Top

Best Practice Guidelines on
Research Integrity and Publishing Ethics

The policies outlined here aim to support authors and researchers with respect to all aspects of scholarly publishing in Wiley journals and publications. The policies have been translated into Chinese and are available here.

Wiley’s Research Integrity team develops and implements policies and best practices across our publishing workflows. We also share our findings with the scholarly community and lead critical discussions on research integrity across the industry. Through our Integrity Assurance & Case Resolution team, we investigate and resolve research integrity concerns in line with our own policies and workflows, which are informed by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) guidelines, correcting the scholarly record where necessary. Research integrity concerns can be raised through the research integrity form; the Integrity Assurance and Case Resolution team will work with the journal’s editor to review and take the appropriate action.

Wiley journals encourage academic debate by giving authors the opportunity to publish letters to the editor or correspondence articles where appropriate. Please note that submitting post-publication critique of an article does not guarantee publication. Letters critiquing articles are often peer reviewed, and the authors of the original article are usually given an opportunity to respond. When correspondence discusses a published article, we follow COPE guidance on handling of post-publication critiques.

Wiley journals consider substantiated appeals of editorial decisions if they provide new evidence or information. Authors should submit their appeal to the relevant journal using the contact details provided on Wiley Online Library.

General Guidance & Best Practice

Authors may wish to use artificial intelligence tools or technologies (“AI Technology”) when preparing a manuscript for submission to a Wiley journal. When used responsibly, AI Technology can help authors maintain high editorial standards, safeguard intellectual property and other rights, and foster transparency with readers. We welcome the responsible use of AI technology, and our AI guidelines for researchers provide more detailed information. Authors remain fully accountable for their submissions and any tools or sources they use.

• Review terms and conditions
  Authors should carefully review the terms and conditions, terms of use, and any other conditions or licenses associated with the AI Technology they are considering. Authors must confirm that the AI Technology does not claim ownership or copyright of their content or impose limitations on how it could be used. These restrictions could affect the author’s or Wiley's rights, including the ability to publish a submission following acceptance. Authors should periodically revisit the AI Technology’s terms to ensure ongoing compliance.

• Human Oversight
  

  Authors may only use AI Technology as an additional tool in their writing process, not a replacement for their own expertise and judgement. As always, authors remain fully responsible for the accuracy of all content and must verify that all claims, citations, and analyses align with their expertise and research. Before including AI-generated content in a journal submission, authors must carefully review it to ensure the final work reflects their own expertise, voice, and originality and that it complies with Wiley's ethical and editorial standards.

• Disclosure
  

  Authors should document all AI Technology used, including its purpose, whether it influenced key arguments or conclusions, and how they personally reviewed and verified any AI-generated content. Authors must also disclose their use of AI Technologies when submitting a manuscript to a Wiley journal. If disclosure is not provided at submission, it may be requested during peer review or after publication. Transparency is essential to our commitment to ethical publishing and integrity. Additional, specific guidance around AI disclosure is available in the section titled ‘Specific guidance’

• Rights Protection
  

  Authors must not use any AI Technology that restricts their own, Wiley’s, or any other party’s use of the submission. Authors must ensure the AI Technology and the provider of that AI Technology does not gain any rights over the author’s underlying content, including the right to “train” their AI Technology on the content, The only exception is the limited right to access and use the submission to provide the service. By reviewing an AI Technology’s terms and conditions, especially for clauses related to “ownership,” “data reuse,” “training,” or “opt out” among others, authors can prevent unintended transfers of rights.

• Responsible and Ethical Use
  

  Authors must use AI Technology in a way that aligns with privacy, confidentiality, and compliance obligations. This includes respecting data protection laws, avoiding the use of AI to replicate the unique style or voice of others, and fact-checking AI-generated content for accuracy and neutrality. Authors should be aware of potential biases in AI outputs and remove any stereotypes or misinformation. For guidance on what to look for when evaluating AI Technologies to protect your research and data, please refer to this table.

• Adherence to Agreements
  

  Authors must adhere to the terms and conditions of their license agreement with Wiley. Authors remain responsible for upholding the warranties in those agreements. The terms potentially affected by using AI Technology are: ensuring their submission is original, that it has not been previously published, and that they have the right to grant the necessary permissions to Wiley as written in their agreement. Standard author agreements are explained in more detail in understanding copyright and licensing.

  
  

We value authors' unique creativity and expertise, and view AI Technologies as tools that enhance, rather than replace, creativity. We remain committed to providing clear guidance that builds trust with readers, protects authors' and Wiley’s rights, and upholds the quality of published content. These guidelines will continue to evolve along with technology and author needs. For additional context, please refer to the STM’s guidance on generative AI in scholarly communications regarding the role of generative AI technologies.

