Ethics Policies and Procedures

Ethics / Ethics Resources

ASM Processes for Detecting and Responding to Ethics Concerns

ASM follows the Committee On Publication Ethics (COPE) guidelines and flowcharts for handling matters of publishing ethics allegations both pre- and post-publication. The procedures followed by ASM are summarized below.

Ethics Panel: Publishing Board Chair, Director of Journals, Editor in Chief, ad hoc experts (as required).

The Ethics Panel may also consult, or turn the matter over to, the ASM Committee on Ethical Practices or the ASM president. Other parties, such as publishers, university investigative bodies, the Office of Research Integrity (ORI, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services), ethicists, and attorneys may be advised of, be consulted during, or be involved in ASM inquiries.

Procedure for handling allegations of misconduct in submitted manuscripts:

  1. Submissions to ASM journals may be assessed for similarity with other published material and/or image screening to check for originality and image manipulation, respectively.
  2. Editors, reviewers, and/or staff bring suspected instances of ethics misconduct to the attention of the journal Editor in Chief (EiC) and the Journals' Publishing Ethics Manager.
  3. The EiC and Publishing Ethics Manager review the allegation and make a preliminary assessment. If they decide that there is merit to the allegation the manuscript is placed on hold.
  4. Additional analyses, including similarity checks and forensic image analyses, may be requested as necessary.
  5. The EiC sends a letter of inquiry to the corresponding author summarizing the allegation and requesting an explanation. Original data may be requested.
  6. The Ethics Panel convenes to discuss the allegations, explanations, possible corrective actions, and sanctions. Possible sanctions include warnings, increased scrutiny of subsequent manuscripts, and prohibitions from publishing in ASM journals for a period of time, up to possible lifetime bans for the most severe cases.
  7. The corresponding author and co-authors are notified of the Ethics Panel's decision.
  8. Authors may appeal the decision by writing to the ASM Ethics Committee.
  9. ASM's priority is to preserve the integrity of the scientific record. Additionally, we hope to educate authors on issues of misconduct. Therefore, manuscripts submitted by authors who receive warnings and/or sanctions due to ethical misconduct will likely undergo increased scrutiny. Repeated offenses will likely result in more severe sanctions.
  10. In cases of alleged fraud or misconduct, the Ethics Panel will notify the authors' institution(s) and may alert the DHHS Office of Research Integrity. ASM will comply with their investigations and will abide by their decisions.

Additional procedures for handling allegations of misconduct in published manuscripts:

  1. Following the Code of Federal Regulations concerning timelines for pursuing allegations of research misconduct, ASM will pursue allegations of publishing misconduct made within six years of publication in an ASM journal. ASM may pursue allegations of misconduct regarding older papers if these papers provide evidence of an extensive pattern of misconduct.
  2. ASM will not comment on allegations made on public websites or through social media.
  3. The Ethics Panel will decide the appropriate measures to ensure that the scientific record is appropriately corrected in response to an allegation. An authors' correction may be allowed, if the conclusions of the manuscript are not altered by the infringement. However, the manuscript may be retracted if the authors' explanation is insufficient, the authors are unable to provide original data, and/or the conclusions of the manuscript are no longer supported.

Appealing an ASM Ethics Decision

To appeal a decision made by an ASM journal's ethics panel authors must contact, in writing, the ASM Ethics Committee within 30 days of receipt of the decision. The ASM Ethics Committee is managed by the Public Affairs Department and will review independently the decision and the authors' rebuttal.

ASM Review Process for Dual Use Research of Concern (DURC)

The National Science Advisory Board for Biosecurity (NSABB) defines dual use research of concern (DURC) as “life sciences research that, based on current understanding, can be reasonably anticipated to provide knowledge, information, products, or technologies that could be directly misapplied to pose a significant threat with broad potential consequences to public health and safety, agricultural crops and other plants, animals, the environment, materiel, or national security.” ASM relies on authors, staff, reviewers, and editors to bring manuscripts with potential DURC to the attention of the journal's Editor in Chief. Authors should declare potential dual use concerns in the submission cover letter to alert editors and reviewers to possible biosafety and biosecurity concerns. ASM editorial staff screens all submissions for microbes and toxins on the HHS and USDA Select Agents and Toxins List (SATL) to trigger automatic review by the Editor in Chief, who will convene the ASM Responsible Publication Committee (ARPC), if necessary. Following consideration of the scientific import and national security concerns, the ARPC will provide a recommendation for the publication of the manuscript.

ASM Review Process for DURC Manuscripts

 

Casadevall, A et al. mBio 2015; doi:10.1128/mBio.01236-15

 

UPDATED August 2016