Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement

Our commitment

The Bridge Review aims to expand participation in scholarship while applying fair standards of research integrity. Accessibility, mentorship, and an author's institutional prestige do not replace scrutiny of evidence and methods. We use established publication ethics guidance, including resources from the Committee on Publication Ethics, to inform our procedures. This reference does not imply COPE membership, endorsement, or certification.

Author responsibilities

Authors must submit work that accurately describes its sources, methods, findings, and limitations. Fabrication, falsification, plagiarism, misleading image manipulation, undisclosed redundant publication, citation manipulation, and interference with peer review are unacceptable. Work must not be under consideration at another journal. Prior theses, preprints, conference presentations, and related reports must be disclosed so overlap can be assessed transparently.

All authors must make a meaningful scholarly contribution, participate in writing or critical revision, approve the final submission, and accept responsibility appropriate to their contribution. Gift, guest, purchased, and ghost authorship are prohibited. Contributors who do not qualify as authors should be acknowledged with permission. Authorship changes require an explanation and agreement from affected authors; unresolved disputes may pause consideration and be referred to the relevant institution.

Research protections

Research involving people must comply with applicable ethics requirements. Authors must report ethics approval or an authorized exemption or determination where applicable, and describe consent procedures. Publication of identifiable participant information requires appropriate consent for publication. A study's ethics approval alone does not establish permission to publish identifiable details. Authors must address relevant animal welfare, community permissions, cultural sensitivities, and risks to vulnerable groups. Editors may request supporting documentation without requiring confidential participant files to be uploaded publicly.

Editor and reviewer responsibilities

Editors assess work on scholarly merit, relevance, ethics, and methodological suitability. Reviewers provide respectful, evidence-based feedback within their expertise and disclose conflicts. Confidential manuscripts must not be used for personal advantage. Owners, sponsors, and partners may not require acceptance or suppress legitimate findings. The Conflict of Interest and Peer Review policies explain recusal and independent handling.

Concerns and investigations

Report concerns to editor@bridgereview.org with available evidence. We assess credible concerns, including anonymous reports when sufficient detail is available, and give affected parties a fair opportunity to respond. We may pause review, obtain independent advice, request underlying documentation, or contact institutions when appropriate. We do not promise absolute confidentiality or immunity from disclosures required for a fair investigation or by law.

Outcomes may include clarification, revision, rejection, correction, an expression of concern, or retraction. Findings should be proportionate to the evidence and distinguish honest error from misconduct where possible. Publication notices protect the scholarly record and may be needed even without a misconduct finding. No person should face retaliation for raising a concern in good faith. Complaints about our handling follow the Complaints and Appeals Policy.