Policies on Conflict of Interest, Human and Animal rights, and Informed Consent

Conflict of (competing) interests

A conflict of interest exists when professional judgment on a matter of primary interest, such as the interpretation of one’s own results or of those obtained by others, might be influenced, even unknowingly, by a secondary interest, such as an economic advantage or personal rivalry. A conflict of interest is not in itself unethical. Nevertheless, it must be publicly and openly acknowledged. Such acknowledgment shall have no bearing on the decision to publish. Therefore, in conformity with the recommendations of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) of October 2008, when sending an article for publication in La Medicina del Lavoro - Medicine, Health and Working Life, enclosed with the manuscript, the corresponding author, also on behalf of all the other authors, should declare the existence or otherwise of financial connections (consultancies, ownership of shares, patents, etc.) that might constitute a potential conflict of interest concerning the subject matter of the article. The authors concerned must declare any such financial connections in a brief but complete definition. The possible presence of a conflict of interest on the website must be declared in the space provided. If no conflict of interest exists, type: NONE.

La Medicina del Lavoro requires authors to declare all competing interests concerning their work. All submitted manuscripts must include a ‘competing interests' section at the end of the manuscript listing all competing interests (financial and non-financial). Where authors have no competing interests, the statement should read, “The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.” Editors may ask for further information relating to competing interests. Editors and reviewers must also declare any competing interests and will be excluded from the peer review process if a competing interest exists.

Competing interests may be financial or non-financial. A competing interest exists when the authors’ interpretation of data or presentation of information may be influenced by their personal or financial relationships with other people or organizations. Authors should disclose any financial competing interests and any non-financial competing interests that may cause them embarrassment if they become public after the article is published.

Financial competing interests include (but are not limited to):
– Receiving reimbursements, fees, funding, or salary from an organization that may in any way gain or lose financially from the publication of the article, either now or in the future.
– Holding stocks or shares in an organization that may in any way gain or lose financially from the publication of the article, either now or in the future.
– Holding, or currently applying for, patents relating to the manuscript's content.
– Receiving reimbursements, fees, funding, or salary from an organization that holds or has applied for patents relating to the manuscript's content.
– Non-financial competing interests
– Non-financial competing interests include (but are not limited to) political, personal, religious, ideological, academic, and intellectual competing interests. If, after reading these guidelines, you are unsure whether you have a competing interest, please contact the Editor.

Authors from pharmaceutical companies, or other commercial organizations that sponsor clinical trials, should declare these as competing interests on submission. They should also adhere to the Good Publication Practice guidelines for pharmaceutical companies to ensure that publications are produced responsibly and ethically. The guidelines also apply to companies or individuals working on industry-sponsored publications, such as freelance writers, contract research organizations, and communications companies.

Human and animal rights

All research must have been carried out within an appropriate ethical framework. Suppose there is suspicion that work has not occurred within an appropriate ethical framework. In that case, Editors will follow the Misconduct policy and may reject the manuscript and/or contact the author(s)’ institution or ethics committee. On rare occasions, if the Editor has serious concerns about the ethics of a study, the manuscript may be rejected on ethical grounds, even if approval from an ethics committee has been obtained.

Research involving human subjects, material, or data must have been performed following the Declaration of Helsinki and approved by an appropriate ethics committee. A statement detailing this, including the name of the ethics committee and the reference number where appropriate, must appear in all manuscripts reporting such research. Suppose a study has been granted an exemption from requiring ethics approval. In that case, this should also be detailed in the manuscript (including the name of the ethics committee that granted the exemption). Further information and documentation to support this should be available to editors upon request. Manuscripts may be rejected if the Editor considers that the research has not been conducted within an appropriate ethical framework. In rare cases, Editors may contact the ethics committee for further information.

Suppose a study has not been submitted to an ethics committee before commencing. In that case, retrospective ethics approval usually cannot be obtained, and it may not be possible to consider the manuscript for peer review. How to proceed in such cases is at the Editor(s)’ discretion.

Authors reporting the use of a new procedure or tool in a clinical setting, for example, as a technical advance or case report, must give a clear justification in the manuscript for why the new procedure or tool was deemed more appropriate than usual clinical practice to meet the patient’s clinical need. Such justification is not required if the new procedure is approved for clinical use at the authors’ institution. Authors will be expected to have obtained ethics committee approval and informed patient consent for any experimental use of a novel procedure or tool where a clear clinical advantage based on clinical need was not apparent before treatment.

Informed consent

For all research involving human subjects, informed consent to participate in the study should be obtained from participants (or their parent or guardian in the case of children under 16) and a statement to this effect should appear in the manuscript.

For all manuscripts that include details, images, or videos relating to individual participants, written informed consent for the publication of these must be obtained from the participants (or their parent or legal guardian in the case of children under 16) and a statement to this effect should appear in the manuscript. If the participant has died, then consent for publication must be sought from the next of kin of the participant. This documentation must be made available to Editors on request and will be treated confidentially. In cases where images are entirely unidentifiable and there are no details on individuals reported within the manuscript, consent for publication of images may not be required. The final decision on whether consent to publish is required lies with the Editor.

