Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement

These statements are based on existing Elsevier policies (Elsevier Publishing Ethics Resource Kit – PERK) and COPE’s (Committee on Publication Ethics) Responsible Research Publication: International Standards for Editors and Authors, and Code of Conduct and Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors.
The Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement supports combined efforts by the authors, members of the editorial board and scientific committee, and reviewers to produce a responsible research publication. It is therefore important to agree upon standards of expected ethical behaviour for all parties involved in the act of publishing: the author, the journal editor, the peer reviewer, the publisher and the society.

Authors’ responsibilities

The research being reported in articles must be conducted in an ethical and responsible manner and must comply with all relevant legislation, notably concerning intellectual property rights. Authors must be aware of and refrain from engaging in scientific misconduct and by breaching publishing ethics.

Reporting standards
Authors should present their results clearly, honestly, and without fabrication, falsification, or inappropriate data manipulation. The authors should guarantee the originality of their material and strive to describe their methods clearly and unambiguously so that their findings can be confirmed by others.
Authors of original research reports should present an accurate account of the work performed as well as an objective discussion of its significance. Underlying data should be represented accurately in the paper. A paper should contain sufficient detail and references to permit others to replicate the work.
Review and professional publication articles should also be accurate and objective, and editorial ‘opinion’ works should be clearly identified as such.
Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical publishing behaviour and are unacceptable.

Data access and retention
Authors may be asked to share the data that supports research publications. Research data refers to the results of observations or experimentation that validate research findings. Authors should be prepared to provide the raw data on which their paper is based (for editorial review and/or to comply with the open data requirements of the Journal) and by giving public access to such data be transparent about their research.

Content originality and plagiarism
The authors should ensure that they have written entirely original works, and if the authors have used the work and/or words of others, that this has been appropriately cited or quoted. Plagiarism takes many forms, from ‘passing off’ another’s paper as the author’s own paper, to copying or paraphrasing substantial parts of another’s paper (without attribution), to claiming results from research conducted by others. The authors shall guarantee the originality of their material and shall not publish any text that would appear otherwise. Plagiarism and false or intentionally misleading declarations constitute unethical publishing behaviour and are unacceptable.

Multiple, redundant, simultaneous, or repeat publications
The authors shall not submit an article already published elsewhere, or a new article founded entirely on work already published. Likewise, the authors shall not make multiple submissions. Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal concurrently constitutes unethical publishing behaviour and is unacceptable.
Publication of some kinds of articles (e.g. clinical guidelines, translations) in more than one journal is sometimes justifiable, provided certain conditions are met. The authors and editors of the journals concerned must agree to the secondary publication, which must reflect the same data and interpretation of the primary document. The primary reference must be cited in the secondary publication.

Acknowledgement of sources
Proper acknowledgment of the work of others must always be given. Authors should cite publications that have been influential in determining the nature of the reported work. Information obtained privately, as in conversation, correspondence, or discussion with third parties, must not be used or reported without explicit, written permission from the source. Information obtained in the course of confidential services, such as refereeing manuscripts or grant applications, must not be used without the explicit written permission of the author of the work involved in these services.

Authorship of the paper
Authors should provide appropriate authorship and acknowledgement. Authorship should be limited to those who have made a significant contribution to the conception, design, execution, or interpretation of the reported study. Authors must refrain from deliberately misrepresenting a scientist’s relationship with published work. All those who have made significant contributions should be listed as co-authors. Where there are others who have participated in certain substantive aspects of the research project, they should be acknowledged or listed as contributors. The corresponding author should ensure that all appropriate co-authors and no inappropriate co-authors are included on the paper, and that all co-authors have seen and approved the final version of the paper and have agreed to its submission for publication.

Hazards and human or animal subjects
If the work involves chemicals, procedures or equipment that have any unusual hazards inherent in their use, the author must clearly identify these in the manuscript. If the work involves the use of animal or human subjects, the author should ensure that the manuscript contains a statement that all procedures were performed in compliance with relevant laws and institutional guidelines and that the appropriate institutional committee(s) has approved them. Authors should include a statement in the manuscript that informed consent was obtained for experimentation with human subjects. The privacy rights of human subjects must always be observed.

Disclosure and conflicts of interest
All authors should disclose in their manuscript any financial or other substantive conflict of interest that might be construed to influence the results or interpretation of their manuscript. All sources of financial support for the project should be disclosed. Examples of potential conflicts of interest which should be disclosed include employment, consultancies, stock ownership, honoraria, paid expert testimony, patent applications/registrations, and grants or other funding. Any direct or indirect conflict of interest with editors or members of the Editorial board or International scientific committee must be told to the Journal. All potential conflicts of interest should be disclosed at the earliest stage possible.

Fundamental errors in published works
When an author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in his/her own published work, it is the author’s obligation to promptly notify the journal editor or publisher and cooperate with the editor to retract or correct the paper. If the editor or the publisher learns from a third party that a published work contains a significant error, it is the obligation of the author to promptly retract or correct the paper or provide evidence to the editor of the correctness of the original paper.