Disclosure: If an author has used AI Technology to substantially edit, develop, or translate any part of a manuscript, its use must be described transparently and integrated into the manuscript as described in our guidance on disclosure and declaration of AI use. AI Tools used solely for spelling, grammar, and general editing are not included in these disclosure requirements. Please see the example disclosure statements provided. Authors remain fully responsible for the accuracy of any information provided by the AI Technology and for correctly referencing any supporting work. AI Technology must not be used to create, alter, or manipulate original research data or results including data visualization, illustrations and photographs. The final decision on whether using AI Technology is appropriate or permissible for a submitted manuscript or a published article belongs to the journal’s editor or other party responsible for the publication’s editorial policy.

AI & Authorship: AI Technology is not considered capable of initiating an original piece of research without human direction. Such tools cannot be held accountable for published work or for research design, which are both requirements of authorship (as discussed in the Authorship section in these guidelines). AI Technology also lacks legal standing and cannot hold or assign copyright. Therefore, in accordance with COPE’s position statement on Authorship and AI tools these tools cannot fulfil the role of an author and must not be listed as one on an article.

Peer Review: Authors should be aware that editors or peer reviewers may use AI Technology to help improve the clarity or quality of the written feedback in a peer review report. If this occurs, the reviewer must disclose that use to the handling editor when the review is submitted. Beyond this limited use, editors and peer reviewers are not permitted to upload manuscripts (or any parts of manuscripts including figures and tables) into AI Technology. Such tools may store or reuse input data for training or other purposes, which could compromise the confidentiality of the peer review process, the privacy of authors and reviewers, and the copyright associated with the submitted work. Peer review remains a fundamental human endeavor. Responsibility for the accuracy, integrity, and overall content of a peer review report rests entirely with the individual reviewer and must not be delegated to AI Technology. Editors have the right to disregard peer reviewer reports that show signs of inappropriate AI use.

Authorship gives researchers recognition, accountability, and legal rights for their work. While authorship definitions and criteria vary across disciplines, the core requirements for authorship are a substantial contribution to the research and accountability for the work undertaken. Authors can create and use their unique ORCID iD to distinguish themselves from other researchers, link to research outputs, and submit manuscripts to Wiley journals. CRediT (Contributor Role Taxonomy) is a community-owned 14-role taxonomy that can be used to describe the key types of contributions typically made to the production and publication of research.

To promote equity and inclusion in research, local researchers who meet authorship criteria should be considered for inclusion. Intercultural research should also appropriately attribute traditional knowledge, respecting anonymity where necessary, through notices or citations of indigenous sources. Contributors who do not qualify for authorship, including minors (with a legal guardian's consent), should be acknowledged.

Corresponding authors

The corresponding author ensures that all co-authors approve the manuscript and that journal requirements are met. This author manages all communication with the journal through submission, review, and publication, and must be authorized to act for all co-authors. If multiple corresponding authors are listed, one Responsible Corresponding Author (RCA) must be designated at submission to sign agreements and authorize publication. This individual acts for all authors and should remain unchanged throughout the process. Eligibility for Article Publication Charge (APC) payments and open access waivers depends on the responsible corresponding author's affiliation at submission in accordance with COPE guidance on author fees and waivers.

Authorship removals/additions

Any authorship additions or removals prior to publication are handled by agreement of the entire author group. These changes must be requested centrally via the journal editorial office or journal submission system. All co-authors, including those directly affected by the change, must provide their agreement. The reasons for the proposed changes will be reviewed and recorded for transparency. Any authorship changes during the production process and following publication must be requested via the 'Request for Changes to Journal Article Author List' form. All co-authors, including those directly affected by the change, must provide their agreement.

Disputed authorship

Neither Wiley nor the editors of journals published by Wiley will adjudicate disputes between authors on whether a contributor qualifies for authorship on a submitted manuscript or published article. Authorship requirements for all of our journals are detailed in their respective author guidelines. In its Discussion document on authorship, COPE recommends that authors ensure agreement, prior to submission, on both the list of contributors who qualify for authorship and the order they will appear.

Managing authorship within the editorial team

If editors, editorial board members, or members of the journal's editorial staff submit a manuscript to their own journal, they should inform the editorial office, editor-in-chief, or another appropriate member of the journal editorial team at the time of submission and include a corresponding statement in their manuscript. They must also remove themselves from the decision-making process. For further information, see Managing Conflicts of Interest: Practical Summary for Editors.

Author name change after publication

If an author requests a name or pronoun change after publication, Wiley will update and republish the article as described in our author name change policy. We will also inform indexing services and handle the request discreetly, without issuing a correction notice or notifying co-authors, to protect privacy. Authors should contact the journal's editorial office to initiate the change.

