaries and other non-research article types that are based on their position or perspective. Full transparent disclosure is still expected but this positionality, if intrinsic to the article, will be taken into consideration in any decision and will not mean the article is necessarily excluded.
- Reviewers and Editors may, quite reasonably, ask authors to tone down or reconsider conclusions and recommendations emerging from the work which may be perceived to be coloured by the source of funding.
- In principle, any authors writing as representatives of an institution or organisation must disclose relevant competing interests of their institution or organisation as well as their own personal competing interests. We recognise this can be complex and potentially overwhelming and this needs to be proportionate. If in doubt, we encourage authors to declare and, if necessary, to discuss potential competing interests with the Editor at the earliest opportunity.
- The BJGP reserves the right to reject articles, at any stage of submission, if a competing interest that emerges would, in the judgement of the Editor, potentially harm the integrity of the publication.
- Competing interests that come to light after the publication of an article will be considered by the Editor and, if necessary, the Editor will liaise with the Editorial team and the Editorial Board. The BJGP will follow COPE guidance and, if necessary, corrections will be issued or, in the most egregious cases, we will take further action up to and including retraction.
Statements of competing interests are included in online versions of research articles.
Misconduct
BJGP takes allegations of misconduct seriously. In the first instance the Editor will contact the author(s) to request further details. If unresolved the case may be assessed by the BJGP Ethics Advisor who will follow the processes outlined in the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) flowcharts.
Patient consent
All authors must declare that, where relevant, patient consent has been obtained and that all reasonable steps have been taken to maintain patient confidentiality. In the case where an individual does not have the legal, mental, or physical capacity to consent (for example, an underage child, a person with cognitive or intellectual disabilities, or a deceased person), permission can be granted by another person and they are required to state their relationship to that individual.
Duplicate publication
Medical editors have expressed concern about the practice of generating numbers of related articles from the same study (sometimes called ‘salami publication’).
This a matter or good publication practice rather than ethics. When considering whether to publish findings separately or together, authors should consider the degree of overlap according to the following questions:
- is this the same, related or a completely different question?
- is it using the same or different methods to answer the question?
- is it assessing the same, overlapping, or a completely different population of participants?
BJGP supports a general policy of encouraging more complete publishing: combining findings into single articles rather than separating them. Where authors are considering how to present findings, they should discuss with the Editor the extent to which submitting a more complete report will require the word limit to be extended.
To enable the Editor to make a judgement, authors should include with the submitted file, abstracts or full copies of other articles published, in press, submitted or planned, that have come from the same study.
