Publication Ethics and Publication Malpractice Statement
1. Introduction
1.1. Publication of articles in the Journal is not only a simple way of scientific communication, but also a significant contribution to the development of a respective field of scientific knowledge. Thus, it is important to set standards of ethical behavior of all the parties involved in the publication, namely: the author, the editor of the Journal, reviewers, the publishers and the scientific community of the Journal.
1.2. The present guidelines have been specifically developed for presenting primary research findings, but can also be used when publishing surveys and other professional publications.
1.3. All publications of the scholarly Journal are licensed under CC-BY.
2. Duties of Editors
2.1. Publication Decisions
The Editor is personally and independently responsible for deciding which of the articles submitted should be accepted and published, though s/he works in close cooperation with the Editorial Board. The validity of the manuscript in question and its scientific value must be the basis for the publication decision at all times. The Editor may be guided by the policies of the scientific panel and constrained by such legal requirements as shall then be in force regarding libel, copyright infringement and plagiarism. The editor may confer with other editors or reviewers in making this decision.
2.2. Fair play
The Editor at any time evaluates manuscripts for their intellectual content without regard to race, gender, sexual orientation, religious beliefs, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political views of the authors.
2.3. Confidentiality
The Editor and the Editorial Board keep confidential all information about accepted manuscripts to anyone, except for authors, reviewers, potential reviewers, other scientific consultants and publishers.
2.4. Disclosure and Conflict of Interest
2.4.1 Unpublished data from submitted manuscripts cannot be used for personal research without a written consent from the author. Information or ideas obtained through the reviewing process and associated with potential benefits must be kept confidential and cannot be used for obtaining a personal gain.
2.4.2 Editors should not consider manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers, in which case editors are to ask for help of co-editors, editorial assistants or cooperate with the Editorial Team rather than to review the manuscript in question by themselves and make publication decisions.
2.5. Publication Supervision
The Editor who has provided convincing evidence that the statements or conclusions in the paper to be published are wrong should inform the Publisher about making a correction, retraction, expression of concern, or other note, as may be relevant.
2.6. Involvement and cooperation in research
The Editor along with the publishers is to respond adequately to ethical claims concerning the review of manuscripts or published materials. Among the measures that can be taken are a communication with the author of the manuscript and the reasoning of a corresponding complaint or claim, as well as contacting relevant organizations and research centers.
3. Reviewers’ responsibilities
3.1. Contribution to Editorial Decisions
Peer review assists the Editor in making editorial decisions and through the editorial communications with the author may also assist the author in improving the paper.
3.2. Promptness
Any selected referee who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should notify the Editor and excuse himself/ herself from the review process.
3.3. Confidentiality
Any manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. They must not be shown to or discussed with others except as authorized by the Editor.
3.4. Standards of Objectivity
Reviews should be conducted objectively. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate. Reviewers should express their views clearly with supporting arguments.
3.5. Acknowledgement of Sources
Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors. Any statement that an observation, derivation, or argument has been previously reported should be accompanied by the relevant citation. A reviewer should also call to the Editor’s attention any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published paper of which they have professional knowledge.
3.6. Disclosure and Conflict of Interest
3.6.1 Unpublished data obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and cannot be used for personal research without a written consent from the author. Information or ideas obtained through the reviewing process and associated with potential benefits must be kept confidential and cannot be used for obtaining a personal gain.
3.6.2. Reviewers should not consider manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the submitted paper.
4. Authors’ responsibilities
4.1. Manuscript requirements
4.1.1 Authors of reports of original research should present an accurate account of the work performed as well as an objective discussion of its significance. Underlying data should be represented accurately in the paper. A paper should contain sufficient detail and references to permit others to replicate the work. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behavior and are unacceptable.
4.1.2. Review and research papers should also be accurate and objective, and an editorial opinion should be clearly identified as such.