Deceased authors

If a manuscript includes a deceased author at submission, or an author dies during peer review, Wiley will add an explanatory footnote to the published article. A co-author should confirm the deceased author’s contribution and disclose any conflicts of interest. If the deceased was the corresponding author, another co-author must be nominated. Copyright is considered personal property; if transfer agreements were not signed prior to death, permission must be granted by the author’s inheritor.

Citing appropriate and relevant literature is a shared responsibility across the researcher community to ensure that citation practices within scholarly publishing are responsible, appropriate, and inclusive. Authors should not engage in excessive self-citation of their work or of other authors' work, cite sources that are irrelevant to their article, or engage in other forms of citation manipulation. Any type of citation manipulation will result in the manuscript being rejected. If authors receive requests from editors or peer reviewers to add citations during peer review without a strong scholarly rationale, they should report this to Wiley's Research integrity team through the research integrity form.

Editors, authors, and peer reviewers should disclose interests that might appear to affect their ability to present or review work objectively. These might include relevant financial interests (for example, patent ownership, stock ownership, consultancies, or speaker’s fees), or personal, political, or religious interests.

Authors are legally required to sign a copyright agreement before publication. Standard author agreements are further explained in understanding copyright and licensing.

Wiley is committed to upholding the integrity and accuracy of the publication record. Our research integrity team works with authors, institutions, and editors to investigate and resolve research integrity concerns in accordance with best practice in scholarly publishing. We publish post-publication notices to amend the scholarly record as necessary, such as retractions, withdrawals, expressions of concern, and corrections. Amendments are not punitive in any way and are not a sanction towards the researchers involved. We describe these amendments in more detail in our Policy page for handling post-publication amendments. We encourage authors to use this Correction template when drafting a correction. These amendments are permanent, accessible, and indexable, adhering to the practices and guidance described by NISO recommended practice for the Communication of Retractions, Removals and Expressions of Concern (CREC).

Data sharing

Wiley supports data sharing in creating an open, equitable, and transparent research landscape. We encourage authors to make their research data openly available whenever possible, as this benefits both authors and the research community. We endorse the FORCE11 Joint Declaration of Data Citation Principles and recommend citing data in the format outlined in this proposal.

Policies governing requirements for data sharing are determined by discipline and journal, as well as requirements from research funders, institutions, governments, or varying legal agreements. All research published in Wiley journals must include a Data Availability Statement in accordance with our data sharing policies. Authors should ensure their Data Availability Statement is accurate and provides clear guidance on how to access or request research data. For instance, if an author has stated that data is available for sharing upon request, authors should then be open to complying with reasonable requests for data sharing. Whenever data cannot be shared, authors should include an explanation in their Data Availability Statement.

Definitions of research data vary by discipline, but generally 'data' are defined as any research output that has been collected, observed, or created for the purpose of analysis to produce research results. Research data can include (but are not limited to) raw data, processed data, software, algorithms, code, protocols, methods, materials, photographs, and specimens. Generally, these policies apply to all research data that underlie and support the results documented in research articles. However, journals or communities may have more specific standards. Editors may request access to datasets that are not publicly available during the peer review process.

Reporting guidelines

Accurate and complete reporting enables readers to fully judge, replicate, and build upon research. FAIRsharing provides an overview of reporting guidelines and standards, while many disciplines have developed their own frameworks to support transparent and comprehensive reporting. Authors must provide sufficient information to allow the evaluation of the methods and results presented, in accordance with specific journal policies detailed in their author guidelines. Below, we highlight key reporting guidelines and policies that underpin standard reporting requirements for Wiley journals.

1. In health research, the EQUATOR Network promotes reporting guidelines for common study types. Individual guidelines used by a journal will be detailed in the author guidelines.
2. The ARRIVE (Animal Research Reporting of In Vivo Experiment) guidelines provide recommendations for transparent report of research involving animals. Livestock reporting guidelines are provided by the REFLECT statement.
3. For cell line research, the following information should be provided in the manuscript. If any of this information is unknown, this must be stated and the rationale for the use of the cell line provided. Further guidance on misidentification and contamination is available from the International Cell Line Authentication Committee (ICLAC) register, the NCBI misidentified cell line database, and the Cellosaurus problematic cell line database.
   1. Provide the species, sex, tissue of origin, official cell line name, and Research Resource Identifier (RRID)
   2. Provide the source/supplier of the cell line and when it was obtained
   3. Provide confirmation that the cell line was authenticated for the described experiments (including the percentage match result and method used) and has not been previously reported as misidentified
   4. Provide confirmation that the cell line was free of mycoplasma contamination for the described experiments
4. Research based solely on openly available data sets – (including bioinformatics analysis, computational studies, genome-wide association studies, and Mendelian Randomization studies) must present a clearly defined hypothesis, demonstrate methodological rigor, and include appropriate validation and/or experimental findings to advance knowledge beyond the original data sets. Mendelian Randomization studies must also adhere to the reporting guidelines for Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology using Mendelian Randomization, and a completed checklist must be provided on submission as a supplementary file. Manuscripts that do not meet these criteria may be rejected.
5. Standards for the comprehensive reporting of sex and gender in research including humans and animals are provided by the Sex and Gender Equity in Research (SAGER) guidelines.

