Upholding ethical standards in submissions and peer review

Dear Colleagues,

As members of the orthopaedic academic community, we share a collective responsibility to safeguard the integrity of the scientific publishing process. In recent months, two pressing concerns have repeatedly come to our attention, both of which threaten the credibility of our scholarly work and the progress of our field.

Duplicate Submission: An Ethical Breach with Serious Consequences

Duplicate submission is defined as the act of sending the same manuscript, in the same or different languages, to more than one journal at the same time. We have observed an increasing number of cases in which authors submit the same manuscript simultaneously to multiple journals, most likely with the aim of accelerating their academic promotion. Once the article is accepted by one journal, they proceed to retract it from the others. In some instances, this practice has been repeated by the same individuals multiple times. As journals publicly declare acceptance decisions and publication dates of published articles, such practices are easily detected.

Such behavior is not only disrespectful to the editors and reviewers who dedicate their time and expertise, but also a direct violation of widely recognized ethical standards. Both the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) explicitly prohibit duplicate submissions, emphasizing that manuscripts must be considered by only one journal at a time. ICMJE states: “Authors should not submit the same manuscript, in the same or different languages, simultaneously to more than one journal.” Similarly, COPE guidelines clearly identify duplicate submission as unethical, highlighting the wasted editorial and peer review resources it generates.

The consequences of this misconduct extend beyond wasted time. Duplicate submissions create confusion in the scientific record, risk duplicate publication, and undermine the trust that is foundational to scholarly communication. More importantly, they set a dangerous precedent for younger academics who may perceive such shortcuts as acceptable. Scientific publishing is built on a framework of honesty, transparency, and mutual respect. Repeated violations of this framework for personal advancement represent a serious breach of professional responsibility.

As editors, we emphasize in the strongest terms that duplicate submission is not a minor error but an act of misconduct. Journals are increasingly compelled to take action—ranging from formal retractions and notifications to institutions, reporting to relevant ethical committees, and restrictions on future submissions—to protect the integrity of the scholarly record.

Peer Review in the Era of Artificial Intelligence

Peer-review remains one of the most vital functions of academic journals. Through this process, manuscripts are refined, corrected, and elevated to their best possible form. The critical insights of fellow experts are not only a quality filter but also a cornerstone for the advancement of science.

With the rapid development of artificial intelligence tools, such as ChatGPT and similar systems, reviewers now have access to powerful aids capable of analyzing manuscripts and generating comments within seconds. These tools are undeniably helpful when used responsibly: they can highlight overlooked points, suggest language improvements, or accelerate the drafting process.

However, we are increasingly seeing a problematic trend—reviewers submitting AI-generated texts as their “peer reviews” without genuine engagement. Simply copy-pasting an AI output into a review form does not constitute a review. Such feedback lacks depth, contextual understanding, and the critical perspective that only an experienced orthopaedic surgeon or researcher can provide. Moreover, it reduces peer review to a mechanical exercise, thereby failing both the authors and the broader scientific community.

AI should remain a supportive tool, not a substitute for critical thinking. A review report must ultimately represent the reviewer’s own evaluation, judgment, and accountability. AI-generated suggestions should always be carefully scrutinized, modified, and endorsed by the reviewer before submission. Otherwise, we risk turning peer review into a hollow exercise that stalls scientific progress rather than promoting it.

We urge all colleagues to reflect on these issues. Upholding ethical standards in submission and conducting authentic, thoughtful peer reviews are not optional—they are essential to maintaining the credibility of our journals, the trust of our readership, and the advancement of orthopaedic science.

Yours Sincerely,

Haluk Berk, M.D.