4.2. Data Access and Retention
Authors may be asked to provide the raw data in connection with a paper for editorial review, and should be prepared to provide public access to such data (consistent with the ALPSP-STM Statement on Data and Databases), if practicable, and should in any event be prepared to retain such data for a reasonable period of time after publication.
4.3. Originality and Plagiarism
Authors should ensure that they have submitted entirely original works, and if the authors have used the work and/or words of others, that this has been appropriately cited or quoted.
4.3.2 Plagiarism takes many forms, from passing off another paper as the author(s)’ own paper, to copying or paraphrasing substantial parts of another(s)’ paper (without attribution), to claiming results from research conducted by others. Plagiarism in all its forms constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable.
4.4. Multiple, Redundant or Concurrent Publication
4.4.1 In general, an author should not publish manuscripts describing essentially the same research in more than one journal as a primary publication. Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal concurrently constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable.
4.4.2. In general, an author should not submit for consideration in another journal a previously published paper.
4.4.3. Publication of some kinds of articles (e.g., clinical guidelines, translations) in more than one journal is sometimes justifiable, provided certain conditions are met. The authors and editors of the journals concerned must agree to the secondary publication, which must reflect the same data and interpretation as in the primary document. The primary reference must be cited in the secondary publication. Further detail on acceptable forms of secondary publication can be found at http://www.icmje.org/
4.5. Acknowledgement of Sources
Proper acknowledgment of the work of others must be given at all times. Authors should cite publications that have been influential for carrying out the reported work. Information obtained privately, as in conversation, correspondence, or discussion with third parties, must not be used or reported without explicit written permission from the source. Information obtained in the course of confidential services, such as reviewing manuscripts or grant applications, must not be used without the explicit written permission of the author of the work involved in these confidential services.
4.6. Authorship of the Paper
4.6.1 Authorship should be limited to those who have made a significant contribution to the conception, design, execution, or interpretation of the reported study. All those who have made significant contributions should be listed as co-authors. Where there are others who have participated in certain substantive aspects of the research project, they should be acknowledged or listed as contributors.
4.6.2. The corresponding author should ensure that all appropriate co-authors and no inappropriate co-authors are included on the paper, and that all co-authors have seen and approved of the final version of the paper and have agreed to its submission for publication.
4.7. Hazards and Human or Animal Subjects
4.7.1 If the work involves chemicals, procedures or equipment that have any unusual hazards inherent in their use, the author must clearly identify these in the manuscript.
4.7.2 If the work involves the use of animal or human subjects, the authors should ensure that the manuscript contains a statement that all procedures were performed in compliance with relevant laws and institutional guidelines and that the appropriate institutional committee(s) has approved of them. The manuscript should contain a statement that informed consent was obtained for experimentation with all the human subjects. The privacy rights of human subjects must always be observed.
4.8. Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest
4.8.1 All authors should disclose in their manuscript any financial or other substantive conflict of interest that might be construed to influence the results or interpretation of their manuscript.
4.8.2 Examples of potential conflicts of interest which should be disclosed include employment, consultancies, stock ownership, honoraria, paid expert testimony, patent applications/ registrations, grants or other funding. Potential conflicts of interest should be disclosed at the earliest stage possible.
4.9. Fundamental Errors in Published Works
When an author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in his/her own published work, it is the author’s obligation to promptly notify the Journal Editor or Publisher and cooperate with the Editor to retract or correct the paper. If the Editor or the Publisher learns from a third party that a published work contains a significant error, it is the obligation of the author to promptly retract or correct the paper.
5. Responsibilities of the Publisher
5.1 The Publisher should follow the principles and procedures to assure the observance of ethical rules by editors, reviewers and authors in accordance with these requirements. The Publisher must be committed to ensuring that potential advertising or reprint revenue has no influence on editorial decisions.
5.2. The Publisher should extend support to editors of the Journal when handling ethical complaints concerning a published paper and facilitate communication with other journals and/or publishers if it can help the editors perform their duties.