Wiley is committed to advancing diversity, equity, and inclusion through intentional efforts to create environments where all individuals feel respected, valued, and empowered. Diverse research perspectives offer new ideas, avenues of discovery and solutions to immense global challenges.

We are one of 56 publishing organizations that have signed the Joint Commitment for Action on Inclusion and Diversity in Publishing. This is a collective initiative aimed at establishing new standards to reduce bias in publishing activities and promote positive change within scholarly publishing. Wiley partners with the Coalition for Diversity and Inclusion in Scholarly Communications (C4DISC) which tackles challenges of diversity, equity, and inclusion in academic publishing through provision of best practices, toolkits for equity and training materials. We publish material on behalf of partner organizations across multiple countries and regions. Our audience is global; we recognize and respect our authors' responsibility to comply with local laws and regulations governing their published works.

Wiley does not tolerate harassment or discrimination against an individual on the grounds of age, ancestry, color, religious creed, physical or mental disability, marital status, medical condition, genetic information, military and veteran status, national origin, race, sex, gender, gender identity, gender expression, sexual identity, sexual orientation, political affiliation, or any other category protected by law.

In turn, we expect everyone involved in research publishing, including authors, reviewers, editors, and third parties, to behave professionally and respectfully to one another. We do not tolerate unprofessional, threatening, or intimidating behavior. If necessary, we will follow up with an individual's research institution and/or employer as required.

Bias-free language

Authors must clearly describe the study population in any research involving human participants, ensuring that all language and descriptors used are accurate and bias-free. The American Psychological Association have guidelines for eliminating bias in language in relation to gender, age, racial and ethnic background, sexual orientation, disability status, and socioeconomic status. Further guidance on the comprehensive reporting of sex and gender in research including humans and animals are also provided by the Sex and Gender Equity in Research (SAGER) guidelines.

Research relating to gender, age, racial and ethnic background, sexual orientation, disability status, and socioeconomic status may contain qualitative data from participants (i.e. direct quotes or transcribed interviews) that could include derogatory demographic descriptors. Authors should not use derogatory demographic descriptors or offensive language unless it is essential to the research in question. For example, offensive language may be acceptable to include if it is a direct quote (transparently noted as such) from a participant reporting their own personal experiences of the use of such language.

Cultures, heritage, ethnicity, and race

Wiley expects authors to build equitable partnerships with local researchers at every stage of their research to actively support the decolonization of research and promote inclusive, contextually-grounded research practices. The TRUST Family of Ethics Codes provides resources to support equitable research practices worldwide. You may also explore the principles outlined in NHMRC Ethical conduct in research with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples and communities and the AIATSIS Code of Ethics for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Research.

Authors should be mindful when reporting on culturally sensitive material. Examples of community-based review approaches include Principles and Procedures: Conducting Research in a Māori Context from Waikato Institute of Technology, New Zealand and Community IRBs and Research Review Boards: Shaping the Future of Community-Engaged Research from Albert Einstein College of Medicine, USA. In addition, the US Office for Human Research Protection provides a searchable database of independent community Institutional Review Boards that approve research and publication of culturally sensitive materials.

Authors should carefully consider and respect sensitivities when publishing images that may be culturally significant (especially those depicting religious texts or historical events) or offensive. Images of human participants, human remains, or animal remains should not be shared (see section below on 'Research ethics' for more information).

Authors are expected to describe demographic information about a study population using terms to designate ethnicity (e.g. African American and South Asian) rather than race. The British Sociological Association (BSA) has developed language guidelines on how to refer to ethnic identity.

Data fabrication is the intentional misrepresentation of research data by making-up findings, recording, or reporting of results. Data falsification is the manipulation of research materials, equipment, or processes, including omitting and changing data, with the intention of giving a false impression. Changes to images can create misleading results when research data are collected as images. Inappropriate image manipulation is one form of fabrication or falsification that journals can identify. It may, however, be legitimate and even necessary to edit images. For example, the selective enlargement of part of an artwork may be needed to reveal features that would not otherwise be visible and editing of video data may be needed to protect the privacy of participants.

The US Office of Research Integrity (ORI) outlines the differences between fabrication and falsification within their definition of research misconduct. Data fabrication is the intentional misrepresentation of research data by inventing findings, generating false records, or reporting fabricated results. Data falsification is the deliberate manipulation of existing research materials, equipment, or processes, including selectively including or excluding data with the intention of giving a false impression.

Inappropriate image manipulation is considered a form of data fabrication or falsification, as it compromises the integrity of the research and can lead to misleading and inaccurate results. However, certain image edits may be legitimate and necessary, provided they do not alter the integrity of the underlying data. Please see Wiley guidelines for the preparation of figures for more information.

