Allegations of Research Misconduct

Clinical Medicine and Pharmacology considers concerns about the reliability or ethical basis of submitted and published work. Reports may concern invented or altered data, unreliable images, plagiarism, concealed conflicts, patient consent, misleading trial reporting or manipulation of authorship and peer review. The journal assesses the evidence and the publication consequences without assuming that an allegation has already established wrongdoing.

Making a report

A report should identify the manuscript or article, explain the specific concern and provide supporting documents or references where available. Evidence based anonymous reports and concerns raised through public discussion can be considered. The journal avoids unnecessary disclosure of a reporter’s identity but cannot promise absolute secrecy where investigation or applicable obligations require limited sharing. Reports involving possible immediate harm to patients should clearly explain that risk.

Triage and independence

The office aims to acknowledge a report within five working days and complete an initial assessment within fifteen working days. These are handling targets, not promises that an inquiry will be concluded. A person with a relevant conflict is excluded from determining the case. When an editor or publisher representative is implicated, the independent appointment and access safeguards in Ownership Governance and Editorial Independence apply; the implicated person cannot appoint or direct the assessor. Relevant submission versions, reports and correspondence are preserved.

Seeking explanations and evidence

The responsible editor identifies the questions requiring an answer and seeks a response from the authors, contacting coauthors directly when necessary. Requests may include raw data, source images, protocol versions, registration history, consent confirmation or analysis code. Sensitive materials must use an appropriate confidential route. The absence of a reply does not alone prove misconduct, but the journal may need to act if important published claims cannot be substantiated.

Institutional and journal responsibilities

Where a formal research investigation is needed, CMP may contact the institution, ethics body or funder responsible for the work. Those bodies establish matters within their authority; the journal determines whether its article remains reliable and ethically publishable. The editor seeks relevant outcomes and does not allow an indefinitely delayed institutional process to prevent an appropriate warning to readers. Limited information can be shared with other affected journals where needed to examine connected concerns.

Outcomes and communication

During consideration the journal may pause review or publication, request clarification, decline the submission or seek further independent assessment. Published work may require correction, an expression of concern, retraction or exceptional removal. Decisions explain the evidential basis and distinguish established findings from unresolved concerns. Participants receive progress updates at least every thirty calendar days while meaningful action remains pending, subject to confidentiality and available information.

Review and records

A challenge based on new evidence or a significant procedural error is considered by an Independent Appeals Editor under Complaints and Editorial Appeals, without participation in the outcome by the original decision maker. The journal retains enough documentation to support the decision and any published notice. It does not publish accusations merely to punish an author, and it does not close a credible concern solely because an author has paid an APC or a guest editor has left the journal. Questions or supporting documents should be sent through the CMP editorial office at cmpintegrity@jandoopress.com, identifying the manuscript number or article DOI where available.

Last updated: 17 September 2026