Scientific Misconduct Policy

Our Commitment to Research Integrity

The International Journal of HIV and AIDS Sciences believes that trust forms the backbone of scientific publishing. When we publish research, we're vouching for its integrity — not perfection, but integrity. We take this responsibility seriously.

What We Consider Scientific Misconduct

Scientific misconduct takes many forms, and not all of them are equally serious. That said, we take all of them seriously.

Data fabrication — inventing results that were never actually obtained. This is perhaps the most clear-cut form of fraud.

Data falsification — manipulating research data, equipment, or processes to change results. This includes deceptive manipulation of images and selective omission of data points.

Plagiarism — presenting someone else's work, ideas, or words as your own without proper attribution. This applies to text, figures, methods, and concepts.

Hidden conflicts of interest — deliberately failing to disclose relationships, financial interests, or activities that could influence how readers interpret your work.

Suppression of results — some consider the deliberate failure to publish clinical trial results a form of misconduct, particularly when negative results are concealed. In HIV/AIDS research, where treatment decisions depend on complete evidence, this can have direct patient safety implications.

Methodological problems — research integrity can also be compromised by fundamentally flawed methodology, even without deliberate deception. While incompetence isn't misconduct per se, it can produce unreliable science that shouldn't be published.

How We Handle Allegations

When we receive an allegation of misconduct — or when concerns arise about the integrity of submitted or published work — we follow COPE guidelines in our investigation.

Depending on the nature of the concern, we may contact the authors' institution or funding bodies. If an institutional investigation is underway, we generally wait for its conclusion before taking action. We don't pre-judge, but we do act on findings.

Expressions of Concern

Sometimes we have serious doubts about an article but lack definitive proof of wrongdoing. An investigation might be ongoing, or we might have concerns that can't be easily resolved.

This isn't something we do casually. An Expression of Concern alerts readers that there are questions about the work while acknowledging that we don't yet have answers. It's a holding position — a way of being transparent about uncertainty.

If the concern is later resolved — whether through vindication of the authors or confirmation of problems — we'll update the record accordingly.

Retractions

Retraction is a serious step, and we reserve it for situations where there's clear evidence that the findings are unreliable — whether due to misconduct or honest error — or where ethical violations have occurred.

When we retract an article, we do it properly. A retraction notice isn't just a letter buried in correspondence. It appears prominently, linked to the original article, explaining clearly why the retraction occurred.

In our online systems, retracted articles remain accessible — science benefits from knowing what didn't work out — but they're clearly marked as retracted. Anyone finding them through search will see that status immediately.

Ideally, the authors themselves issue the retraction. We prefer it that way — it demonstrates accountability. But if authors are unresponsive or uncooperative, the Editor-in-Chief can and will retract unilaterally.

When Trust Is Broken: Looking at the Bigger Picture

If an author is found to have committed fraud, it raises questions about their other work. We can't simply assume that problems are isolated to one paper.

If we don't receive satisfactory assurance, we may publish an announcement noting that the reliability of previously published work by those authors cannot be assured. This is a serious step, but scientific integrity requires it.

When It's Not Misconduct, But There's Still Disagreement

Not every dispute rises to the level of misconduct. Sometimes legitimate scientific disagreement exists about methodology, interpretation, or conclusions. These disagreements can be valuable — they advance the field.

Science advances through debate, and we see value in letting readers hear multiple voices — even when (especially when) those voices disagree. We may publish commentary, letters, or responses that challenge published work.

Reporting Concerns

If you have concerns about the integrity of any work published in or submitted to International Journal of HIV and AIDS Sciences, please contact our editorial office at hiv.publish@gmail.com. All reports are treated confidentially and investigated thoroughly.