Publication Ethic Statement

Our ethic statements are based on COPE’s Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors.

Duties of Editors

  1. Publication Decisions: The editor has the right to accept, reject, or ask for changes to the work. Such decisions must always be guided by the work in question's validity and its significance to scholars and readers. The editorial board's policies and the laws that will then be in effect regarding libel, copyright infringement, and plagiarism may serve as the editors' guides and limitations. In making this choice, the editors may consult with additional editors or reviewers. Editors must be accountable for everything they publish, and they should have standards and procedures in place to guarantee the caliber of the content they distribute and uphold the reliability of the public record.
  2. Review of Manuscripts: The editor must make sure that each paper is initially assessed for originality by the editor. The editor should fairly and intelligently organize and use peer review. In the information for authors, editors should outline their peer review procedures and specify which sections of the publication are peer-reviewed. For manuscripts that are being considered for publication, the editor should use acceptable peer reviewers by choosing individuals with enough knowledge and avoiding those who have conflicts of interest.
  3. Fair Play: The editor must make sure that every manuscript submitted to the journal is evaluated for its intellectual substance without taking into account the authors' sex, gender, race, religion, nationality, etc. Maintaining the ideal of editorial independence and integrity is a crucial aspect of the duty to make impartial judgements. Since editors have significant influence on publications, it is crucial that this process is as impartial and fair as possible.
  4. Confidentiality: The editor must make sure that information about manuscripts that authors submit is kept private. Any potential breaches of patient confidentiality and data protection should be carefully evaluated by editors. This involves securing legally valid consent for the research itself, as well as, when appropriate, consent for publishing. Editors should also provide guidance to reviewers on everything that is expected of them including the need to handle submitted material in confidence.
  5. Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest: Without the author's permission in writing, the editor of the Journal will not use unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted work for his own research. Decisions about papers in which editors have a conflict of interest shouldn't be made by them.

Duties of Authors

  1. Reporting standards: Authors of the paper should present the paper’s importance, originality and clarity, as well as the study’s validity and its relevance to the remit of the journal. The manuscript should contain sufficient detail and references to permit others to replicate the work. Review articles should be accurate, objective and comprehensive, while editorial 'opinion' or perspective pieces should be clearly identified as such. Serious problems that are identified with the submission are unacceptable.
  2. Originality and Plagiarism: Authors should ensure that they have written entirely original work. The manuscript should not be submitted concurrently to more than one publication unless the editors have agreed to co-publication. Relevant previous work and publications, both by other researchers and the authors’ own, should be properly acknowledged and referenced. The primary literature should be cited where possible. Original wording taken directly from publications by other researchers should appear in quotation marks with the appropriate citations. Plagiarism in all its forms constitutes unethical publishing behaviour and is unacceptable.
  3. Authorship of the manuscript: The listed authors should meet the criteria for authorship as they must be able to take public responsibility for the content. The standards within the relevant field should be followed to decide who should be listed as a contributor.
  4. Disclosure and conflicts of interest: Authors should—at the earliest stage possible (generally by submitting a disclosure form at the time of submission and including a statement in the manuscript)—disclose any relevant competing interests 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.

Duties of Reviewers

  1. Confidentiality: Information regarding manuscripts submitted by authors should remain confidential and be recognized as privileged information while under review by editor unless authorized by the editor.
  2. 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 authors. Any statement that had been previously reported should be accompanied by the relevant citation.
  3. Standards of Objectivity: Review of submitted manuscripts must be done objectively and their views should be expressed clearly with strong arguments. The reviewers should be constructive in their reviews and provide feedback that will help the authors to better their manuscript. The reviewer should make clear which suggested additional investigations are essential to support claims made in the manuscript under consideration and which will just strengthen or extend the work
  4. 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 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.
  5. Promptness: The reviewers should respond in time. The reviewers only agree to review a manuscript if they guarantee they can return a review within the proposed or mutually agreed time-frame, informing the journal promptly if an extension is needed. If a reviewer feels it is not possible for him/her to finish a review of the manuscript before the expected time then this information must be communicated to the editor so that the manuscript could be sent to another reviewer.