International Committee of Medical Journal Editors recommendations: an update

The European Heart Journal (EHJ) publishes innovative, methodologically robust, and clinically relevant research aiming to advance knowledge and change clinical practice on cardiovascular diseases.1,2 The EHJ uses rigorous peer-review, critical statistical assessment, and the highest editorial quality standards.1–9 Only the best manuscripts, according to novelty, accuracy, quality, and clinical relevance, are selected for publication. These high-quality editorial standards allow fostering education and optimal dissemination of the best cardiovascular research worldwide.1–9 The EHJ adheres to the recommendations of the International Committee of Medical Journals Editors (ICMJE) for the conduct, reporting, and publication of scholarly work in biomedical journals and is in full agreement with the ICMJE updates summarized in this manuscript.3 These classically include criteria for authorship, disclosure of conflicts of interest, trial registration, data sharing, reprint requirements, and artificial intelligence (AI) use.1–10 The ICMJE periodically updates its recommendations that have been closely followed by the EHJ.8,10 In the last 2 years, important updates to the ICMJE policies and recommendations have been issued. In January 2024, the ICMJE updated the information on medical publishing regarding carbon emissions, protection of research participants, artificial intelligence (AI), and acknowledgment of funding support.11 Medical publishing contributes to carbon emissions that exacerbate climate change, an urgent threat to human well-being and planetary health. Therefore, all stakeholders should develop strategies to reduce carbon emissions. Likewise, editors should be aware of the practice of excluding local researchers from low- and middle-income countries. Inclusion of local authors adds to the fairness, context, and implications of the research. Details on the use of AI technology to conduct the study should be detailed (tool, version, and prompts) to enable replication of the results. Finally, disclosure of potential conflicts of interest extends beyond the direct support for the work under consideration. General institutional author support should be distinguished from direct overall funding of the work.11 The January 2025 update to the ICMJE recommendations addressed topics including predatory journals, timeliness, responsiveness, diversity and inclusion, corrections and version control, scientific misconduct, and accuracy of cited references.12 Journals should respond to authors’ requests about the status of their manuscripts in a timely way. If authors submit a request for the withdrawal of their manuscript, they should consider the manuscript withdrawn even if confirmation is not received. When publishing the images of people, authors should be mindful of dignity, equality, and solidarity values. Images depicting individuals in distress or in vulnerable situations or that could perpetuate bias or stereotypes should be avoided. Corrections are needed for errors of fact that should have been recognized at the time of publication. Otherwise, they are best handled as letters to the editor or via online forums. It may be difficult to correct errors in papers published a long time in the past. As corrections to historic papers typically have a low impact on current science and practice, the editor should consider whether they are warranted. Authors are responsible for citing references accurately and attesting that the references cited support the associated statement.12 In February 2025, the ICMJE issued a ‘guidance notice’ relevant to journals’ response to requests to withdraw, revise, or alter the authorship of manuscripts.13 If authors request the removal or addition of an author after manuscript submission, journal editors should seek an explanation and signed statements from all listed authors, including the author to be removed or added. Best practices to preserve confidentiality were also reviewed. Manuscripts submitted to journals are privileged communications that are authors’ private, confidential property, and authors may be harmed by premature disclosure of the manuscript’s details. With respect to the withdrawal of submitted manuscripts before publication, all co-authors should be aware of and agree to it. Retraction of published work is generally reserved for serious errors or when scientific misconduct is detected.13 Of note, the ICMJE used to provide a list of journals that follow their recommendations. These journals were not ‘members’ of the ICMJE, and their inclusion does not indicate ‘certification’ by the ICMJE, but it was thought that the list could help promote the standards of scholarly publishing. Unfortunately, many listed journals did not adhere to the recommendations. The inability to verify the accuracy of the list, combined with the increase in predatory publishing, led to the decision in May 2025 to suppress this list.14 Finally, in January 2026, the ICMJE underscored that authors should have the ability to review the data supporting the study results.15 In the case of collaborations between authors from academic and non-academic institutions, at least one author from the academic institution should have accessed the primary data and be able to participate in the analysis. With sponsored research, authors’ access to the supporting data should be expressly provided for in any research agreements. Editors may ask which specific authors had access and participated in the analysis. In 2025, the ICMJE published a joint editorial about predatory journals.16 These fake publications misrepresent themselves as scholarly journals, often for financial gain, despite not meeting minimum scholarly standards. Predatory journals often use unacceptable editorial practices, aggressively soliciting submissions and promising extremely rapid turnaround times. Their peer review process can be deeply flawed or even absent, and there is little to no transparency about publishing charges. Often, these journals do not take care to properly archiving contents, managing potential conflicts of interest, enabling corrections, or responding to author queries. They frequently use names and branding that mimic well-established legitimate journals falsely claiming being members of respected scientific organizations. These practices are purposefully used to deceive authors to submit their work paying the associated fees. Particularly vulnerable are inexperienced authors facing pressure to publish. Authors may be deceived by predatory journals, but occasionally, some authors may intentionally choose these ‘easy’ journals to build their publication list. In the long term, this is likely to jeopardize their academic career. Moreover, these journals disseminate weak, unreliable, or even fraudulent scientific information, which may affect clinical practice. Unfortunately, an updated list of predatory journals is not currently available. Of concern, the number of predatory journals has increased exponentially.17,18 These pseudo-journals have matured, profiting by the current climate that promotes the growth of open access initiatives by legitimate publications. Actions by authors, institutions, universities, and publishers against the predators may be futile because they tend to be based in ghost entities. Therefore, coordinated joint actions by all shareholders are required to prevent academicians from falling prey to these journals that undermine legitimate journals and jeopardize the public trust in the scientific process.16 AI is revolutionizing the world, including medical practice and the editorial process.8–10 In the January 2026 update, a new section has been added to the ICMJE recommendations entirely devoted to the use of AI in scientific publishing.15 The use of AI by authors and reviewers is clarified, and the role of editors in ensuring a responsible use of AI is emphasized. The proliferation of AI and large language models has made their use ubiquitous. It should be acknowledged upfront that these tools hold major promise to advance science. For instance, AI may facilitate writing the manuscript for authors with a different primary language. The use of AI to improve manuscript presentation and correct grammar is acceptable, but major care should be paid to any AI-generated content. However, concerns exist regarding validity, confidentiality, transparency, and accountability in the use of these tools. AI generates convincing, authoritative results that, nevertheless, may be incorrect, incomplete, or biased.15 Therefore, humans are ultimately responsible for reviewing and ensuring the accuracy of AI-generated material. Reviewers must uphold the confidentiality of the peer review process. Therefore, uploading the manuscript to software or other AI technologies where confidentiality cannot be assured is prohibited, unless explicitly permitted by the journal. Finally, the use of AI in journal processes should also be disclosed, and editors remain responsible to ensure its accuracy and validity.15 The following five general editorial principles should be considered: (i) AI cannot be listed or cited as an author; (ii) authors are responsible to cite the corresponding original sources because AI-generated information may not incorporate attribution to the sources; (iii) authors are responsible for obtaining the required permissions and to avoid plagiarism; (iv) evaluating manuscripts by reviewers using AI may violate confidentiality; thus, explicit permission from the authors and journals is required before uploading a submitted manuscript into AI systems; (v) authors, reviewers, editors, and publishers should be transparent in their use of AI in manuscript preparation, editing, and reviewing declaring the type of AI system used and its exact purpose. Journals should devise policies for the use of AI following these main principles.15 Supplementary data are not available at European Heart Journal online. All authors declare that they do not have conflicts of interest to be disclosed in relation to the present work.