Experimental research on vertebrates or any regulated invertebrates must comply with institutional, national, or international guidelines and, where available, should have been approved by an appropriate ethics committee. The Basel Declaration outlines fundamental principles to adhere to when conducting animal research, and the International Council for Laboratory Animal Science (ICLAS) has also published ethical guidelines.

A statement detailing compliance with relevant guidelines (e.g. the revised Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 in the UK and Directive 2010/63/EU in Europe) and/or ethical approval (including the name of the ethics committee and the reference number where appropriate) must be included in the manuscript. Suppose a study has been granted an exemption from requiring ethics approval. In that case, this should also be detailed in the manuscript (including the name of the ethics committee that granted the exemption and the reasons for the exemption). The Editor will take account of animal welfare issues and reserves the right to reject a manuscript, especially if the research involves protocols inconsistent with commonly accepted norms of animal research. In rare cases, Editors may contact the ethics committee for further information.

For experimental studies involving client-owned animals, authors must also document informed consent from the client or owner and adherence to a high standard (best practice) of veterinary care.

Field studies and other non-experimental research on animals must comply with institutional, national, or international guidelines and, where available, should have been approved by an appropriate ethics committee. The manuscript must include a statement detailing compliance with relevant policies and/or appropriate permissions or licenses. We recommend that authors comply with the Convention on the Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora and the IUCN Policy Statement on Research Involving Species at Risk of Extinction.

Authors are strongly encouraged to conform to the Animal Research: Reporting In Vivo Experiments (ARRIVE) guidelines, developed by the National Centre for the Replacement, Refinement, and Reduction of Animals in Research (NC3Rs), for reporting animal studies.

For studies reporting livestock trials with production, health, and food-safety outcomes, authors are encouraged to adhere to the Reporting Guidelines for Randomized Controlled Trials in Livestock and Food Safety (REFLECT).

Policy on Artificial Intelligence

Editorial Policy on the Use of Artificial Intelligence in the Peer Review Process

Guidance document for the drafting of "La Medicina del Lavoro"

1. Introduction and Purpose

The advent of sophisticated Artificial Intelligence (AI) tools represents a significant transformation for the world of scientific publishing. When used ethically and responsibly, AI can enhance the efficiency, rigor, and quality of the peer review process. However, its use raises critical ethical questions relating to accountability, transparency, and confidentiality.

The purpose of this document is to define a clear and pragmatic editorial policy for the reviewers and editorial staff of "La Medicina del Lavoro" regarding the use of AI tools in the manuscript review process, ensuring that scientific integrity and human responsibility remain at the heart of our work.

2. Fundamental principles

Our policy is based on four key principles:

• Human Accountability: The final decision and the scientific, ethical, and legal responsibility for the audit remain solely with the human auditor. AI is a support tool; it may not be designated as a co-auditor or assume authorship or responsibility for the judgment.
• Transparency: You need to ensure transparency about the use of AI tools that go beyond simple grammar correction or spell-checking. The scientific community has the right to know the methods by which a manuscript has been evaluated.
• Quality and Rigor: The goal of using AI must be to improve the quality of the review, not merely accelerate it at the expense of rigor. The critical judgment and experience of the human reviewer are irreplaceable.
• Confidentiality: The confidentiality of the manuscript is a pillar of peer review. It is strictly forbidden to upload or share any part of a manuscript (including the abstract and data) to public or insecure AI platforms that may use such data to train their models or to violate its confidentiality.

3. Editorial Responsibilities

The editorial staff of "La Medicina del Lavoro" undertakes to:

• Clearly communicate this policy to all reviewers when inviting them for review.
• Check for the AI use statement in the comments to the publisher.
• Promote continuous dialogue on this issue to update the policy in line with technological evolution and international best practices.

4. Guarantees of Confidentiality and Data Protection

• To protect intellectual property and data privacy, an aspect of fundamental importance in our work, we specify that the use of the artificial intelligence agent occurs within a private, isolated cloud workspace (sandbox), which ensures full compliance with confidentiality obligations.
• The methodology adopted and the policies of the technology platform used ensure that the textual materials, data, and any information provided for the review and update process are not used for training the artificial intelligence model or third-party models. The process complies with the highest security standards (SOC 2 Type II) and European data protection regulations (GDPR), ensuring that no information leaves the confidential and dedicated work perimeter.

5. AI Integration Levels and Guidelines for Reviewers

To provide practical guidance, we classify AI use into three levels, each with associated permissions and obligations.

