Transparent decisions, responsible publication

Journal model and editorial independence

Ethos EM was founded with support from the Department of Emergency Medicine at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center. The journal’s editorial record is hosted through the Texas Digital Library. The Founding Editors are jointly responsible for editorial policy and publication decisions.

Open access and fees

For the journal’s first three years of publication, all published work will be free to read and the journal will charge no submission fees or article-processing charges. Authors select the Creative Commons terms that apply to an accepted work. Before the end of that three-year period, the journal will review the financial model needed to sustain publication; any change will be disclosed before it applies.

Institutional affiliation, hosting support, and any future source of financial support have no role in accepting or rejecting an individual submission. Ethos EM does not accept paid advertising or sponsored editorial content.

Editorial assessment and peer review

Every submission is first assessed for scope, completeness, ethical concerns, and compliance with the selected category. An editor may decline work at this stage when it is outside scope, cannot be reviewed safely, or does not meet a fundamental requirement.

Original Research

Original Research receives reviewer-anonymous peer review: reviewer identities are not disclosed to authors. Reviewers assess the question, design, methods, analysis, reporting, ethics, and whether the conclusions are supported. The assigned editor determines the number and mix of reviewers appropriate to the work; no fixed reviewer count substitutes for editorial judgment. Editors may ask another editor to serve as a reviewer when the work requires it, provided the editor has no disqualifying conflict.

Creative and critical work

Non-Fiction, Fiction, Poetry, and Visual Arts receive editorial and craft review appropriate to the form. Editors may seek additional subject, ethics, or craft expertise when the work requires it. Reviewer identities remain confidential from authors, and reviewers receive a category-appropriate form rather than a research-methods rubric. Author identity may be visible to a reviewer, including an editor serving in that role; every reviewer must disclose and avoid disqualifying conflicts.

Independence and confidentiality

Editors and reviewers must disclose relationships that could affect, or reasonably appear to affect, their judgment. A submission by an editor or a close collaborator is assigned to an unconflicted editor; the submitting editor has no access to the deliberation or decision. Manuscripts and review materials are confidential and may not be shared or used for personal advantage.

Editorial decisions are made by people. Reviewers advise; the responsible editor decides. Acceptance is never guaranteed by prior discussion, invitation, institutional affiliation, or payment.

Authorship and contributorship

Every listed author must have made a substantial contribution, approved the submitted and final versions, accepted responsibility for their own contribution, and agreed to be accountable for the integrity of the work. For research, authorship should reflect contributions to the conception or design; acquisition, analysis, or interpretation; and drafting or substantive revision. For creative work, authorship belongs to the people who created the submitted work.

Contributors who do not meet the standard for authorship should be acknowledged with their permission. Administrative position, general supervision, funding alone, or use of an AI tool does not qualify for authorship. The corresponding author confirms that every author has approved the submission and that the order is agreed.

After submission, Ethos EM writes separately to every listed co-author at the address supplied by the corresponding author. A co-author may connect the manuscript to a verified account, follow author-visible milestones, correct article-specific publication details, provide an individual competing-interest declaration, or report a concern. A response is not required before the corresponding author can submit and routine non-response does not stop initial editorial processing.

A request to add, remove, or reorder authors after submission must explain the reason and include the agreement of every affected author. The journal may decline the change or pause review while it is resolved.

Originality and prior publication

Submitted work must be original, must not be under consideration by another journal, and must not infringe another person’s copyright or other rights. Authors must identify related manuscripts, preprints, conference abstracts, public performances, exhibitions, or earlier versions that could overlap with the submission.

Posting a research preprint does not automatically prevent consideration, but it must be disclosed. The editor evaluates whether prior public circulation of creative work is compatible with first publication. Quotation, adaptation, and reproduced material require accurate attribution and any permission not supplied by law or an applicable license.

Ethical oversight, privacy, and consent

Research involving people, identifiable health information, or animals must comply with applicable law and institutional requirements. Authors must report the approving body, decision or exemption, and identifier when one exists. Prospective registration is expected when the study design and governing standards require it.

Across every category, authors must protect patient, clinician, trainee, and institutional privacy. Written permission is required when a person remains identifiable through words, images, circumstances, or a combination of details. Altering details must not distort a research finding or mislead readers about a factual account.

