ASHA Journals has adopted the CRediT Taxonomy to provide the opportunity to describe who participated and the roles they played in the development of the work. The 14 roles listed are from the CRedit (Contributor Roles Taxonomy) Taxonomy, a classification standard used to ensure that authors are credited for their contributions toward published scholarly works. The roles describe each contributor’s specific contribution to the scholarly output. Please see the chart below for more information about the contributor roles and definitions.
The submitting author is responsible for providing the contributions of all authors at submission. Authors can claim credit for more than one contributor role, and the same role can be attributed to more than one author. We expect that all authors will have reviewed, discussed, and agreed to their individual contributions ahead of this time. If provided on submission, contributions will be published with the final article, and they should accurately reflect contributions to the work.
The CRediT taxonomy is not meant to determine who qualifies as an author. Each author on a paper may have one or more CRediT contribution roles, yet having a role described by the taxonomy does not automatically qualify someone as an author. Authorship is determined by following ASHA Journals’ Authorship Criteria and Guidelines, which are based on the ICMJE (International Committee of Medical Journal Editors) requirements.
Contributor Roles and Definitions
Ideas; formulation or evolution of overarching research goals and aims.
Management activities to annotate (produce metadata), scrub data and maintain research data (including software code, where it is necessary for interpreting the data itself) for initial use and later re-use.
Application of statistical, mathematical, computational, or other formal techniques to analyze or synthesize study data.
Acquisition of the financial support for the project leading to this publication.
Conducting a research and investigation process, specifically performing the experiments, or data/evidence collection.
Development or design of methodology; creation of models.
Management and coordination responsibility for the research activity planning and execution.
Provision of study materials, reagents, materials, patients, laboratory samples, animals, instrumentation, computing resources, or other analysis tools.
Programming, software development; designing computer programs; implementation of the computer code and supporting algorithms; testing of existing code components.
Oversight and leadership responsibility for the research activity planning and execution, including mentorship external to the core team.
Verification, whether as a part of the activity or separate, of the overall replication/reproducibility of results/experiments and other research outputs.
Preparation, creation and/or presentation of the published work, specifically visualization/data presentation.
Writing – original draft
Preparation, creation and/or presentation of the published work, specifically writing the initial draft (including substantive translation).
Writing – review & editing
Preparation, creation and/or presentation of the published work by those from the original research group, specifically critical review, commentary or revision – including pre- or post-publication stages.
Originality and Copyrighted Material
ASHA journals do not consider for review submissions that have been published in the same, or essentially the same, form elsewhere. Authors who are modifying or extending work that has previously been published must notify the editor of the possible previous publication of their submission and provide a rationale for considering the new work to be substantially different from the original. They must also clearly acknowledge these prior publications in their manuscript.
This policy is meant to apply to all types of previously published materials, including conference proceedings and book chapters that have been offered for public sale. Exceptions may include:
- Manuscripts that previously have been abstracted for proceedings of a conference or by a dissertation/thesis abstracting service.
- Duplications or revisions of work previously published in a form such as a university or government report that has limited circulation or availability, whether in print or online (e.g., working papers disseminated primarily among colleagues at the same institution).
- Papers posted to preprint servers (please see Preprint Posting section below).
In some unclear cases, a decision must be made to determine whether a manuscript represents original or duplicate work. This decision always rests with the editor of the ASHA journal, who may consult with the chair of ASHA’s Journals Board as part of the decision process.
In addition, authors should ensure they have written entirely original works. If the authors have used the work and/or words of others, then authors should ensure this has been appropriately cited or quoted.
All ASHA journals allow submissions of manuscripts that have previously been posted to a preprint server, on an individual website, or on a required institutional repository. Such postings will not be considered previous publication.
- Authors must acknowledge such deposition and provide any URLs, DOIs, or other forms of access information;
- Versions of the manuscript that have been altered as a result of the peer review process may not be deposited;
- Preprints will not be eligible if they have been indexed in MEDLINE or PubMed;
- Upon publication, authors must update the preprint version so that it provides a link to the published version of the article and the DOI of the published article.
Manuscripts submitted to ASHA journals are expected to represent new, original work. If a manuscript contains plagiarism of another’s work or self-plagiarism of one’s own previously published work, it is subject to immediate rejection by the editor. For information on how to avoid plagiarism and self-plagiarism, authors are referred to the Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association (6th ed.), which notes that “plagiarism refers to the practice of claiming credit for the words, ideas, and concepts of others” (p. 170) and that “self-plagiarism refers to the practice of presenting one’s own previously published work as though it were new” (p. 170). Plagiarism and self-plagiarism are considered violations of ASHA’s Code of Ethics. The content could also be subject to assessment via plagiarism detection software to detect overlap with previously published work.
ASHA journals require that text based – either in whole or in part – on output produced by generative artificial intelligence (AI), large language models (LLM), or similar technologies and included in a manuscript must be declared by the authors. Authors should consider this to include text first produced during the brainstorming/outlining process and later adapted into the manuscript. Declaration involves several statements within the manuscript submission system at both first submission and subsequent revision(s), including:
- An attestation that AI- or LLM-generated text has been included within the manuscript.
- An affirmation that all authors, both jointly and severally, assume responsibility for the accuracy, originality, and integrity of AI- or LLM-generated text included within the manuscript.
Authors must also include the following details within the manuscript itself:
- An Artificial Intelligence Statement disclosing the inclusion of AI- or LLM-generated text within the manuscript. This should be included at the end of the main text, before the Reference section. For example:
- Artificial Intelligence Statement: ChatGPT was used during [PLEASE ADD DETAILS HERE] with resulting text being revised by the authors prior to inclusion in the manuscript.
