Editorial Policies

Authorship & Contributions

Affiliations

Acknowledgments

AI Policy

Appeals and Complaints

Conflicts of interest / Competing interests

Data sharing and Accessibility

Funding

Measuring the Impact of an Article

Name Change Policy

Retractions, Corrections, and Removals

Plagiarism

Special or Focus Issue Policy

Authorship & Contributions

Authorship

Authorship provides credit and implies accountability for published work, carrying academic, social, and financial implications. It is essential to ensure that all contributors receive appropriate recognition while also understanding their responsibilities for the integrity of the research.

Main types of authorship

Co-author: A co-author is any individual who has made a significant contribution to a journal article. Co-authors share responsibility and accountability for the research findings.

Corresponding Author: When multiple authors contribute to an article, one individual must be designated as the corresponding author.

This person:

  • Handles all communication with the journal throughout the submission, peer review, production, and post-publication process.
  • Signs the publishing agreement on behalf of all co-authors.
  • Ensures that all authors agree on the authorship order, affiliations, and final manuscript before submission.
  • Liaises with co-authors regarding editorial queries and journal communications.

Co-authors must agree on who will act as the corresponding author before submission.

The list of authors should accurately reflect those who have made a meaningful contribution to the work.  _Concussion_ follows the recommendations of the ICMJE as regards authorship – authorship should be based on the following criteria::

  1. Make a substantial contribution – This may include conceiving the study, designing the research, acquiring data, conducting analysis and interpretation, or contributing significantly across these areas.
  2. Be actively involved in writing or revising the manuscript – Authors should have drafted, substantially revised, or critically reviewed the article for intellectual content.
  3. Approve all versions of the article – Each author must review and agree on all versions of the manuscript before submission, throughout revisions, upon final acceptance, and at the proofing stage.
  4. Agree on the journal selection – All authors should consent to the choice of journal for submission.
  5. Take responsibility for the work – Authors must be accountable for the accuracy and integrity of their contributions and share responsibility for addressing any concerns about the published work.

Before submitting the work to a journal, all authors should agree on the order of their names to be listed in the manuscript.

Individuals who have contributed to a research article but do not meet these authorship criteria – such as providing technical support, formatting assistance, translation, or engaging in scholarly discussions that shaped the work – should be recognised in an Acknowledgements section.  Their name and affiliation should be included, provided they have given permission.

Affiliations

All authors must provide accurate and complete institutional affiliations to ensure proper attribution of the research or scholarly work. Affiliations should reflect where the work was approved, supported, and/or conducted.

  • Research Articles: List the institution(s) where the research was carried out.
  • Non-Research Articles: Provide your current institutional affiliation.
  • Change of Institution: If you have moved before publication, include the affiliation relevant to the work conducted and note your current institution.
  • Independent Authors: If you are not affiliated with an institution, clearly state your independent status.

Additional Considerations:

  • Ensure all affiliations are consistent and correctly formatted.
  • Multiple affiliations should be clearly indicated if applicable.
  • Any funding acknowledgements related to institutional support should be provided separately.

Acknowledgments

Individuals who have contributed to a research article but do not meet authorship criteria – such as providing technical support, formatting assistance, translation, or engaging in scholarly discussions that shaped the work – should be recognised in an Acknowledgements section.  Their name and affiliation should be included, provided they have given permission.

Authors are responsible for obtaining consent from those they wish to acknowledge. This should involve sharing the article so contributors can verify how their support is being recognised.

Any use of AI tools for content generation, such as large language models, must also be transparently acknowledged. Authors remain fully responsible for ensuring the validity, originality, and integrity of their work and must use such tools in line with editorial policies on authorship and publishing ethics.

Professional writing or editing services that have been used to improve the manuscript’s clarity, language, or structure must also be disclosed in the Acknowledgements section.

Financial and material support should be similarly acknowledged.

AI Policy

The use of generative AI and Large Language Models in research and publications

Generative Artificial Intelligence (GenAI) tools, including large language models (LLMs) such as ChatGPT, can enhance productivity and innovation when used responsibly. However, their application in research and scholarly publishing must align with principles of integrity, transparency, and accountability.