5.3. The Publisher should promote good practices for conducting research and implementing industry standards in order to improve the ethical guidelines, retraction and correction procedures.
5.4 The Publisher must provide specialized legal review and counsel if necessary.
6. Adoptions and plagiarism
The Editorial Board considering an article may run the manuscript on one of the plagiarism search engines. In case of detection of numerous incorrect adoptions, the Editorial Board will act in accordance with the COPE rules.
7. Procedures for dealing with unethical behaviour
7.1 Identification of unethical behaviour
7.1.1. Misconduct and unethical behaviour may be identified and brought to the attention of the Editor and Publisher at any time, by anyone.
7.1.2. Whoever informs the Editor or Publisher of such conduct should provide sufficient information and evidence in order for an investigation to be initiated. All allegations should be taken seriously and treated in the same way, until a successful decision or conclusion is reached.
7.2. Investigation
7.2.1. An initial decision should be taken by the Editor, who should consult with or seek advice from the Publisher, if appropriate.
7.2.2. Evidence should be gathered, while avoiding spreading any allegations beyond those who need to know.
7.3. Policy on revocation or correction of articles
7.3.1. Editors of journals should consider the opinion of the publication, if:
7.3.1.1. they have clear evidence of the unreliability of the information published, either as a result of conscious actions (for example, falsification of data), or due to good faith errors (for example, errors in calculations or experiments);
7.3.1.2. the findings have been previously published in another publication and there is no proper reference, authorization and justification for re-publication (i.e. duplicate publication).);
it is plagiarism;
7.3.1.3. describes unethical research.
7.3.2. Editors of journals should consider the concerns, if:
7.3.2.1. they received information about the authors’ inappropriate actions, but there is no clear evidence of such behavior;
7.3.2.2. there are arguments that the results of the work are unreliable, and the institution in which the authors work is not going to find out the truth;
7.3.2.3. they believe that the investigation into the alleged violations committed by the authors in connection with the publication has either not been or will not be fair, impartial and convincing;
7.3.2.4. the authors’ violations are being investigated, but the results are not expected soon enough.
7.3.3. The Journal editors should consider making amendments if:
7.3.3.1. a small part of the rest of the high-quality publication is unreliable (especially because of conscientious errors);
7.3.3.2. the list of authors / sponsors contains errors (i.e., it does not contain someone who is worthy to be an author, or a person who does not meet the authorship criteria).
7.3.4. In most cases, a review is not appropriate if:
7.3.4.1. authorship needs to be changed, but there is no reason to doubt the validity of the findings.
8. Article withdrawal
8.1. Withdrawal of an already published article is an extreme measure and it is applied in case of revelation of facts which were not known during the review:
8.1.1. law violation or defamation;
8.1.2. detection of false or inaccurate data, especially of those carrying health risks.
8.2. Mechanism of article withdrawal:
8.2.1. Article withdrawal can be initiated by the authors, readers, reviewers, editors and publishers by written request to the journal where the article was published;
8.2.2. The commission on conflicts resolution examines received requests;
8.2.3. The commission on conflicts resolution makes a decision on article withdrawal if there is sufficient evidence for it;
8.2.4. The commission on conflicts resolution notifies the initiator of article withdrawal on the decision in a written form;
8.2.5. The commission decides to withdraw an article, information about withdrawal is published in the Journal with indication of the article metadata;
8.2.6. If articles from the Journal are indexed in some databases, these databases are informed about the article withdrawal, stating the reason.
9. Additional Information:
9.1. Publishing Ethics:
www.elsevier.com/wps/find/intro.cws_home/publishing
www.elsevier.com/publishingethicskit
9.2. Guidelines for Editors:
www.elsevier.com/wps/find/editorsinfo.editors/sopethics
9.3. Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest:
www.elsevier.com/wps/find/authorshome.authors/conflictsofinterest
9.4. Legal Aspects of Plagiarism:
www.elsevier.com/wps/find/editorsinfo.editors/ethicshelpdesk
