Publication Ethics

Duties of Authors

• Reporting Standards: Authors must present an accurate account of the original research performed as well as an objective discussion of its significance. Researchers must present their results honestly and without fabrication, falsification, or inappropriate data manipulation. A manuscript should contain sufficient detail and references to permit others to replicate the work. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behavior and are unacceptable. Manuscripts must follow the journal's submission guidelines.

• Originality and Plagiarism: Authors must ensure that they have written entirely original works. Manuscripts must not be submitted simultaneously to more than one publication unless the editors have agreed to joint publication. Relevant previous work and publications, whether by other researchers or the authors' own, must be properly acknowledged and referenced. Primary literature should be cited where possible. Original wording taken directly from publications by other researchers should appear within quotation marks with appropriate citations.

• Multiple, Redundant, or Concurrent Publication: In general, authors should not submit the same manuscript to more than one journal concurrently. It is also expected that authors will not publish redundant manuscripts or manuscripts describing the same research in more than one journal. Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal concurrently constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable. Multiple publications arising from a single research project must be clearly identified and the primary publication must be referenced.

• Acknowledgement of Sources: Authors must acknowledge all sources of data used in the research and cite publications that have been influential in determining the nature of the reported work. Proper acknowledgment of the work of others must always be given.

• Authorship of the Paper: Authorship of a research publication should accurately reflect individuals' contributions to the work and its reporting. Authorship should be limited to those who have made a significant contribution to the conception, design, execution, or interpretation of the reported study. Others who have made significant contributions should be listed as co-authors. In cases where major contributors are listed as authors, those who made less substantial, or purely technical, contributions to the research or publication are listed in an acknowledgement section. Authors also ensure that all authors have seen and approved the submitted version of the manuscript and the inclusion of their names as co-authors.

• Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest: All authors must clearly disclose in their manuscript any financial or other substantive conflicts of interest that might be construed to influence the results or interpretation of their manuscript. All sources of financial support for the project must be disclosed.

• Fundamental Errors in Published Works: If an author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in the submitted manuscript, the author must promptly notify the journal editor or publisher and cooperate with the editor to retract or correct the paper.

• Hazards and Human or Animal Subjects: Authors must clearly identify in the manuscript if the work involves chemicals, procedures, or equipment that have any unusual hazards inherent in their use.

Duties of Editors

• Publication Decisions: Based on the editorial board's review reports, the editor may accept, reject, or request modifications to the manuscript. The validation of the work in question and its importance to researchers and readers must always be the primary considerations in such decision-making. Editors may be guided by the policies of the journal's editorial board and constrained by applicable legal requirements regarding libel, copyright infringement, and plagiarism. Editors may consult with other editors or reviewers in making these decisions. Editors shall be responsible for everything they publish and shall have procedures and policies in place to ensure the quality of the material they publish and maintain the integrity of the published record.

• Manuscript Review: Editors must ensure that each manuscript is first evaluated by the editor for originality. Editors must organize and use peer review fairly and wisely. Editors should explain their peer review process in the information for authors and also indicate which parts of the journal are peer-reviewed. Editors should use appropriate peer reviewers for papers considered for publication by selecting individuals with sufficient expertise and avoiding those with conflicts of interest.

• Fair Play: Editors must ensure that every manuscript received by the journal is reviewed based on its intellectual content regardless of the author's gender, race, religion, citizenship, etc. A key part of the responsibility to make fair and unbiased decisions is upholding the principles of editorial independence and integrity. Editors are in a powerful position by making decisions about publication, making it very important that this process is as fair and objective as possible.

• Confidentiality: Editors must ensure that information regarding manuscripts submitted by authors is kept confidential. Editors must critically assess any potential breaches of data protection and patient confidentiality. This includes requiring proper and informed consent for the research presented, and consent for publication where applicable.

• Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest: Journal Editors will not use unpublished material disclosed in a submitted manuscript for their own research without the express written consent of the author. Editors should not be involved in decisions about papers in which they have a conflict of interest.

Duties of Reviewers

• Confidentiality: Information regarding manuscripts submitted by authors must be kept confidential and treated as privileged information. Such information must not be shown to or discussed with others except as authorized by the editor.

• Acknowledgement of Sources: Reviewers should ensure that authors have acknowledged all data sources used in the research. Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors. Any statement that an observation, derivation, or argument had been previously reported should be accompanied by the relevant citation. Reviewers should immediately notify the journal if they find irregularities, have concerns about ethical aspects of the work, are aware of substantial similarities between the manuscript and a concurrent submission to another journal or a published article, or suspect that misconduct may have occurred during the research or writing and submission of the manuscript; however, reviewers must keep their concerns confidential and not investigate further personally unless the journal asks for further information or advice.

• Standards of Objectivity: Reviews of submitted manuscripts should be conducted objectively and reviewers should express their views clearly with supporting arguments. Reviewers should follow the journal’s instructions regarding the specific feedback required from them, unless there is a compelling reason not to do so. Reviewers should be constructive in their reviews and provide feedback that will help authors to improve their manuscripts. Reviewers should clearly explain which additional investigations are essential to support the claims made in the manuscript under consideration and which would only strengthen or extend the work.

• Disclosure and Conflicts 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. In the case of double-blind review, if they suspect the identity of the author(s), they should notify the journal if this knowledge poses a potential conflict of interest.

• Timeliness: Reviewers should respond within a reasonable timeframe. Reviewers only agree to review a manuscript if they are reasonably confident they can provide a review within the proposed or mutually agreed timeframe, and notify the journal promptly if they require an extension. If a reviewer feels it is impossible to complete the review of the manuscript within the specified time, this information should be communicated to the editor, so that the manuscript can be sent to another reviewer.