Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement
In the process of publishing, it is necessary that all involved parties (authors, editors, peer reviewers, publishers) agree on the standards of expected ethical behavior. The ethics statements for our journal are based on the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors.
1. Duties of the Editors-in-Chief
Submitted manuscripts are evaluated for their intellectual content without regard to authors’ race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, religion, citizenship, or political views.
The Editors-in-Chief and any editorial staff must not disclose any information about a submitted manuscript to anyone other than the corresponding author, reviewers, potential reviewers, other editorial advisers, and the publisher, as appropriate.
Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest
Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in an Editor’s own research without the explicit written consent of the author(s).
The Editors-in-Chief of the journal are responsible for deciding which of the submitted manuscripts should be published. The Editors-in-Chief may be guided by the policies of the journal’s Editorial Board and constrained by such legal requirements as may then be in force regarding libel, copyright infringement, and plagiarism. The Editors-in-Chief may confer with other editors or reviewers in making decisions.
2. Duties of Peer Reviewers
Contribution to Editorial Decisions
Peer review assists the Editors-in-Chief in making editorial decisions and, through editorial communication with the author, may also assist the author in improving the manuscript.
Any invited referee who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its timely review will be impossible should immediately notify the Editors-in-Chief so that alternative reviewers can be contacted.
Any manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. They must not be shown to or discussed with others, except if authorized by the Editors-in-Chief.
Standards of Objectivity
Reviews should be conducted objectively. Personal criticism of the author is inacceptable. Referees should express their views clearly with appropriate supporting arguments.
Acknowledgement of Sources
Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors. Any observation, derivation, or argument that 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 work of which they have personal knowledge.
Disclosure and Conflict of Interest
Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage. Reviewers should not consider evaluating manuscripts for 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 submission.
3. Duties of Authors
Authors reporting results of original work should present an accurate account of the work performed as well as an objective discussion of its significance. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behavior and are unacceptable.
Originality and Plagiarism
The authors should ensure that they have written entirely original work, and if the authors have used the work and/or words of others this must be appropriately cited or quoted. Authors should also cite publications that have been influential in determining the nature of the reported work.
Multiple, Redundant, or Concurrent Publications
An author should not publish manuscripts describing essentially the same research in more than one journal or primary publication. Parallel submission of the same manuscript to more than one journal constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable.
Authorship of a Manuscript
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 coauthors. Where there are others who have participated in certain substantive aspects of the work, they should be named in an Acknowledgments section.
The Corresponding Author
The corresponding author should ensure that all appropriate coauthors (according to the above definition) and no inappropriate coauthors are included in the author list of the manuscript, and that all coauthors have seen and approved the final version of the paper and have agreed to its submission for publication.
Human or Animal Subjects
Any work involving human or animal subjects should indicate whether the procedures followed were in accordance with the ethical standards of the relevant institutional committee(s).
Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest
All authors should disclose in their manuscript any financial or other substantive conflict of interest that might be construed to influence the results or their interpretation in the manuscript. All sources of financial support for the project should be disclosed.
Completion of Revision Process
After a manuscript has been accepted for publication, i.e. after referee-recommended revisions have been completed, the author will not be permitted to make changes that constitute departures from the manuscript that was accepted by the editor. Before publication, galley proofs are always sent to authors for corrections. Authors are responsible for proofreading and checking the entire galley proof within XX days. Failure to return the proof in XX days may delay publication. Mistakes or omissions that occur due to some negligence on the part of the journal during final printing will be rectified in an erratum in a later issue. This does not include errors left uncorrected by the author in the galley proof.
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 Editors-in-Chief or publisher and cooperate with them to either retract the paper or to publish an appropriate corrigendum.
4. Publisher’s Confirmation
In cases of alleged or proven scientific misconduct, fraudulent publication, or plagiarism, the publisher, in close collaboration with the Editors-in-Chief, will take all appropriate measures to clarify the situation and to amend the article in question. This includes the prompt publication of a corrigendum or, in the most severe cases, the complete retraction of the work in question.