Editorial responsibilities

Editorial board of the journal is committed to publishing high quality, peer-reviewed papers, and to publishing and review processes that adhere to the strictest ethical standards. The composition of the editorial team, including advisory and editorial boards and editorial office contact information is available on journal’s web page.

Publication decision
This journal employs a double-blind review process. All contributions will be initially assessed by the Editor-in-Chief and/or Managing Editor (hereinafter: Editors). Editors are solely and independently responsible for selecting, processing, and deciding which of the articles submitted to the journal meet the editorial goals and could thus be published. Each paper considered suitable is sent to two independent peer reviewers who are experts in their field and able to assess the specific qualities of the work. Editors are responsible for the final decision regarding whether or not the paper is accepted or rejected.
The decision to publish a paper will always be measured in accordance to its importance to researchers, practitioners, and potential readers. The editor’s decisions and actions may be guided by the policies of the journal’s Editorial Board and constrained by such legal requirements as shall then be in force regarding libel, copyright infringement and plagiarism. The Editors may confer with other editors or reviewers in making this decision.

Fair play
The Editors shall evaluate manuscripts for their intellectual content without regard to race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy of the authors.

Peer review
The journal employs a double-blind review process. Each article submitted is the responsibility of one member of the editorial board or of the international scientific committee, who undertakes to have it evaluated by two peers who are experts in the field and who evaluate it anonymously. Reviewed articles are treated confidentially by editorial board members, members of the international scientific committee, and reviewers.

Confidentiality
The names of authors, reviewers, and collaborators along with the names of their organizations and institutional affiliations, which the Journal may record in the course of its operations, shall remain confidential and shall not be used for any commercial or public ends beyond the signature of the articles published. The Journal may use these lists for its own purposes of soliciting articles, collaboration, or other contributions, notably through occasional e-mails. This information, also, may sometimes be required by government grant-giving bodies. The anonymity of the peer review process in these cases shall be maintained by giving the list of the authors, reviewers, and collaborators and the names of their organizations and institutional affiliations with no explicit links between those named.

Conflict of interest and disclosure
The Journal shall avoid all conflict of interest between authors, reviewers, and members of the editorial board and scientific committee. Members of the Editorial board and reviewers shall withdraw in any case of conflict of interest concerning an author or authors, or the content of a manuscript to be evaluated. Conflict of interest may result from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or (possibly) institutions connected to the papers.
Editors shall require all contributors to disclose relevant competing interests and publish corrections if competing interests are revealed after publication. If needed, other appropriate action should be taken, such as the publication of a retraction or expression of concern.
Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript shall not be used in an Editor’s own research without the express written consent of the author. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review shall be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage.

Identifying and preventing misconduct
In no case shall a journal and members of the editorial board and international scientific committee encourage unethical behaviour of any kind or knowingly allow such misconduct to take place. Members of the editorial board and international scientific committee shall try to prevent misconduct by informing authors and reviewers about the ethical conduct required of them. Members of the editorial board, scientific committee, and reviewers are asked to be aware of all types of misconduct in order to identify papers where research misconduct of any kind has or seems to have occurred and deal with the allegations accordingly.

Addressing ethical oversight and unethical behaviour
Editors should take reasonably responsive measures when ethical complaints have been presented concerning a submitted manuscript or published paper, in conjunction with the publisher (or society). Such measures will generally include contacting the author of the manuscript or paper and giving due consideration of the respective complaint or claims made, but may also include further communications to the relevant institutions and research bodies, and if the complaint is upheld, the publication of a correction, retraction, expression of concern, or other note, as may be relevant. Every reported act of unethical publishing behaviour must be looked into, even if it is discovered years after publication.

Reviewers’ responsibilities

All papers undergo formal peer review process, and editorial decisions are made following a rigorous, fair, unbiased, and timely peer review. All reviewers thereat must know and keep in mind the Editorial policy and the Statement of Publication Ethics and Malpractice of the journal.

Contribution to editorial decision
Peer review assists the Editors in making editorial decisions and through the editorial communications with the author may also assist the author in improving the paper. The journal requires potential reviewers to have scientific expertise or significant work experience in a relevant field. They must have recently conducted research and/or work and have acquired recognized expertise by their peers. Potential reviewers should provide personal and professional information which is accurate and which gives a fair representation of their expertise.

Promptness
The journal requires potential reviewers to be prompt in their evaluation. All reviewers must likewise withdraw from the review process if they know that their prompt review will not be possible, if they are unqualified to evaluate a manuscript, if they feel their evaluation will not be objective, or if they understand themselves to be in a conflict of interest.

Confidentiality
Manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. They must not be shown to or discussed with others except as authorized by the editor.

Standards of objectivity
Reviews should be conducted objectively. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate. Referees should express their views clearly with supporting arguments.

Acknowledgement of sources
Reviewers should point out relevant published work which has not been cited in the reviewed material. Any statement that an observation, derivation, or argument had been previously reported should be accompanied by the relevant citation. A reviewer should also call to the editor’s attention any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published paper of which they have personal knowledge.

Disclosure and conflict of interest
Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in a reviewer’s own research without the express written consent of the author. 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.

Identifying and reporting misconduct
Reviewers are asked to identify papers where research misconduct has or seems to have occurred and inform the editorial board, which will deal with each case accordingly.