Authors retain consent and ethics documentation. It should not be uploaded with the initial submission; the editorial office may request it later through an appropriate secure channel. The journal may reject or remove material when publication would create an unjustified risk of identification or harm.

Funding and competing interests

Authors must disclose direct support for the work and financial or non-financial relationships that could influence, or reasonably appear to influence, the submission. Relevant relationships can include employment, consulting, honoraria, stock or options, patents, paid testimony, leadership roles, close collaborations, personal relationships, academic competition, and strongly held intellectual commitments.

The published work will state its funding and relevant competing interests. A declared relationship does not by itself prevent publication; transparency allows editors, reviewers, and readers to evaluate it. Editors and reviewers follow the same disclosure and recusal principle.

Data, materials, and reporting

Research authors must use an appropriate reporting guideline when one applies and provide an honest data-availability statement. The statement should identify what can be accessed, where and under what conditions, or explain why privacy, consent, law, or another legitimate constraint prevents sharing.

Authors must retain source data and relevant records in accordance with institutional and legal requirements. Editors may request de-identified data, analysis materials, protocol information, or documentation needed to assess an integrity concern. Requests will account for participant privacy, data-use agreements, and security.

Generative AI and automated tools

An AI system cannot be an author. Authors remain responsible for the accuracy, originality, citations, confidentiality, and rights status of every part of a submission.

Authors must declare each generative-AI tool used, its version, dates of access, and how it was used. Routine spelling, grammar, reference-management, and non-generative statistical software do not require the same declaration unless their use materially affected the work. Generative-AI imagery is not accepted for Visual Arts.

Editors and reviewers must not upload unpublished submissions or confidential review material to an external AI service. A tool may not make or substitute for an editorial decision.

Allegations of misconduct

Ethos EM considers concerns about fabrication, falsification, plagiarism, image manipulation, undisclosed duplicate publication, authorship, peer-review interference, citation manipulation, and other conduct that could compromise the record. Concerns may be raised before or after publication by writing to the editorial office.

The journal will preserve confidentiality as far as a fair assessment allows, seek a response from the people concerned, and distinguish honest error from possible misconduct. Editors may pause review, request supporting records, correct the record, or refer a matter to an author’s institution or another appropriate body. Decisions are based on available evidence, not the identity or affiliation of the person raising a concern.

Corrections, retractions, and the published record

Material errors that affect interpretation, attribution, or reliability will be corrected through a dated notice linked to the published work. Minor changes that do not alter meaning may be corrected without a formal notice when the publication record remains clear.

A work may be retracted when its findings or central account are unreliable, it contains serious ethical or legal problems, or publication integrity has been materially compromised. A retraction notice will identify the work, explain the reason to the extent possible, and remain freely accessible. An expression of concern may be used while a consequential issue is unresolved.

Authors and readers should report suspected errors promptly. A correction does not erase the prior scholarly record; the current version and its notice remain connected.

Appeals and complaints

An author may appeal an editorial decision when they believe a material error, procedural failure, or relevant evidence was overlooked. The corresponding author should write to editors@ethosemjournal.org within 30 days, identify the submission, and give a concise, evidence-based reason. Disagreement with reviewer judgment alone is not grounds for an appeal.

An editor who was not responsible for the original decision will assess the appeal when practicable. One appeal is considered for each decision, and the appeal outcome is final.

Complaints about conduct, process, accessibility, privacy, or journal operations may be sent to the same address. A complaint involving a Founding Editor will be assigned to an unconflicted Founding Editor for independent handling. The journal will acknowledge the concern, gather the necessary information, and communicate an outcome or next step.

Copyright, licensing, and permissions

Authors retain copyright unless they deliberately select the CC0 public-domain dedication. For accepted work, authors grant Ethos EM the right of first publication and choose one of the Creative Commons 4.0 reuse options offered in the submission agreement or CC0 1.0.

The selected license is displayed with the published work and governs reuse of that version. Authors are responsible for obtaining permission for third-party material that is not covered by an exception or an existing license. A Creative Commons license does not override privacy, publicity, moral, trademark, or other rights that may apply.