- A parenthetical citation immediately following the AI- or LLM-generated text as well as a corresponding entry within the Reference section. For example:
- Reference: OpenAI. (2023). ChatGPT (Mar 14 version) [Large language model]. https://chat.openai.com/chat
Additionally, ASHA journals prohibit the crediting of AI, LLM, or similar technologies as authors based on the following determinations:
- AI or LLM fail to satisfy the four requirements for authorship.
- AI or LLM are unable to transfer copyright.
- AI or LLM are unable to hold, or declare, conflicts of interest.
- AI or LLM are unable to attest, either jointly or severally, to authorship queries and/or statements.
Please note, the above stipulations do not apply to permissible use of AI in areas such as research design, data analysis/verification, or formatting (e.g., Paperpal Preflight). Nor do they alter similar ASHA journals policy relating to AI and potential scientific misconduct (e.g., image manipulation, etc.).
Research and Publication Ethics
Ethics in Research and Scholarly Activity
ASHA expects of its members high standards of ethical conduct in all professional activities. In addition to the ASHA Code of Ethics, ASHA has issued practice policy documents to clarify ethical issues related to research and scholarly activities. Authors, particularly those who are ASHA members, are encouraged to review these documents and apply them to their research and scholarly endeavors. In addition, the following policies and their associated resources apply to the publication of research in ASHA journals.
Protection of Humans and Animals in Research
All research to be submitted for publication in ASHA journals in which humans or animals are used must adhere to the basic ethical considerations for the protection of research subjects. ASHA requires every research article submitted to include a statement that the study obtained ethics approval (or a statement that it was not required), including the name of the ethics committee(s) or institutional review board(s), the number/ID of the approval(s), and a statement that participants gave informed consent before taking part.
When reporting research involving data from human subjects, the author should ensure that the work described has been carried out in accordance with The World Medical Association’s Declaration of Helsinki for experiments involving humans. The privacy rights of human subjects must always be observed. Non-essential identifying details should be omitted. If there is any doubt that anonymity can be maintained, then informed consent should be obtained in writing before manuscript submission.
When publishing identifiable images or video and audio recordings in ASHA journals, authors must obtain written permission from any person pictured or appearing in the recordings, whether they are research participants, volunteers, paid models, or the authors themselves. The authors must include a statement in the published paper affirming that they have obtained informed consent for publication of the images and/or recordings. All reasonable measures must be taken to protect patient anonymity. Black bars over the eyes are not acceptable means of anonymization.
In certain cases, ASHA may insist upon obtaining evidence of informed consent from authors. Images and recordings without appropriate consent will be removed from publication. All animal experiments should comply with the ARRIVE guidelines and should be carried out in accordance with the U.K. Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act, 1986 and associated guidelines, EU Directive 2010/63/EU for animal experiment, or the National Institutes of Health Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals. The authors should clearly indicate in the manuscript that such guidelines have been followed.
Informed Consent of Patients
Please see the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors’ statement on protection of research participants for information on protecting identifying information and seeking consent from study participants.
Conflict of Interest
As part of the manuscript submission process, authors are required to disclose any real or potential conflicts of interest that could be seen as having an influence on the research (e.g., financial interests in a test or procedure, or funding by an equipment or materials manufacturer for efficacy research).
Sources of outside support for research, including funding, equipment, and supplies, must be named during the submission process (and questions to that effect will be presented online to authors as part of the article submission process). In addition, authors must disclose any financial or other nonprofessional benefit(s) that might result from the publication of the manuscript and that reviewers or readers might consider to have affected the conduct or reporting of the work.
If the author is uncertain about what might be considered a conflict of interest, he or she should err on the side of full disclosure by reporting the potential conflict when requested to do so during submission. Information about conflicts of interest may be made available to reviewers at the editor’s discretion. The role(s) of the support organization, if any, in the collection of data, in its analysis and interpretation, and in the right to approve or disapprove publication of the finished manuscript also must be detailed during the submission process. If a support agency claims the right to approve/disapprove publication, the author should have completed this process by the time of manuscript submission.
If, in the editor’s judgment, the author has a real or potential conflict of interest, that conflict must be acknowledged with a disclosure statement on the first page of the article. Authors will be informed of this decision before acceptance.
If an editor suspects scientific misconduct, the editor will bring the concern to the editor in chief, who will then consult with the Journals Board. If it is determined that the author is not an ASHA member or certificate holder, the editor in chief will bring the concern to a research ethics screening subcommittee. This subcommittee will have as members the editor (who will serve as chair) and two members of the Journals Board, including one with expertise in the content area of the manuscript in question. In addition, the ASHA Chief Staff Officer for Science and Research will serve as an ex officio member. The charge to the screening subcommittee will be to determine whether the concerns have substantive merit and whether the potential for scientific misconduct is apparent.
If the concern appears to have substance, the first author’s home institution will be contacted by the ASHA Journals Board, and the institution’s appropriate research integrity officer will be notified of the concerns. The adjudication of the case, then, will be left to the home institution.
In referring the concern to the home institution, the ASHA Journals Board will request that it be notified of the outcome of any investigation or adjudication. The Journals Board will then determine procedures for dealing with the manuscript in question (issues such as withdrawal, removal from the website, corrections in the form of errata, etc.).
If the Author is an ASHA Member
If an editor suspects scientific misconduct, the editor will consult with the editor in chief to bring the concern to the Journals Board. Upon review, the Journals Board may then file a formal complaint with the ASHA Board of Ethics.
Upon resolution of the case, the ASHA Board of Ethics will inform the Journals Board of the outcome. The Journals Board will determine procedures for dealing with the manuscript in question (issues such as withdrawal, removal from the website, corrections in the form of errata, etc.).