Transparency in Review & Ethics
Our Ethical Commitment
Open, Ethical, and Accountable Science!
OpenMed Research adheres to the highest ethical standards in publishing and reviewing, guided by COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics), ICMJE, and the Open Science ethos. Transparency isn’t just a feature—it’s foundational.
About OpenMed Research
Want To Submit Article 👇
Peer Review at OpenMed: Open by Default
We follow a post-publication, open peer review model to ensure:
- Signed reviews by named experts
- Public display of reviews, decisions, and author responses
- Review history permanently available with DOIs
- Multiple rounds of review possible (versioning supported)
- Commentary from readers welcomed post-publication
Our Ethics Principles
- No ghost reviewing – All reviewers are named and acknowledged
- Conflict of interest disclosures required from all parties
- Ethical approval, funding, and data availability must be disclosed
- Zero tolerance toward plagiarism, data fabrication, or coercive citation
- Ethical handling of sensitive data, vulnerable populations, and AI usage
Why Our Transparency Matters
| Transparency Feature | OpenMed Research | Conventional Peer Review |
|---|---|---|
|
Signed & published reviews |
✅ Yes
|
❌ Rarely |
|
Public peer review history
|
✅ Yes, always visible
|
❌ Never shared |
|
Community feedback post-publication
|
✅ Encouraged
|
❌ Disabled |
|
Preprint + open review integration
|
✅ Seamlessly connected
|
❌ Not integrated |
|
Real-time status tracking
|
✅ Available for authors/reviewers
|
❌ Limited or hidden |
Reviewer Ethics & Responsibility
Reviewers are expected to:
- Remain unbiased and constructive
- Provide review within 10–14 days
- Avoid personal, defamatory, or coercive language
- Respect confidentiality and data integrity
- Declare any conflict of interest prior to acceptance