The updated COPE core practices are also probably important to consider.

@danielskatz - would you be willing to try and take a first pass at this?

yes

How should we define "research misconduct" for JOSS? (https://publicationethics.org/misconduct is a general reference)

Do we need to define it?

Or just leave it undefined and have a process for handling it? (This seems difficult)

Two common cases I could imagine:

• Plagiarism (e.g. violation of another author's copyright) for both software and papers
• Incorrect author lists

Not sure what else we would want here. There are a lot of possible scenarios and it doesn't seem realistic to try and cover them all...

Do we also want to talk about self-plagiarism? An author has already published a software paper and then submits a JOSS paper as well about the same software/version?

Other possible misconduct - suggesting reviewers who are either fake people or have conflicts? Reviewers who have conflicts but don't disclose them? Editor misconduct due to conflicts? Anything related to bribes for authors, reviewers, editors?

I quite like what JORS has on this page https://openresearchsoftware.metajnl.com/about/research-integrity/

I quite like what JORS has on this page https://openresearchsoftware.metajnl.com/about/research-integrity/

which part(s) specifically?

Sorry, I meant to say, I think they do a good job of just categorizing the ways in which they promote 'research integrity'.

while they call this research integrity, it looks more to me like a bunch of stuff about the journal, publisher, and policies, many of which have nothing to do with research integrity, such as licenses, indexing, archiving, and no lock-in.