Use in research and manuscript preparation

  • Authors must disclose any use of GenAI tools in the development of a manuscript, including in writing, summarising, or refining text. This should be stated transparently in the Methods section, Acknowledgements, or via a disclosure statement, as appropriate.
  • Authors bear full responsibility for the accuracy of any content generated by these tools and must ensure that all supporting references are correctly cited.
  • GenAI tools must not be used to create, alter, or manipulate original research data or results.
  • The use of AI-driven spelling, grammar, and language enhancement tools is permitted and does not require disclosure.

Authorship and accountability

  • GenAI tools cannot be credited as authors, as they lack the capacity for accountability, research design, and legal authorship rights, including the ability to hold or assign copyright.
  • In accordance with COPE’s position on AI and authorship, only human contributors who meet authorship criteria may be listed as authors.

Use in peer peview

  • Peer reviewers and editors may use GenAI tools to refine the clarity of their written feedback, provided this use is transparently declared when submitting the review report.
  • Manuscripts, figures, tables, or any unpublished material must not be uploaded into GenAI tools due to concerns over data privacy, confidentiality, and copyright.
  • Peer review is a human responsibility; reviewers must personally evaluate manuscripts and may not delegate this task to AI.

Editorial discretion

The final decision on the appropriateness of GenAI use in a submitted or published manuscript rests with the journal’s editor or relevant editorial authority.

COPE’s position statement on Authorship and AI tools

Appeals and Complaints

We recognise that authors may wish to appeal editorial decisions or raise concerns about editorial processes.  Concussion follows the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) guidelines on appeals to journal editor decisions and complaints about the editorial management of the peer review process.

While appeals are considered in good faith, they must be based on substantial new information, a clear misinterpretation of the manuscript, or concerns about procedural fairness. Differences of opinion regarding the novelty or significance of findings are not valid grounds for appeal.

Appealing an Editorial Decision

If you wish to appeal a decision, you must submit a formal appeal letter to the journal’s editorial office, addressed to the editor. Your appeal should:

  • Clearly explain why you disagree with the decision.
  • Provide specific responses to the editor’s and/or reviewers’ comments.
  • Present any new evidence, data, or revisions relevant to the manuscript.
  • Highlight any concerns about factual errors in the review process.
  • Provide evidence if you believe a reviewer has a conflict of interest.

The editor may consult associate editors, request further peer review, or seek additional expert opinions before making a final decision. Appeals will be considered once per manuscript, and the editor’s decision following this process is final. Due to the need to prioritise new submissions, appeals may not receive an expedited review.

For opinion-based articles—such as commentaries, viewpoints, and book reviews—appeals are less likely to succeed, as editorial judgment on readability and relevance plays a central role in decision-making. These articles should always be well-evidenced and fully referenced.

Raising a Complaint

Authors and other stakeholders may raise concerns about editorial decisions, processes, or journal policies.  Complaints should first be directed to the journal’s editorial office, detailing the nature of the concern. If the issue remains unresolved, authors may escalate the matter direct to Aldus Press. Please contact us at concussion@alduspress.com

Conflicts of interest / Competing interests

All authors must disclose any conflicts of interest or competing interests that could be perceived as influencing their research. These include financial, professional, or personal relationships that are directly relevant to the work presented in the manuscript.

Potential conflicts or competing interests may include, but are not limited to:

  • Patent or stock ownership
  • Membership on a company’s board of directors
  • Participation in an advisory board or committee
  • Consultancy work or receipt of speaker’s fees
  • Funding from commercial, governmental, or non-profit organisations that may have an interest in the research
  • Institutional affiliations or personal relationships that could be seen as affecting objectivity

The existence of a conflict or competing interest does not prevent publication, but transparency is essential. If there are no conflicts to declare, authors must explicitly state this at the time of submission.

The corresponding author is responsible for ensuring that all co-authors review this policy and disclose any relevant relationships when submitting the manuscript.

Data sharing and Accessibility

Concussion strongly encourages authors to make the data and other research outputs that support their findings openly available by depositing them in a community-endorsed repository. Sharing data enhances research transparency, reproducibility, and impact while supporting broader scientific collaboration.

Authors should provide a data availability statement in their manuscript, detailing:

  • Whether and where the data supporting their study has been deposited
  • A direct link (DOI or persistent identifier) to the repository, where applicable
  • Any access restrictions or conditions for data use, if relevant
  • If data cannot be shared, a brief explanation (e.g., ethical, legal, or confidentiality constraints)

 

Where possible, authors should select repositories that provide long-term access, assign a DOI, and align with FAIR (Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, and Reusable) data principles. If funder requirements mandate data sharing, authors must comply accordingly.

