Publication-based ethics COPE
The Author's Responsibility
1. Reporting Standards:
Authors of the original report must present an accurate report of the work performed as well as an objective discussion of its significance. The underlying data must be represented accurately. A paper should contain sufficient detail and references to allow others to replicate the work. Scientific articles that are fake or intentional are unkind and unacceptable behavior and scientific articles are not accepted.
2.Data Access and Retention:
Authors are required to provide raw data in relation to the paper for editorial review, and must be prepared to provide public access to such data (consistent with on Data and Databases), if applicable, and should under any circumstances be prepared to retain such data for a reasonable time after publication.
3. Originality and Plagiarism:
Authors should ensure that they have written entirely original works, and if authors have used the work and / or words of others that these have been appropriately quoted or cited.
4. Multiple, Redundant, or Concurrent Publication:
An author should not generally publish manuscripts depicting essentially the same research in more than one journal or major publication. Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal at the same time is unethical and unacceptable publishing behavior
5. Source recognition:
True recognition of the work of others must always be given. Authors should cite publications that were influential in determining the nature of the work being reported.
Authorities should be limited to those who have made a significant contribution to the conception, design, implementation or interpretation of the reported research. All those who have made significant contributions must be listed as co-authors. Where other people have participated in certain substantive aspects of the research project, they must be recognized or registered as contributors. Suitable authors must ensure that all appropriate co-authors and no inappropriate co-authors are included on paper, and that all co-authors have agreed to the submission of a scientific article for publication.
7. Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest:
All authors must disclose in their manuscripts any financial or other substantive conflicts of interest that may be interpreted to affect the results or interpretation of their manuscripts. All sources of financial support for the project must be disclosed.
8. Fundamental errors in published works:
When an author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in making a self-published scientific work, it is the author's obligation to immediately notify the journal editor or publisher and cooperate with the editor to retract or correct scientific articles before publication.
9. Hazards and Human or Animal Subjects:
If the work involves chemicals, procedures or equipment that have unusual hazards inherent in their use, the authors must clearly identify these in the manuscript.
The Editor's Work
1. Fair game:
The editor will at all times evaluate the manuscript for intellectual content regardless of the author's own race, gender, sexual orientation, religious beliefs, ethnic origin, nationality, or political philosophy.
Editors and editorial staff may not disclose any information about the submitted manuscript to anyone other than the respective authors, reviewers, potential reviewers, other editorial advisors and appropriate publishers.
3. Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest:
Unpublished material disclosed in the submitted manuscript may not be used in the editor's own research without the written consent of the author.
4. Publication Decision:
The editorial board is responsible for deciding which articles should be submitted to the journal for publication. The validation of the work in question and its importance to researchers and readers should always drive such decisions. Editors can be guided by the policies of the journal's editorial board and limited by the legal requirements that will apply regarding defamation, copyright infringement, and plagiarism. The editor discusses the editorial team or other reviewers in making publication decisions.
6. Review of the Manuscript:
Editors must ensure each article is initially evaluated by the editor for its originality. Editors must schedule peer reviews according to their profession fairly and wisely. The editor must explain to the peer review the information process for the author and also indicate which parts of the journal should be peer reviewed. Editors should use appropriate peer reviewers for papers considered for publication by selecting those with sufficient expertise and avoiding those with conflicts of interest.
1. Contribution to Editorial Decisions:
Peer reviews help editors in making editorial decisions in reviewing scientific articles and editorial communication with authors can help improve the quality of the article.
Any selected referee who feels ineligible to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that a speedy review is not possible should notify the editor and excuse himself from the review process
3. Standard of Objectivity:
Reviews must be carried out objectively. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate. Referees must express their views clearly with supporting arguments.
Any manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. They may not be shown or discussed with others except as permitted by the editor.
5. Disclosure and Conflicts 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 arising from competition, collaboration, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions to which the paper is linked.
6. Source recognition:
Reviewers must identify relevant published scientific works that have not been cited by the author. Any statements that the observations, derivations, or arguments have previously reported must be accompanied by a relevant citation. The reviewer should also call the editor's attention about any substantial similarities or overlaps between the manuscript under consideration and any other published papers that have personal knowledge.