Publication Ethics

                         ethics

I.  Publication and authorship

  1. All submitted papers are subject to strict peer-review process by at least two international reviewers that are experts in the area of the particular paper.
  2. The factors that are taken into account in review are relevance, soundness, significance, originality, readability and language.
  3. The possible decisions include acceptance, acceptance with revisions, or rejection.
  4. If authors are encouraged to revise and resubmit a submission, there is no guarantee that the revised submission will be accepted.
  5. Rejected articles will not be re-reviewed.
  6. The paper acceptance is constrained by such legal requirements as shall   then be in force regarding libel, copyright infringement and plagiarism.
  7. No research can be included in more than one publication.

II. Authors' responsibilities

  1. Authors must certify that their manuscripts are their original work.
  2. Authors must certify that the manuscript has not previously been published elsewhere.
  3. Authors must certify that the manuscript is not currently being considered for publication elsewhere.
  4. Authors must participate in the peer review process.
  5. Authors are obliged to provide retractions or corrections of mistakes.
  6. All Authors mentioned in the paper must have significantly contributed to the research.
  7. Authors must state that all data in the paper are real and authentic.
  8. Authors must notify the Editors of any conflicts of interest.
  9. Authors must identify all sources used in the creation of their manuscript.
  10. Authors must report any errors they discover in their published paper to the Editors.

III.  Reviewers' responsibilities

  1. Reviewers should keep all information regarding papers confidential and treat them as privileged information.
  2. Reviews should be conducted objectively, with no personal criticism of the author.
  3. Reviewers should express their views clearly with supporting arguments
  4. Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors.
  5. Reviewers should also call to the Editor in Chief's attention any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published paper of which they have personal knowledge.
  6. Reviewers should not review 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.

IV. Editors' responsibilities

  1. Editors have complete responsibility and authority to reject/accept an article.
  2. Editors are responsible for the contents and overall quality of the publication.
  3. Editors should always consider the needs of the authors and the readers when attempting to improve the publication.
  4. Editors should guarantee the quality of the papers and the integrity of the academic record.
  5. Editors should publish errata pages or make corrections when needed.
  6. Editors should have a clear picture of a research's funding sources.
  7. Editors should base their decisions solely on the papers' importance, originality, clarity and relevance to publication's scope.
  8. Editors should not reverse their decisions nor overturn the ones of previous editors without serious reason.
  9. Editors should preserve the anonymity of reviewers.
  10. Editors should ensure that all research material they publish conforms to internationally accept ethical guidelines.
  11. Editors should only accept a paper when reasonably certain.
  12. Editors should act if they suspect misconduct, whether a paper is published or unpublished, and make all reasonable attempts to persist in obtaining a resolution to the problem.
  13. Editors should not reject papers based on suspicions; they should have proof of misconduct.
  14. Editors should not allow any conflicts of interest between staff, authors, reviewers, and board members.

 

         V)  Human and Animal Rights

 

            All research must have been carried out within an appropriate ethical framework. If there is the suspicion that work has not taken place within an appropriate ethical framework, Editors will follow may reject the manuscript, and/or contact the author(s)’ ethics committee. On rare occasions, if the Editor has serious concerns about the ethics of a study, the manuscript may be rejected on ethical grounds, even if approval from an ethics committee has been obtained.

 

 Research involving human subjects, human material, or human data, must have been performed in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and must have been approved by an appropriate ethics committee.

 

 The submitted study has to be supported by the ethics/bioethics committee approval.

 

 Authors reporting the use of a new procedure or tool in a clinical setting, for example as a technical advance or case report, must give a clear justification in the manuscript for why the new procedure or tool was deemed more appropriate than usual clinical practice to meet the patient’s clinical need. Such justification is not required if the new procedure is already approved for clinical use at the authors’ institution. The authors will be expected to have obtained ethics committee approval and informed patient consent for any experimental use of a novel procedure or tool where a clear clinical advantage based on clinical need was not apparent before treatment.

 

For more information on suggested best practices in scientific publishing please visit the official website of Committee On Publication Ethics(COPE).