Peer Review Policy

Case studies, reports, and articles published in Anatomical Insights undergo rigorous peer review in keeping with the ethical standards set forth by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and the UF Press ethical standards for journal publications. Submissions are first evaluated by a journal editor. If found to be within the scope of the journal, the manuscript will be sent out to for feedback. After undergoing peer review, manuscripts will either be accepted, declined, or returned to the authors for revision.

Manuscripts Authored by Editorial Board Members

The editors of Anatomical Insights are committed to impartiality, transparency, and integrity in the peer review process. Editors or editorial board members who submit manuscripts to the journal will not be involved in the editorial handling or decision-making process for their own manuscript. The anonymous nature of the peer review process ensures that the identity of the authors will remain hidden from peer reviewers and associate editors handling the manuscript. Any conflicts of interest must be disclosed at the time of submission.

Ethical Publication Involving Human Remains

As this journal is dedicated to the publication of case studies involving human remains, manuscripts and authors must adhere to specific guidelines for discussions regarding human body donors and images that contain human remains.

Permission of Use. Human remains are not considered human subjects and therefore fall outside the scope of Institutional Review Boards (IRBs). However, we acknowledge that publications regarding human remains can still cause harm to descendants, next of kin, and communities.

Anonymity and Privacy. Efforts should be made to protect the anonymity and privacy of individuals depicted in sensitive images. For example, image alteration or blurring may be used to prevent the identification of subjects, particularly in cases where disclosure could lead to harm.

Contextualization and Justification: Sensitive images should be contextualized within the broader context of the work. Authors should provide justifications for the inclusion of potentially sensitive images, explaining their relevance to the study without gratuitous or sensationalistic use.

Informed Consent: Authors should obtain informed consent from a willed body program  and/or next of kin for images of decedents that could depict identifying information, whenever possible. This ensures that subjects are aware of how their images will be used and can provide or withhold consent. Required permissions may vary depending on the institution and local regulations. It is the authors’ responsibility to obtain all necessary permissions.

• IRB approval is not required as it does not involve living people or live human tissue. Would all come back as exempt.
• Acknowledgments requirement to the anatomical donors and families. Need to list where the donor was from and acknowledge the program.

Authors are expected to agree to one of the following statements:

• Explicit permission for the acquisition and use of images was acquired as part of the consent process;
• Broad permission for the use of the body in education and/or research was acquired as part of the consent process but this did not specifically include consent around images; or
• The human tissues utilized were unconsented and no consent for the use of images was acquired.

Guidelines for Publishing in Anatomical Insights

Publishing sensitive information and images requires careful consideration and adherence to ethical principles to balance the pursuit of knowledge with respect for individuals and communities. Ethical guidelines for publishing sensitive images should prioritize the following:

• Anonymity and Privacy: Efforts should be made to protect the anonymity and privacy of individuals depicted in sensitive images. For example, image alteration or blurring may be used to prevent the identification of subjects, particularly in cases where disclosure could lead to harm.
• Beneficence and Non-Maleficence: Authors should weigh the potential benefits of disseminating sensitive images against the potential harm they may cause. The principle of beneficence emphasizes maximizing positive outcomes, while non-maleficence emphasizes minimizing harm.
• Contextualization and Justification: Sensitive images should be contextualized within the broader context of the work. Authors should provide justifications for the inclusion of potentially sensitive images, explaining their relevance to the study without gratuitous or sensationalistic use.
• Compliance with Legal and Institutional Standards: Authors should adhere to legal and institutional regulations regarding the publication of sensitive material. This includes compliance with laws protecting privacy, human subjects, and other relevant regulations.
• Cultural Sensitivity: Consideration should be given to the cultural context of any potentially sensitive images. Publishing images that may be offensive or disrespectful to specific individuals, communities, or groups should be avoided.
• Informed Consent: Authors should obtain informed consent from medicolegal authorities and/or next of kin for images of decedents that could depict identifying information, whenever possible. This ensures that subjects are aware of how their images will be used and can provide or withhold consent. In some cases, it may be appropriate to contact family members (perhaps via investigators) and/or the medicolegal authority for permission as well as to avoid interfering with any legal proceedings. Required permissions may vary depending on the institution and local regulations. It is the authors’ responsibility to obtain all necessary permissions.
• Peer Review: All manuscripts submitted to Anatomical Insights undergo peer review which includes an assessment of potential ethical considerations involved in the submitted work. Peer reviewers play a crucial role in evaluating the appropriateness of information and image usage and ensuring that ethical standards are maintained.