Funding

All authors must clearly identify and acknowledge any sources of funding that supported their research. Funding details should be included in the Acknowledgements section of the manuscript.

  • Authors are responsible for ensuring the accuracy and completeness of their funding information.
  • To verify the correct funder name and designation, authors should refer to the Open Funder Registry: https://www.crossref.org/services/funder-registry/.
  • If multiple funding sources contributed to the research, each should be listed separately.
  • Any specific grant numbers or funding programme details should be included where applicable.

Providing accurate funding information ensures transparency and allows proper attribution of research support.

Measuring the Impact of an Article

Authors can review download information about their article from the *Concussion* website. Information includes the number of downloads and geographic spread of downloads. Please access direct from the article page on the *Concussion* website on Scholastica.

Name Change Policy

We recognise that authors may need to update their name on published academic articles for various personal, professional, or legal reasons. Our policy ensures that such requests are handled with sensitivity, confidentiality, and minimal administrative burden on the author.

Eligibility for Name Changes

Authors may request a name change on published articles in cases including, but not limited to:

  • Gender identity affirmation
  • Marriage or divorce
  • Religious or cultural reasons
  • Legal name changes

Process for Requesting a Name Change

  • Requests should be submitted to Concussion’s editorial office or Aldus Press.
  • Authors do not need to provide justification or supporting documentation.
  • The request will be processed discreetly, and co-authors will not be notified unless specifically requested by the author making the change.
  • Where possible, updates will be made without issuing a correction notice, ensuring that the change is applied seamlessly across online versions of the article.

Extent of Changes

  • The author’s name will be updated in all versions of the article, including PDFs, HTML versions, metadata, and indexing services (subject to external database policies).
  • Digital identifiers such as DOIs will remain unchanged.
  • If the author has multiple published articles, they may request updates across all works.

Ensuring Inclusivity and Author Rights

We are committed to providing an inclusive publishing environment and respect all authors’ rights to their identity. Name change requests will be processed without barriers and with full respect for privacy.

For further assistance, please contact concussion@alduspress.com

Retractions, Corrections, and Removals

Concussion is committed to maintaining the integrity, accuracy, and transparency of the scholarly record. We recognise that errors, ethical concerns, or legal issues may arise post-publication, requiring formal actions such as corrections, retractions, or, in exceptional cases, removals.

  1. Definitions
  • Erratum: A correction issued when an error originates from the publisher, such as typographical mistakes, formatting issues, or production errors that affect the clarity of the article but do not alter its scientific integrity.
  • Corrigendum: A correction issued when an error originates from the author(s), including inaccuracies in data, authorship details, or content that impact the study’s findings or interpretations.
  • Retraction: A formal withdrawal of a published article due to significant errors, ethical breaches (such as plagiarism or data fabrication), or misconduct that invalidates the study’s conclusions.
  • Removal: The complete deletion of an article from the journal’s website and records, applied only in rare and exceptional cases, such as legal requirements (e.g., court orders, defamatory content, privacy violations) or severe ethical violations that cannot be addressed through retraction alone.
  1. Principles
  • Transparency: All corrections, retractions, and removals will be clearly communicated to readers, with appropriate notices issued. We follow the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) best practice guidance on how to address such issues.
  • Timeliness: We aim to address concerns promptly to maintain the reliability of the academic record.
  • Accountability: Authors and editors share responsibility for ensuring the accuracy of published content and adhering to ethical standards.
  1. Procedures
  2. Errata and Corrigenda

Identification: Errors may be identified by authors, readers, or editors. Upon discovery, the editorial office should be notified with a detailed description.

Assessment: The editorial team will evaluate the nature and impact of the error on the article’s content and conclusions.

Issuance:

  • An erratum or corrigendum will be published at the earliest opportunity.
  • A correction notice will be linked to the original article, detailing the nature of the error.
  • The online version of the article will be updated with a correction notice.
  1. Retractions

Identification: Significant errors or ethical issues should be reported to the editorial office immediately.

Investigation: The editorial team, in consultation with the publisher and relevant institutions (if necessary), will conduct a formal investigation following COPE guidelines.