Level of Integration	Description and Examples	Permission and Obligations	Required Statement
Level 1: AI as a Basic Support Tool	Use of spelling and grammar checker software (e.g., Grammarly), reference manager (e.g., Zotero), statistical software (e.g., SPSS), or plagiarism checker tools provided by the journal.	Permitted.                These tools are considered standard in academic practice.	None.
Level 2: AI as a Review Assistant	Use advanced language models (LLMs) or AI agents to:  - Analyse the structure of the manuscript.  - Identify potential methodological or statistical inconsistencies.  - Suggest areas of weakness in the argument.  - Carry out additional bibliographic searches.  - Improve the clarity and readability of the revision itself.	Permitted if:  1. The auditor critically verifies each output of the AI.  2. The confidentiality of the manuscript is guaranteed (use of secure platforms).  3. The responsibility for the final judgment remains entirely human.	Yes, generic.
Level 3: AI as a Review Author	Full or near-complete delegation of the drafting of the review to an AI, with the auditor acting only as a passive supervisor.	Strictly forbidden. This practice violates the principle of human responsibility.	Not applicable.

6. Declaration Methods

When AI use falls under Level 2, the reviewer must include a transparency statement in the confidential comments section for the editor. The editorial staff recommends precise, generic wording that requires the commercial name of the instrument used to be specified.

Recommended wording:

"In conducting this review, I used the following AI tools to assist in the analysis of the manuscript [please specify]. The final assessment, judgments, and recommendations made in this review are entirely my own, and I take full scientific and ethical responsibility for them."

This statement balances transparency with intellectual property protection and practicality, avoiding turning an ethics note into advertising, as it will remain a confidential communication.

"Occupational Medicine" encourages responsible innovation. An approach guided by the principles of accountability, transparency, and quality enables us to harness the benefits of AI to better serve our authors, readers, and the scientific community as a whole. Technology is a powerful ally, but human judgment remains our gold standard.

Advertising Policy for Print and Web Publications

Mission 

The mission of Mattioli 1885 is to provide a fast, reliable, and thought-provoking media outlet to the world medical communities in basic research and clinical practice, with timely coverage of diverse medical disciplinary topics.

The nature of all our journals is open access, which means all the contents of the journals are accessible freely to all viewers from every part of the world. As long as they have internet accessibility, our viewers are from all over the world.

In addition to contemporary online editions of journals, we also have print editions of journals circulating all over the world. This traditional media platform can meet the different needs of our customers.  

Advertising content

All advertising content should be indicated as an advertisement; they should not be confused with editorial content and articles. Advertisers do not affect the editorial and publishing policies.

Competitive rates

Our advertising rates are very competitive. We can offer you prime advertising space for a very reasonable price. Our professional team can help you with each step of advertising and strives to meet your needs.

Submission of AD

You may submit your advertisement in acceptable formats, or we can design your AD at affordable rates, these rates are decided on a case-by-case basis.

Terms of advertising

All advertising content is subject to the publisher's approval. Advertised products should be legal and compliant with any national or international laws that may apply. Ad placement or page/webpage positions can be requested but will not be guaranteed. Mattioli 1885 is not responsible for advertisement errors following proof approval or self-submission.

Disclaimer

The statements and opinions in the advertisement are solely those of the advertisers and do not necessarily reflect those of the editors or the publisher. The appearance of journal advertisements is not a warranty, endorsement or approval of the products or services or their safety. The editors and the Publisher disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas or productions referred to in the articles or advertisements.

ICMJE best practice standards

Mattioli 1885 requires the Authors and Editors of its journals to follow the recommendations of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE), which reviews best practices and ethical standards in the conduct and reporting of research and other material published in medical journals. It is Mattioli 1885’ conviction that following these recommendations supports the accurate, clear, reproducible, and unbiased creation and distribution of scientific journal articles. Please download or review these recommendations here.

Corrections and retractions

Rarely, Mattioli 1885 may need to publish [corrections] to or [retractions] of articles published in its journals to maintain the integrity of the academic record.

In line with BioMed Central's [Permanency] policy, [corrections] to, or [retractions] of, published articles will be made by publishing an Erratum or a Retraction article, without altering the original article in any way other than to add a prominent link to the Erratum/Retraction article. The original article remains in the public domain, and the subsequent Erratum or Retraction will be widely indexed. If material is considered to infringe certain rights or is defamatory, we may have to remove that material from our site and archive sites.

Minor corrections to published articles may be made by the original author(s) posting a comment on the article. This would only be appropriate where the changes do not affect the article's results or conclusions. See our [Comments] policy for further information on posting comments.

Corrections

Changes to published articles that affect the interpretation and conclusion of the article, but do not fully invalidate the article, will, at the Editor(s)’ discretion, be corrected via publication of an Erratum that is indexed and linked to the original article. Changes in authorship of published articles are corrected via an Erratum..

Retractions

On rare occasions, when the scientific information in an article is substantially undermined, it may be necessary to retract published articles. Mattioli 1885 will follow the COPE guidelines in such cases. Retraction articles are indexed and linked to the original article.