Majalah Anestesia & Critical Care (MACC) is committed to maintaining transparency, objectivity, and integrity in research and scholarly publishing. All authors, reviewers, editors, and editorial board members must disclose any financial or non-financial interests that could influence, or reasonably appear to influence, their work, peer-review activities, or editorial decisions. This policy follows the recommendations in COPE, Handling Conflicts of Interest, which explains that competing interests may interfere with the objective presentation, peer review, decision-making, and publication of research.

MACC evaluates disclosed conflicts of interest to determine whether they require disclosure, reassignment, independent review, or other appropriate safeguards. A conflict of interest does not automatically indicate misconduct or invalidate research. The journal assesses the nature and potential influence of the interest and takes reasonable steps to protect the integrity of the editorial process. COPE recommends that journals establish clear and consistently applied policies for managing conflicts involving authors, reviewers, editors, staff, and editorial board members. See COPE, Develop Processes to Help Identify Ethical Concerns.

A conflict of interest, also referred to as a competing interest, exists when a financial, personal, professional, academic, or organisational relationship could influence, or reasonably be perceived to influence, the objectivity of research, manuscript evaluation, editorial judgement, or publication decisions. COPE describes conflicts of interest as circumstances that interfere with, or could reasonably be perceived as interfering with, the full and objective presentation, peer review, decision-making, or publication of research. See COPE, Handling Conflicts of Interest.

Potential conflicts may include research funding, employment, consultancy, honoraria, paid expert testimony, stock ownership, patents, royalties, commercial relationships, close personal relationships, academic rivalry, institutional affiliations, or other interests relevant to the submitted work. These examples are not exhaustive, and authors, reviewers, and editors should disclose interests that could reasonably be considered relevant to the manuscript. COPE's Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers specifically address financial interests, personal relationships, and academic rivalries that may affect reviewer impartiality.

All authors must disclose relevant financial and non-financial competing interests when submitting a manuscript to MACC. Authors must identify funding sources and explain the role of any funder in study design, data collection, data analysis, interpretation, manuscript preparation, and the decision to submit the manuscript, where applicable. COPE recommends clear policies on conflicts of interest, including disclosure of research funding and the funder's role, in Develop Processes to Help Identify Ethical Concerns.

Authors must ensure that the conflict-of-interest declaration is complete and accurate for all listed authors. If no relevant competing interests exist, the authors should provide an explicit declaration stating that they have no conflicts of interest to disclose. COPE recommends that journals collect competing-interest declarations as a distinct and clearly explained step in the submission process. See COPE, Handling Conflicts of Interest.

Authors must promptly inform the editorial office if a relevant conflict arises or if a previously submitted declaration requires correction. The journal may request additional information when a disclosure is unclear or incomplete. COPE recommends that journals manage competing interests consistently and clearly indicate relevant declarations in published articles. See COPE, Handling Conflicts of Interest.

Reviewers must disclose any actual or potential conflict of interest before accepting a peer-review assignment. A reviewer should decline the invitation when a relationship or competing interest could prevent an objective assessment of the manuscript. COPE's Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers advise reviewers to declare potential competing interests and identify circumstances that may compromise impartiality.

Reviewers should not accept an assignment when they have a close professional or personal relationship with an author, a relevant financial interest, a significant academic rivalry, or another relationship that could reasonably affect their judgement. Reviewers who are uncertain whether a particular interest constitutes a conflict should inform the editor and allow the editor to determine whether the review can proceed. These procedures follow the principles in COPE, Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers.

Editors and editorial board members must disclose relevant competing interests that could affect their handling of a manuscript or their participation in editorial decisions. An editor who has a conflict involving a submitted manuscript must not make the decision on that manuscript and should refer it to an independent editor who has no relevant conflict. COPE recommends that journals establish procedures for managing conflicts involving editors, editorial staff, and editorial board members in Develop Processes to Help Identify Ethical Concerns.

Editorial board members should disclose relevant professional commitments, financial interests, and relationships that may affect their impartiality. MACC may reassign editorial responsibilities when necessary to protect independent decision-making. COPE discusses the identification and management of editorial board members' potential conflicts in COPE, Editorial Board Participation.

