The answers given below are based on common and accepted best practices within the STM community and a broad consensus within Elsevier.

If you are dealing with a more complex case of misconduct to which you do not seem to find a solution and you have entered a difficult “grey-area”, please contact your Publishing Editor or submit your question to ethicshelpdesk@elsevier.com.

Q & A on Policies:

 What’s the first step to be taken in an investigation of misconduct and who should take the first step?

The first step is always to evaluate the allegation that is being made and attempt to understand clearly the type of ethics issue that is being alleged (fraud, authorship misidentification, plagiarism, etc). The next steps to be taken will depend on the circumstances and type of allegation, although there are always things in common (documentation, communication with the "allegedly wrong-doing" author, etc).

Our view is that in most cases most aspects of the "investigation" are the responsibility of the Editor-in-Chief. Editors have the in-depth knowledge of the field, are aware generally of the kinds of research being conducted at which institutions, are often aware of the individual researchers and their reputation, and thus are in the best position (as compared to an Elsevier staff person) to evaluate claims. It is not unusual for these investigations and communications to have frustrating aspects, but it is generally accepted that it is part of the responsibility of being an Editor.

When dealing with other Publishers regarding cases of plagiarism or dual submission, the copyright form is the proof legally used to determine the official article of record. However, it can be argued that the submission stage (which clearly indicates the author's intention) as well as the acceptance date are also valid criteria. In practice it's often the case that Publishers agree on a submission date or acceptance date. What's Elsevier's position?

Elsevier supports the efforts made by the STM trade association to establish common guidelines and agreements among publishers for retractions and removals (see STM Guidelines on Preserving the Record of Science). Those Guidelines note that the date of the publishing or copyright agreement should govern, meaning whichever journal has the earliest formal agreement should be considered the journal where the "article of record" was published, and other duplicate publications should be retracted. Elsevier believes however that there may be more useful and practical ways of identifying which publication is the article of record (for example, perhaps it should be related to which journal published the article first in time). There is nothing wrong with negotiating with the other publisher/journal concerning these matters, with the understanding that if the other publisher/journal rejects this we can always fall back on the copyright agreement date.

What is considered a serious or what a less serious case of misconduct? What are the different sanctions applicable?

From a scientific perspective, fraud is the most serious, as it has the potential to mislead other researchers into fruitless areas of research, confuse readers, and possibly to cause harm (especially with respect to medical research and drug treatments).

Elsevier has a range of sanctions in our policies (see below), ranked in order of severity, which notes that the most serious sanction is some form of "banning" decision by the Editor. We believe however that the seriousness of the publication of a corrective notice is often under-appreciated. The publication and dissemination of the corrective notice, in whatever form, that identifies that misconduct has taken place and generally identifies who the acting party was in the misconduct, is a very significant act. Researchers exist and work in a community, and the community's awareness of an ethical problem committed by a particular researcher is a very serious matter.

Elsevier and other organizations such as COPE have elucidated a series of other possible "sanctions", in order of severity, including:

• Publication of a notice, corrigendum or erratum
• Formal retraction for most matters (the publication of a corrective notice with a direct link to the original article)
• Formal removal (in very rare cases) (keeping in mind the importance of maintaining the scientific record, removal should only be for issues such as invasion of privacy)
• Publication of an editorial discussing the matter
• Decision by the editorial board on future submissions by the author or author group

All sanctions should be considered and weighed carefully by the Editor-in-Chief

Is there any institution at Elsevier checking the decision/recommendation of the Editor? What about if the authors object? Is there an independent committee for this?

There is a formal checking process for the retraction/removal procedure (see Elsevier Policy on Article Withdrawal). It is not unusual for an author or other party to raise an objection to a decision made by the Editor, but the Elsevier policy is to rely on the Editor's decision and to actively support it. We expect the Editor to make an informed and considered view and decision about what is more likely to be true, and we will then do whatever is required to implement the Editor's recommended sanction or other recommendation. If there are legalistic dimensions (lawyers involved or threats to bring in lawyers, etc), we will involve the Elsevier Legal Department. There may be instances as well where Legal review will be useful (e.g. complex competing factual narratives), and our lawyers are prepared to assist.

Many Editors talk about banning authors who have been determined to have committed plagiarism from publishing in their journals. There are often requests to create a "black" list of authors. Is this a possibility?

Elsevier does not have a "corporate" view on this matter. On one hand, we recognize that an important tradition in publishing and science is freedom of expression and opposition to censorship. Thus the notion of banning authors is clearly contrary to this tradition. On the other hand, we recognize that, after giving a particular author (or group of authors) a number of chances (certainly more than one) to learn the rules of proper publication, it would be reasonable for an Editor to conclude that consideration of further papers from such an author (for some period of time) would be likely a waste of their time and resources (and those of the peer review community). Again, we support Editors in making such determinations, and expect and hope that they will make such determinations reasonably and with deliberate consideration to the relevant facts.