Authors should retain original unprocessed images and make them available upon request if necessary. Some journals may also require that original unprocessed images are submitted alongside any processed versions.

Authors must list all funding sources in their manuscript within a dedicated funding section. The Open Funder Registry provides guidance on accurately acknowledging funding sources. Authors should also describe the role of the funder beyond providing financial support where applicable. For example, it may be important to disclose if a commercial organization funded the study, designed the study, and recruited the investigators. All other forms of support should be clearly identified in the funding section. These may include funding for open access publication (from a grant or from an author's institution), support for writing or editorial assistance, or the provision of experimental materials. If there is no specific funding, this should be explicitly stated.

We will address any potential concerns of questionable research practices and publishing ethics malpractice (including but not limited to authorship issues, data fabrication or falsification; plagiarism; peer review concerns and unethical research). Potential concerns may be raised via the research integrity form by authors, readers, editors, peer reviewers, third parties, or as a result of screening.

Where specific and detailed evidence of questionable research practices has been provided, an investigation will be conducted by Wiley's Integrity Assurance & Case Resolution team. All concerns will be treated confidentially and assessed in line with COPE guidance whether raised directly or indirectly. Cases requiring access to primary data or institutional records will be referred to the relevant research institution, employer, relevant national statuary body, or funder for formal investigation. Where necessary, input from editorial board members of the journal will be sought and amendments made to published articles.

The global research community includes diverse perspectives on many issues, including the legal status of certain countries and regions. We believe the best way to respect those views is for authors to state their own institutional and country/region affiliations. We are neutral on any jurisdictional claims. The geographical designations and institutional affiliations in published materials reflect the author’s stance and do not in any way reflect any opinion or position on the part of Wiley.

Peer review is the critical evaluation of a submitted manuscript by subject-matter experts (see COPE's ethical guidelines for peer review). This process is confidential, typically led by a handling editor, and usually involves obtaining at least two independent peer review reports for research manuscripts. Reviewers are selected based on their expertise and a lack of any perceived potential conflicts of interest.

All journals should uphold these over-arching peer-review standards, although specific policies may vary and are communicated on the journal's webpage. Editors will adopt the model of peer review that best suits their journal and community. For more information on peer review terminology see the infographic "A Standard Terminology for Peer Review" and the related ANSI/NISO Standard. Some editors may edit peer review reports under certain circumstances; see COPE's position on Editing or suppressing peer reviews for more information.

The peer review process is a human endeavor. Responsibility and accountability for submitting a peer review report, in line with a journal's editorial polices and peer review model, sits with the experts who have accepted an invitation from a journal to review a submitted manuscript. This process should not be delegated to AI Technology. If authors suspect manipulation of the peer review process or receive requests from editors or peer reviewers to add citations without a strong scholarly rationale, they should report this to Wiley's Research integrity team via the research integrity form.

Plagiarism

Plagiarism is the use of another person's ideas, data, or text without proper attribution. It misleads readers about the true origin of the work and is a serious breach of publication ethics. The US Office of Research Integrity (ORI) provides a working definition of plagiarism, describing it as: "both the theft or misappropriation of intellectual property and the substantial unattributed textual copying of another's work. It does not include authorship or credit disputes."

Wiley routinely screens submitted manuscripts for duplicated text using tools such as Crossref Similarity Check. If significant and unexplained overlap is identified, we will follow COPE guidelines on handling plagiarism in a submitted manuscript or published article to resolve the issue.

Text recycling/self-plagiarism

COPE defines text recycling/self-plagiarism as "reusing one's own previous writing without being transparent about this or appropriately referencing/quoting from the original." Reusing text can sometimes be appropriate; for example, text recycled in a methods section of a manuscript may be more acceptable than text recycled in the discussion section. However, authors should always be transparent and cite the source. We follow COPE endorsed guidance on handling text recycling in a submitted manuscript or published article. There may also be copyright implications, and authors must ensure they have the necessary permissions for reuse, as copyright of the original material may belong to someone else.

Duplicate (redundant) and fragmented publication

COPE defines duplicate/redundant publication as "the publication, or attempted publication, of whole or substantial parts of work/data/analysis that have already been published (or have been submitted elsewhere), without transparency or appropriate declaration/referencing."

Publishing the same manuscript multiple times distorts the scholarly record and is a serious breach of publishing ethics referred to as 'duplicate' or 'redundant' publication. To avoid duplicate and redundant publication, manuscripts must be submitted on the understanding that they are not published, in press, or submitted elsewhere. Reproducing significant parts of previously published work without justification may also be considered as redundant publication. Authors should declare any potentially overlapping publications on submission.