Decision: If retraction is warranted:

  • A retraction notice will be published, stating the reasons for retraction and the responsible parties.
  • The original article will remain accessible but clearly marked as retracted.
  • Retraction notices will be freely available to readers.
  1. Removals

Exceptional Circumstances: Article removal is only considered in cases such as:

  • Legal reasons (e.g., court orders, defamatory content, breach of confidentiality).
  • Severe ethical violations that cannot be addressed through retraction.
  • High risk to public health or safety due to misleading or harmful content.

Process:

  • A formal investigation will be conducted following COPE guidelines, considering legal and ethical implications.
  • If removal is necessary, the article will be deleted from the journal’s website and databases.
  • A removal notice will be published in its place, stating the reason for removal.

Plagiarism

Concussion upholds the highest standards of academic integrity and is committed to ensuring the originality of all published content. Plagiarism, in any form, is considered unethical and unacceptable.

Definition of Plagiarism

Plagiarism involves the use of another individual’s ideas, words, data, or work without appropriate acknowledgment. This includes:

  • Direct Plagiarism: Verbatim copying of text without quotation marks or proper citation.
  • Mosaic Plagiarism: Incorporating phrases, passages, or ideas from various sources, creating a patchwork without proper attribution.
  • Self-Plagiarism: Republishing one’s own previously written work or data without disclosure or proper citation.
  • Data Plagiarism: Using data collected by others without permission or acknowledgment.

Author responsibilities

Authors must:

  • Ensure all work submitted is original and appropriately cites the work and ideas of others.
  • Avoid reusing substantial parts of their own published work without proper citation, unless explicitly stated.
  • Obtain necessary permissions for the use of third-party material.

Editorial process and plagiarism detection

Submissions may be subject to plagiarism screening using iThenticate. Manuscripts with significant similarities to existing works may be rejected or returned to authors for revision.

Consequences of plagiarism

If plagiarism is identified we follow the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) best practice:

  • The manuscript may be rejected or, if published, retracted.
  • Authors may be prohibited from submitting to the journal in the future.
  • The incident may be reported to the authors’ affiliated institutions or funding bodies.

By submitting to Concussion, authors acknowledge and adhere to this plagiarism policy, ensuring the integrity of scholarly communication.

Special or Focus Issue Policy

Overview

Special issues or focus issues provide a focused collection of articles on a specific theme, topic, or emerging area of research. These issues are curated by Guest Editors, who oversee the peer review process and ensure that all submissions meet the journal’s high standards for quality and rigour. Special issues offer a valuable opportunity to highlight significant developments and foster scholarly discussion within a particular field.

Proposal and Approval Process

Researchers interested in proposing a special or focus issue should submit a formal proposal to Concussion’s editorial team. Proposals should include:

  • A clear theme or topic with its relevance to the journal’s scope
  • A list of potential Guest Editors (including their affiliations and expertise)
  • A summary of the issue’s objectives, including key research questions and expected contributions
  • A preliminary list of contributors, if available
  • A proposed timeline for submission, review, and publication

The journal’s Editor-in-Chief will review proposals and may seek input from the editorial board. Approval is based on academic significance, feasibility, and alignment with the journal’s scope.

The form for submission of a proposal available on the Concussion homepage.

Role of Guest Editors

Guest Editors are responsible for:

  • Soliciting high-quality submissions aligned with the special issue theme
  • Managing the peer review process, ensuring fairness and rigour
  • Providing editorial guidance and making recommendations on manuscript decisions
  • Ensuring diversity and inclusivity among contributors and reviewers

Guest Editors must adhere to the journal’s ethical and peer review policies and declare any conflicts of interest. The final decision on manuscript acceptance rests with the journal’s Editor-in-Chief.

Submission and Peer Review

  • All manuscripts must be submitted via the journal’s online submission system and adhere to the journal’s author guidelines.
  • Submissions will undergo rigorous double-blind peer review.
  • Manuscripts will be assessed based on originality, methodological rigour, and contribution to the field.
  • Special issues uphold the same ethical and academic standards as regular journal issues.
  • No article is guaranteed acceptance—all must pass peer review.
  • Guest Editors may not make final decisions on articles accepted = to maintain editorial independence.

For further details or to propose a special issue, please contact concussion@alduspress.com