Editorial Policies
Ethical standards governing diagnostic pathology publication at JCDP.
Commitment to Research Integrity
JCDP maintains rigorous ethical standards aligned with Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) guidelines. These policies ensure integrity, transparency, and fairness throughout the diagnostic pathology publication process.
All research manuscripts undergo rigorous peer review by qualified pathology experts. Reviewers are selected based on expertise and absence of conflicts of interest. JCDP uses single-blind peer review where reviewers know author identities but remain anonymous. Editorial decisions are based solely on scientific merit, diagnostic relevance, and methodological quality.
Human Subjects
Research involving human specimens requires IRB approval and informed consent. Ethics details must be stated in the Methods section.
Animal Research
Studies using animals require institutional ethics approval. Authors must indicate compliance with relevant guidelines and regulations.
Data Integrity
Authors are responsible for accuracy of all presented data. Fabrication, falsification, and manipulation constitute serious misconduct.
All authors must meet ICMJE criteria: substantial contributions to conception or design, drafting or revising, final approval, and agreement to be accountable. Gift authorship and ghost authorship are prohibited. Corresponding authors confirm all listed authors meet criteria and approved submission.
Disclosure Required: All authors must disclose financial or personal relationships that could influence their research. This includes funding sources, consulting relationships, speaker fees, and stock ownership. Reviewers and editors must also declare conflicts and recuse when appropriate.
Allegations of misconduct including plagiarism, data fabrication, duplicate publication, or authorship disputes are investigated following COPE flowcharts. Depending on findings, responses may include rejection, retraction, institutional notification, or publication of corrections and expressions of concern.
Authors may appeal rejection decisions within 30 days if they believe evaluation was unfair or significant errors occurred. Appeals should provide detailed justification addressing specific reviewer concerns. The Editor-in-Chief reviews appeals and final decisions are communicated within 4-6 weeks.
Errors discovered after publication should be reported promptly. Minor errors are addressed through corrigenda. Major issues affecting conclusions may require retraction with clear explanation. JCDP follows COPE retraction guidelines ensuring transparent handling of post-publication concerns.
Handling editors select reviewers based on expertise, availability, and absence of conflicts. Author-suggested reviewers may be consulted but editors make final selections independently. We aim for reviewer diversity across institutions and countries. Reviewers who consistently deliver high-quality, timely reviews are prioritized for future invitations based on their demonstrated expertise and reliability.
JCDP operates transparently, publishing editorial board composition, conflict of interest policies, and peer review approach information publicly. We welcome questions about our editorial processes and respond promptly to author and reader inquiries.