Fragmented publication, also referred to as "salami slicing" or "salami publication", differs from duplicate publication in that it involves dividing research findings into their smallest possible publishable units. This practice is also unethical, as it distorts the scholarly record and artificially inflates publication counts. If fragmentation or duplication of research outputs is identified, we will follow COPE guidelines on handling redundant (duplicate) publication in a submitted manuscript or published article to resolve the issue. There are some exceptions, as outlined in the "Acceptable reuse and prior publication" section.

Acceptable reuse and prior publication

Some prior dissemination and publication can be acceptable and does not constitute duplicate publication if it is transparently disclosed and cited in the submitted manuscript as follows:

1. Abstracts or posters that have been presented and published as part of conference proceedings. However, material already published in full as part of conference proceedings is typically considered prior publication as it is available in citable form.
2. Results presented at meetings, for example, to inform participants about findings.
3. Results in databases and clinical trials registries i.e. data in the form of tables and text to describe information, without interpretation, discussion, context, or conclusions.
4. Dissertations and theses in institutional archives.
5. Manuscripts placed on preprint servers (for more information see Wiley's general preprint policy).
6. Translations of previously published work may be considered at the discretion of the editor, provided that the original journal or publisher agrees and the original copyright is not breached. For further information see COPE's position on publishing translations of previously published articles and ICMJE guidance on acceptable secondary publication.
7. Transparent co-publication of the same article in multiple journals to raise awareness of a particular topic (e.g. community guidelines) may be considered at the discretion of the editor.

A preprint is a manuscript made publicly available that has not yet undergone formal peer review or publication in a journal. It is typically posted on a preprint server by the author either before or at the time of submission to a journal. Wiley encourages authors to submit manuscripts that they have already made available as a preprint where permissible by journal policy. Allowing submission does not, of course, guarantee that a manuscript will be peer reviewed; it simply reflects a belief that availability on a preprint server should not be a disqualifier for submission. Authors should not assign copyright during the preprint process; authors should retain copyright in their work when posting to a preprint server. Preferably, authors should only grant "no re-use" licenses to their preprints. For further information on citing, licensing, and preprint versions and updates see Wiley's general preprint policy. Individual journal policies on preprints can be viewed using the Author Compliance Tool.

It is essential that authors ensure their research adheres to relevant ethical and reporting guidelines (see section above on ‘Data sharing and reporting guidelines’ for more information), and that all necessary consents and approvals have been obtained to publish their work.

Ethics approval

Prospective medical research involving human participants, samples, and data must adhere to recognized ethical standards. See for example:

• WMA Declaration of Helsinki – Ethical Principles for Medical Research Involving Human Subjects
• Belmont Report from the US Department of Health and Human Services
• European Medicines Agency Guidelines for Good Clinical Practice
• Ethical Review Methods for Biomedical Research involving Human Subjects adopted by the National Health and Family Planning Commission of the People's Republic of China

Standards provided by the Sex and Gender Equity in Research (SAGER) guidelines for the comprehensive reporting of sex and gender in research should be followed. Further information regarding research involving clinical trials, vulnerable groups, transplants, surveys, and retrospective studies is available in the sections of the same name below.

Authors must confirm in their manuscript that ethical approval was received before the beginning of the study. The name of the approving ethics committee or institutional review board must also be included, along with any associated approval numbers. Authors are encouraged to follow the CARE guidelines when preparing case reports. Ethics approval must be obtained before a study begins; retrospective ethics approval is generally not accepted. Editors may request additional information or supporting documentation for studies that lack prospective ethics approval, and they may decline to consider such manuscripts.

Consent

Authors must provide details on how freely-given, informed consent for participation in research or treatment was obtained from human participants and, where applicable, whether consent for publication of their data was also granted. This information must be declared to the journal on submission, with a corresponding statement in the manuscript. Informed consent should be obtained from the parent or legal guardian of any participant who is unable to provide informed consent themselves. Consent forms do not need to be submitted with the manuscript, but authors should provide the necessary details if requested by the journal. Wiley provides a standard patient consent for publication form available for use if required.

Researchers must consider additional ethical issues when working with potentially vulnerable groups to ensure their participation is truly voluntary. For guidance, see, for example, the UKRI Economic and Social Research Council's resources on research with potentially vulnerable people. Vulnerability can arise in many ways and can stem from abuse, marginalisation, disability, age, or power imbalances. Potentially vulnerable groups include: women and girls; children; refugees; internally displaced persons; stateless persons; national and religious minorities; Indigenous peoples; migrant workers; people with disabilities; older adults; people living with HIV or AIDS; LGBTQIA persons (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, intersex, asexual, and others); prisoners; people experiencing addiction; and poor or disadvantaged populations. Where research involves potentially vulnerable groups or individuals, researchers and everyone involved in the research and publication process must take particular care to ensure that international ethical standards are upheld and that appropriate protections are in place (see COPE position on the protection of vulnerable groups and individuals). Traditional methods of obtaining consent may not be appropriate in all contexts. For example, the AIATSIS Code of Ethics for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Research outlines responsibilities, principles, and cultural considerations required when partnering with Indigenous peoples for research purposes. Editors or the publisher may request additional information regarding informed consent procedures to ensure that appropriate protection has been given to vulnerable populations.

