This page states BMU-wide publishing principles. It does not replace journal-specific author guidelines, peer-review descriptions, fee schedules or discipline-specific ethical requirements. Operational claims apply only where implemented by the relevant journal or publisher system.
Integrity of the publishing process
The integrity of scholarly communication depends on more than the moment of acceptance. Responsibility extends from submission and editorial assessment through peer review, production, publication, preservation and post-publication review.
BMU expects published work and publishing processes to be capable of continued scrutiny. Publication does not place a work beyond correction, challenge or reinterpretation, and acceptance does not end the responsibilities of authors, editors, reviewers or the publisher.
Where credible evidence suggests that published or submitted material may be unreliable, unethical, misleading, improperly attributed or produced through a compromised process, the relevant journal should assess the concern and take proportionate action.
Research integrity
Research submitted to BMU-published journals should be characterised by honesty, care, thoroughness, transparency, accountability and respect. Methods, data, analyses, limitations, approvals, registrations, contributions and relevant changes should be described truthfully.
Fabrication, falsification, plagiarism, fraudulent authorship, manipulation of peer review, falsified approvals, invented references and deliberate concealment of material conflicts are incompatible with these principles. Honest error and legitimate scholarly disagreement are not, by themselves, research misconduct.
Editorial independence
BMU distinguishes publisher responsibilities from editorial authority. The publisher may provide legal, financial, administrative, technical and production support, but decisions on individual manuscripts should be based on scholarly, methodological and ethical considerations rather than revenue, ownership interests, institutional prestige, advertising, sponsorship or personal relationships.
Where a publisher representative or editor has a material competing interest, the matter should be assigned to an appropriately independent decision-maker.
Academic freedom and pluralism
BMU supports legitimate scholarly inquiry, including work that challenges established interpretations, policies or practices. Unpopularity or institutional inconvenience should not by itself determine editorial outcome.
Academic freedom does not remove obligations concerning accuracy, participant protection, privacy, lawful conduct, research ethics or responsible communication. Restrictions should be no broader than reasonably necessary to address a genuine ethical, safety or legal concern.
Fairness, equality and professional conduct
Editorial and publishing processes should be applied fairly and without irrelevant discrimination. Scholarly criticism may be rigorous and direct, but it should address evidence, methods, analysis, interpretation, ethics or process rather than attack the personal worth of an individual.
Harassment, intimidation, threats, retaliation, discriminatory abuse, coercive correspondence and unauthorised disclosure of confidential information are inconsistent with BMU publishing standards.
Integrity and permanence of the scholarly record
A formally published Version of Record should remain identifiable and citable. Material changes affecting data, methods, results, interpretation, authorship, funding, competing interests or ethical declarations should not be made silently.
Corrections, expressions of concern, retractions, redactions or exceptional removals should be transparent and proportionate to the nature of the problem. Retraction is ordinarily a notice about the reliability or status of a work, not silent deletion of its bibliographic history.
Transparency and verifiable claims
BMU and its journals should publish material information about ownership, editorial leadership, scope, peer review, charges, waivers, copyright, licensing, open access, ethics, data, complaints, preservation and official contact routes.
Claims about indexing, preservation, accreditation, membership, metrics, partnerships, review speed or external endorsement must be accurate and independently verifiable. An application, plugin installation or intention to participate should not be described as confirmed participation.
Implementation and review
This framework is intended to guide actual practice, not merely website wording. BMU will not treat publication of a policy as proof that a procedure has been implemented. Journal-level systems, forms, responsibilities and technical settings should be aligned with adopted policy statements.
Where the policy framework and actual practice differ, the appropriate response is to correct the procedure, the public wording or both. Material policy changes should be versioned and reviewed periodically.
Policy basis and interpretation
Adapted principally from JHWCR Policy 1 and the policy-suite framework. The BMU version generalises journal-specific material into a publisher framework and removes details that should remain title-specific. Where a journal publishes a more specific requirement that is consistent with these principles, the journal-specific rule governs that journal's submissions.
Questions about this framework may be sent to info@bmuventures.com.