Editors must maintain editorial independence from commercial, financial, institutional, and personal pressures. Publication decisions must reflect the manuscript's scholarly merit, relevance, ethical acceptability, and the evidence available rather than the financial interests or personal preferences of any party. COPE explains its position on protecting independent editorial judgement in COPE, Editorial Independence.

Authors must identify all funding sources that supported the research or manuscript preparation. Where applicable, authors should state whether the funder had any role in study design, data collection, data analysis, interpretation, writing, or the decision to submit the manuscript. If the funder had no such role, the authors should state this explicitly. COPE identifies disclosure of study funding and the funder's role as important elements of a journal's conflict-of-interest policy in Develop Processes to Help Identify Ethical Concerns.

Funding disclosure does not replace the obligation to disclose other competing interests. Authors must report relevant financial relationships even when a third party did not directly fund the study. COPE's Handling Conflicts of Interest guidance distinguishes competing interests that may arise from financial, professional, personal, or organisational relationships.

MACC requires relevant conflict-of-interest and funding declarations to appear in the published article. The declaration should accurately reflect the information provided during submission and any clarification obtained during editorial assessment. COPE recommends that competing interests be indicated clearly and consistently in published papers, with links to further information where necessary. See COPE, Handling Conflicts of Interest.

When authors have no competing interests to disclose, the published article should include an explicit statement such as: "The authors declare no conflicts of interest." When relevant interests exist, the declaration should identify the nature of the relationship and explain its relevance to the work. This format is a proposed MACC implementation of COPE's recommendation for clear and consistent disclosure.

If MACC identifies a potential conflict that an author, reviewer, editor, or editorial board member has not disclosed, the journal may request an explanation and supporting information. The journal will assess the relevance of the interest, its possible effect on the work or editorial process, and whether additional action is necessary. COPE provides specific guidance on responding to suspected undisclosed conflicts in Handling Suspected Undisclosed Conflicts of Interest.

Depending on the circumstances, MACC may correct a disclosure, reassign a reviewer or editor, request additional information, or take other appropriate editorial action. If a previously published article contains a material omission, the journal may publish a correction or another appropriate notice to clarify the publication record. COPE recognises that correcting the record to clarify competing interests supports transparency and integrity in Handling Conflicts of Interest.

The journal will assess suspected undisclosed conflicts fairly and will not automatically treat an omission as proof of deliberate misconduct. If the evidence indicates a serious problem that affects confidence in the article or the integrity of the publication process, MACC may consider further action in accordance with its publication ethics procedures. COPE's Retraction Guidelines discuss circumstances in which undisclosed conflicts and other serious concerns may require corrective action.

MACC will make editorial decisions independently of advertising, sponsorship, author fees, institutional influence, and other commercial or organisational interests. Financial considerations must not determine whether a manuscript is accepted, rejected, or prioritised for publication. COPE's Editorial Independence position emphasises the importance of protecting editorial judgement from external influence.

The journal should maintain clear procedures for identifying and managing financial relationships that could create actual or perceived conflicts between business objectives and editorial integrity. COPE discusses the relationship between journal revenue, author fees, and independent editorial decision-making in Author Fees and Waivers.

Authors may use the following declaration when submitting a manuscript to MACC. They must select and adapt the statement to reflect the actual interests of all authors.

Conflict of Interest Statement

Authors should ensure that this statement is consistent with the funding declaration and other disclosures submitted to the journal. COPE recommends clear, consistent disclosure procedures and publication of relevant competing interests in Handling Conflicts of Interest.

MACC will review this policy periodically to maintain consistency with current publication ethics guidance and the journal's editorial practices. The journal may update its procedures when changes in scholarly publishing, research funding, or editorial management create new risks involving competing interests. COPE recommends that journals maintain clear, consistent, and publicly available policies for managing conflicts of interest in Develop Processes to Help Identify Ethical Concerns.

Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). Handling Conflicts of Interest. Discussion document, last reviewed 1 December 2015. The COPE page states that this discussion document is currently under review.

Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers. Version 2, September 2017.

Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). Develop Processes to Help Identify Ethical Concerns. Ethics Toolkit for a Successful Editorial Office.

Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). Editorial Board Participation.

Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). Editorial Independence.

Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). Handling Suspected Undisclosed Conflicts of Interest.

Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). Author Fees and Waivers.

Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). Retraction Guidelines. Version 3, 2025.

Majalah Anestesia & Critical Care (MACC). Journal Policies.