Identifying information/images

Identifying information or images of human participants or human remains must not be published unless it is essential for the research and explicit consent for publication has been obtained. Masking the eye region in photographs does not adequately protect anonymity (see section II, part E of Recommendations for the conduct, reporting, editing and publication of scholarly work in medical journals by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors).

In the case of technical images (for example, radiographs or micrographs), authors should ensure that all information that could identify the participant has been removed from the image, including precise geographic origin. For voices or images of any human participant, permission and informed consent according to applicable national laws must be sought before recording or distributing. In many jurisdictions, it is a requirement that formal copyright clearance is obtained from participants to publish any video or audio recordings. When publishing genetic sequences or family genograms, authors may need consent from multiple family members, not just the index case, because such data may reveal identifiable information that can impact relatives.

All studies that use donated human organs, tissues or cells are expected to comply with the ethics guidance provided by the World Medical Association's statement on organ and tissue donation. Authors must confirm in their manuscript the relevant details of the ethics approval body and that procedures were undertaken in compliance with relevant international laws. Authors should clearly state the sources of donor tissue in their submitted manuscript and verify that donated organs were obtained with informed consent from the donor, the donor's legal guardian (for minors), or the donor's next of kin (for deceased donors).

Research involving tissue donations from vulnerable groups requires additional care. Authors must provide sufficient details regarding informed consent procedures to ensure that consent was given freely and that appropriate safeguards were in place to prevent coercion or bribery. Wiley journals will not consider manuscripts that contain data derived from unethically sourced organs or tissue, including those obtained from executed prisoners, individuals in custody, or individuals in any form of detention, in accordance with Global Rights Compliance on mitigating human rights risks and the Declaration of Istanbul. Manuscripts that discuss such practices (e.g., editorials or commentaries) may be considered only at the discretion of the editor(s) and require a written request to the journal prior to submission. Editors reserve the right to reject a manuscript if the authors have not provided sufficient information, or if the research conducted does not adhere to accepted standards.

The World Health Organization (WHO) defines a clinical trial as "any research study that prospectively assigns human participants or groups of humans to one or more health-related interventions to evaluate the effects on health outcomes." Clinical trials, also referred to as interventional trials, may include, but are not limited to, "drugs, cells and other biological products, surgical procedures, radiologic procedures, devices, behavioral treatments, process-of-care changes, preventive care, etc." The WHO recommends that all clinical trials meeting this definition be registered.

Wiley requires that authors prospectively register clinical trials (i.e., before participant enrolment) in a suitable, WHO-recommended registry in accordance with WHO policy and the Declaration of Helsinki. If a trial has been registered after recruitment has begun, authors must provide an explanation. Editors reserve the right to reject a manuscript if the explanation for retrospective registration is not acceptable.

Authors should follow the CONSORT guidelines (CONsolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) for reporting randomized trials. Clinical trial registration numbers and the date of registration must be included in all manuscripts reporting trial results. Recommended registries include ClinicalTrials.gov or any of the primary registries listed in the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP).

The International Federation of Pharmaceutical Manufacturers and Associations also requires its members to register clinical trials. Authors should note that legislation requirements may vary by study type and national requirements.

For research projects involving surveys, participants must be informed about the nature and purpose of the research and how their data will be used, stored and reported. Participants should provide voluntary consent and must be told whether their participation is anonymous or identifiable. Where required, ethical approval must be obtained before the survey is undertaken, and information regarding the approval and consent procedures must be clearly stated in the manuscript.

Retrospective studies are typically based on already available data sets or samples. Formal consent requirements may vary by institutional or national guidelines, and in some cases, consent may not be required or may be unobtainable for these data sets/samples. In such studies, authors must consult with their institution's requirements to determine the most appropriate course of action. If ethical approval is not required or has been formally waived by an institutional ethics committee, authors must clearly state this in their manuscript. Editors reserve the right to reject a manuscript or retract a publication offer if the authors have not provided sufficient information, or if the research conducted does not adhere to accepted standards.

Research involving vertebrates and regulated invertebrates must adhere to the accepted international, national and institutional requirements where the research was conducted. See, for example:

• the International Council for Laboratory Animal Science (ICLAS) guidelines for researchers
• the Association for the Study of Animal Behavior (ASAB) guidelines for ethical treatment of animals in behavioral research and teaching
• the Basel Declaration outlining fundamental principles for animal research
• the Animal Welfare Act (AWA) for research on livestock

Authors must confirm in their manuscript that ethical approval was obtained before the study began and must provide the name of the approving body and associated approval code or permit number.

