Publication Ethics

Our Publication Ethics is based on COPE's Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors.

Author assignment

Reporting Standards: Authors must present an accurate report of the original research conducted as well as an objective discussion of its significance. Researchers must present their results truthfully and without falsification, falsification or improper manipulation of data. A manuscript must contain sufficient detail and references to enable others to replicate the work. Statements that are deceptive or intentionally inaccurate constitute unethical behavior and are unacceptable. Manuscripts must follow the journal submission guidelines.
Originality and Plagiarism: Authors should ensure that they have written completely original work. Manuscripts may not be submitted simultaneously to more than one publication unless the editor has approved joint publication. Relevant previous work and publications, both by other researchers and the authors themselves, must be properly acknowledged and referenced. Primary literature should be cited whenever possible. Original words taken directly from publications by other researchers must appear in quotation marks with appropriate citations.
Multiple, Redundant, or Concurrent Publication: Authors generally should not submit the same manuscript to more than one journal concurrently. Authors are also expected not to publish redundant manuscripts or manuscripts that describe the same research in more than one journal. Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal simultaneously is unethical and unacceptable publishing behavior. Several publications arising from a single research project should be clearly identified and the main publication should be referred to
Acknowledgment of Sources: Authors must acknowledge all data sources used in the research and cite publications that have been influential in determining the nature of the work reported. Proper acknowledgment of the work of others should always be given.
Authorship of Papers: The authorship of a research publication must accurately reflect an individual's contribution to the work and its reporting. Authorship should be limited to those who have made a significant contribution to the conception, design, conduct or interpretation of the study being reported. Others who have made significant contributions should be listed as co-authors. In cases where major contributors are listed as authors while those who made less substantial, or purely technical, contributions to research or publication are listed in an acknowledgment section. The author also ensures that all authors have seen and approved the submitted version of the manuscript and the inclusion of their names as co-authors.
Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest: All authors must clearly disclose in their manuscript any financial or other substantive conflicts of interest that might be construed to influence the outcome or interpretation of their manuscript. All sources of financial support for the project must be disclosed.
Fundamental Errors in Published Work: If the author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in a submitted manuscript, the author must immediately notify the editor of the journal or publisher and work with the editor to retract or correct the paper.
Hazards and Human or Animal Subjects: Authors must clearly identify in the manuscript if the work involves chemicals, procedures or equipment that have any unusual hazards inherent in their use.

 

Editor's Task

Publishing Decision: Based on the editorial board's review report, the editor can accept, reject, or request modification of the manuscript. The validation of the work in question and its importance to researchers and readers should always drive those decisions. Editors can be guided by the policies of the journal's editorial board and limited by legal requirements that will apply regarding defamation, copyright infringement, and plagiarism. Editors may confer with other editors or reviewers in making this decision. Editors must be responsible for everything they publish and must have procedures and policies in place to ensure the quality of the material they publish and maintain the integrity of published records.
Manuscript Review: The editor must ensure that each manuscript is initially evaluated by the editor for originality. Editors must organize and use peer review fairly and wisely. Editors should describe their peer review process in information for authors and also indicate which parts of the journal are peer-reviewed. Editors should use appropriate peer reviewers for papers considered for publication, selecting those with sufficient expertise and avoiding those with conflicts of interest.

Fair Play: Editors must ensure that every manuscript received by the journal is reviewed for its intellectual content regardless of the gender, gender, race, religion, nationality, etc. of the author. An important part of the responsibility to make fair and impartial decisions is to uphold the principles of editorial independence and integrity. Editors are in a powerful position with making decisions about publication, which makes it very important that this process is as fair and unbiased as possible.
Confidentiality: Editors must ensure that information regarding manuscripts submitted by authors is kept confidential. Editors must critically assess any potential breaches of data protection and patient confidentiality. This includes requiring properly informed consent for the actual research presented, consent for publication where applicable.
Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest: Journal editors will not use unpublished material disclosed in submitted manuscripts for their own research without the written consent of the author. Editors should not be involved in decisions about papers that have a conflict of interest

 

Reviewer Task

Confidentiality: Information regarding manuscripts submitted by authors must be kept confidential and treated as privileged information. They may not be shown or discussed with others except as permitted by the editors.
Acknowledgment of Sources: Reviewers must ensure that authors have acknowledged all sources of data used in the research. Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the author. Any statement that the observations, derivations, or arguments have been previously reported must be accompanied by a relevant citation. Reviewers should notify the journal immediately if they discover an irregularity, have concerns about ethical aspects of the work, become aware of substantial similarities between the manuscript and concurrent submissions to other journals or published articles, or suspect that a violation may have occurred. either during research or writing and submission of manuscripts; the reviewer must, however,
Standards of Objectivity: Review of submitted manuscripts must be carried out objectively and reviewers must express their views clearly with supporting arguments. Reviewers should follow the journal's instructions regarding the specific feedback required of them and, unless there is a good reason not to do so. Reviewers should be constructive in their reviews and provide feedback that will help authors to improve their manuscripts. The reviewer should describe any suggested additional investigations which are essential to support the claims made in the text under consideration and which will only strengthen or expand the work
Disclosure and Conflict of Interest: Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal gain. Reviewers should not consider manuscripts in which they have a conflict of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions associated with the paper. In the case of a double-blind review, if they suspect the identity of the author, notify the journal if this knowledge raises a potential conflict of interest.
Accuracy: Reviewers must respond within a reasonable time frame. Reviewers only agree to review manuscripts if they are reasonably confident that they can return the review within a proposed or mutually agreed upon time frame, informing the journal immediately if they require an extension. In the event that the reviewer feels that it is impossible to complete the manuscript review within the allotted time, this information must be communicated to the editor, so that the manuscript can be sent to other reviewers.