All manuscripts published in Anatomical Insights must conform to these guidelines.

 

Statement of Consent

Research on human remains (contemporary or archaeological), funerary/mortuary objects or structures typically requires institutional permission, official government permits, consent of Indigenous stakeholders, and/or permission of local community members. We expect the provenience of the archaeological or anatomical collections to be specified in submitted manuscripts, and we encourage authors to describe the collaborations, who has given consent, and what other permits were obtained for the research in the Acknowledgements section, along with the typical acknowledgement of funding sources. Explicit permission for the use of photos and/or images of human remains should be described as well. If no official permits were required, we ask that a statement to that effect be included. Please note that peer reviewers, associate editors, and/or the co-editors-in-chief may inquire about consent or permissions should questions arise.

 

Authorship

Upon submission, authors represent and warrant to the Editors, the Press, and its licensees that you are the sole proprietor(s) of the Article and that you have full power to submit and publish the Article; that the Article is original and that you have not previously published, or agreed to publish, the Article in whole or in part elsewhere, except as you have informed the Editors and the Press in writing; that you have used all reasonable care to ensure that all facts and statements in the Article are true; that the Article does not infringe or violate any copyright; and that the Article does not contain any material that would be libelous, defamatory, or an invasion of the right of privacy, common law, statutory copyright, or other personal property rights. If copyright to the Article has been registered with the Library of Congress, you will promptly transfer the copyright to the Press. Should the Article contain material that requires written permission from another party, such permission shall be obtained at your own expense from the copyright owner and sent to the Editors along with appropriate copy for credit lines in the Journal. The Editors and the Press are not responsible for obtaining permission for previously published material. 

 

Use of Artificial Intelligence (AI)

Anatomical Insights prohibits the use of generative AI for the preparation and writing of manuscripts submitted to the journal. Authors may only use AI technology as a companion to their writing process, not a replacement.

For Authors

Authors should not list any AI tool as an author, nor cite AI as an author. AI tools do not meet the requirements for authorship since they cannot assume ethical or legal responsibility for their work.

In cases where AI is used for complex data analysis or content creation, authors must clearly disclose the usage in detail. This disclosure will be included with the published article. The disclosure should include the tool used (e.g., ChatGPT, Microsoft Copilot, Google Gemini) and how it was used in manuscript preparation. It is important to verify the accuracy and validity of all AI-generated content, and it is the author’s responsibility to fact-check any AI contribution to their manuscript.

Basic AI tools used for spelling, grammar, proofreading, or references (including citation managers) do not need to be disclosed.

For Reviewers and Editors

Editors, authors, and peer reviewers should not upload a submitted manuscript or any peer review documents to an AI tool or LLM as this may violate confidentiality and data privacy rights. To maintain the integrity of the peer review process, we ask that reviewers refrain from using AI in their manuscript analysis. Peer reviewers should not upload their peer review report to any AI tool, even for the purpose of improving language and readability, as it may contain identifiable manuscript information that should be kept confidential.

 

Conflict of Interest Statement

Anatomical Insights requests that authors include a conflict of interest statement with the submission of their manuscript. Potential sources of conflicts of interest may include any interest of relationship—personal, financial, etc.—that might influence the author’s objectivity and judgment of the subject at hand. Such conflicts must be declared when they relate directly to the contents of the manuscript. The existence of a conflict will not automatically prevent publication. Authors must also state in their submission if they have no conflict of interest to declare. Corresponding authors are responsible for reviewing this policy with all co-authors and ensuring that any and all relevant relationships are disclosed.

 

Funding

Authors should list all sources of funding in a footnote or in the Acknowledgments. Please make the editors and the Press aware of any specific requirements a funder has for the article upon publication.