Publication Ethics and Publication Malpractice
Statement
Our ethic statements are based on
Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE)’s Best Practice Guidelines for Journal
Editors. The relevant responsibilities of editors, reviewers, and authors of
the journal are set out below.
Editors have the following responsibilities:
- To acknowledge receipt of submitted
manuscripts within a few days of receipt and to ensure the efficient, fair and
timely review process of submitted manuscripts.
- To ensure that submitted manuscripts are
handled in a confidential manner, with no details being disclosed to anyone,
with the exception of the referees, without the permission of the author, until
a decision has been taken as to whether the manuscript is to be published.
- To invite reviewers, probably
considering the use of an author's suggested referees for his/her submitted
article, but to ensure that the suggestions do not lead to a positive bias
(e.g. co-authors of previous publications, mentor). The editor maintains the
right to use referees of his/her own choice.
- Not to use referees which an author has
requested not to be consulted, unless the editor reasonably considers there to
be a significant overriding interest in so doing.
- To ensure the confidentiality of the
names and other details of referees; adjudication and appeal referees may be
informed of the names of prior referees, if appropriate.
- To make the final decision concerning
acceptance or rejection of a manuscript with reasonable speed and to
communicate the decision in a clear and constructive manner.
- To decide to accept or reject a
manuscript for publication with reference only to the manuscript’s importance,
originality and clarity, and its relevance to the journal.
- To respect the intellectual independence
of authors.
- To make known any conflicts of interest
that might arise. Specifically, in cases where an editor is an author of a
submitted manuscript, the manuscript must be passed to another editor for
independent peer review.
- Not to use for their own research, work
reported in unpublished submitted articles.
- To respond to any suggestions of
scientific misconduct, usually through consultation with the author. This may
require the publication of a formal 'retraction' or correction.
- To deal fairly with an author’s appeal
against the rejection of a submitted manuscript.
- To monitor and ensure the fairness,
timeliness, and thoroughness of the peer-review process.