Authors must provide sufficient information to allow the evaluation of the methods and results presented, in accordance with the ARRIVE (Animal Research Reporting of In Vivo Experiment) guidelines, the REFLECT statement for livestock reporting, and the SAGER guidelines.

Any euthanasia and anesthesia methods must be described in detail, including information on the procedures and any agents used. Authors should also provide information on endpoints for any experiments requiring the sacrifice of animals. All steps to reduce suffering must be reported, in accordance with NC3Rs (National Centre for the Replacement Refinement & Reduction of Animals in Research) guidance on humane endpoints. Images of dead animals should not be shared unless they are essential for understanding the research.

Editors may request additional information regarding evidence of ethical research approval or the procedures used during the research. Editors reserve the right to reject a manuscript if the authors have not provided sufficient information or if the research conducted does not adhere to accepted standards for animal research.

Research involving plants and geological samples

Research involving plants (cultivated or wild) and geological samples, including their collection, must comply with all relevant institutional, national, and international guidelines. Authors must confirm that fieldwork has been conducted in accordance with local legislation and provide evidence that the appropriate licenses and/or permissions were obtained.

Dual-use research of concern

Authors are responsible for identifying whether their research could potentially be classified as 'dual-use research of concern', i.e., research that is intended for benefit, but could also be misapplied to cause harm. These may involve products, chemicals, methods, or technologies that could pose a threat to public health or safety, the environment, plants, animals, or equipment. Researchers must assess their research for potential dual-use concerns in line with guidance from the World Health Organization's report and the considerations discussed by the National Science Advisory Board for Biosecurity. Any research that may pose risks to public health, safety, the environment, agriculture, or national security must undergo institutional review, incorporate appropriate risk mitigation measures, and ensure responsible communication and data dissemination. Editors reserve the right to reject a manuscript if the potential for harm outweighs any potential benefit.

Publisher sanctions imposed for questionable practices

On rare occasions, Wiley and/or individual journals may impose sanctions on researchers who have engaged in questionable research practices or publishing ethics malpractice. These sanctions may include bans on submitting material and restrictions on serving as a reviewer or editor. Such restrictions are typically time-limited but may be indefinite if an investigation determines that further involvement would pose a significant risk to Wiley's or the journal's processes or reputation. Bans are communicated directly to the individuals concerned. They are reviewed upon expiry and revoked or extended if necessary. Sanctions may be appealed by writing to the journal and/or publisher with new information; however, initial decisions are carefully considered and generally upheld. To maintain the integrity of published content, information related to sanctions may be shared, as appropriate, with individuals responsible for screening across Wiley.

Sanctions imposed by governments

While Wiley welcomes contributions from all over the world, we are required to comply with sanctions laws and regulations. As of the date of this update, sanctions measures imposed by the United States, United Kingdom, European Union, and Australia are currently in place in relation to Cuba, Iran, North Korea, Russia, and Syria as well as the regions of Crimea, Donetsk, and Luhansk. Journal editors are required to take extra care when handling submissions that involve a sanctioned country or region with regard to the author affiliation, subject matter, and funding in order to ensure publication is compliant with the sanctions laws and regulations in place.

Systematic manipulation of the publication process is when an individual or group of individuals aim to publish research or other scholarly material by dishonest or fraudulent means. This may involve subverting or unduly influencing the peer review process, engaging in inappropriate practices for authorship, citation manipulation or by the publication of fabricated content. COPE's guidance on systemic manipulation of the publication process explores these issues in detail.

Systematic manipulation is often associated with paper mill activity, i.e. "the process by which manufactured manuscripts are submitted to a journal for a fee on behalf of researchers with the purpose of providing an easy publication for them or to offer authorship for sale" (see this research report on paper mills from COPE and STM for further information). Systematic manipulation is an ongoing concern for all involved in scholarly publishing, and Wiley has discussed findings from a broader investigation involving manipulation at scale. Initiatives such as United2Act and the STM Integrity Hub are bringing multiple stakeholders together to work collaboratively on these challenges and address the root causes. We will continue to reject manuscripts or retract published articles that have been implicated in systematic manipulation and/or paper mill activity. In such cases, detailed findings of internal investigations will not necessarily be shared with all parties involved, to limit sharing of intelligence with potential bad actors.

Author Contributions: Kristofer Barr, Petr Borodavkin, Tina Chisnell, James Edgar, Caroline Kelly, Elizabeth Moylan, Jake Seviour, Rebecca Strauss and Max Williams.

Acknowledgements: These guidelines build on earlier versions developed by previous Wiley colleagues. We are grateful to internal colleagues for their review and feedback on the current version.

For more information on our work please see Wiley's research integrity hub

Last updated: May 2026.