Publication Ethics

Reporting Standards

Authors should present an accurate account of the original research performed as well as an objective discussion of its significance. Researchers should 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 should follow the submission guidelines of the journal.

Originality and Plagiarism

Authors must 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.

Multiple, Redundant, or Concurrent Publications

Authors should not in general 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 should be clearly identified as such and the primary publication should be referenced.

Acknowledgement of Sources

Authors should 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

The authorship of research publications should accurately reflect individuals’ contributions to the work and its reporting. Authorship should be limited to those who have made a significant contribution to conception, design, execution or interpretation of the reported study. Others who have made significant contributions must be listed as co-authors. Those who have made less substantial or purely technical contributions to the research or publication may be listed in an acknowledgement section. Authors should also ensure that all authors have seen and agreed to the submitted version of the manuscript and their inclusion as co-authors.

Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest

All authors should clearly 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.

Fundamental Errors in Published Works

If the author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in the submitted manuscript, the author should 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 should clearly identify in the manuscript if the work involves chemicals, procedures or equipment that have any unusual hazards inherent in their use.

Publication Decisions

Based on the review report of the editorial board, the editor can accept, reject, or request modifications to the manuscript. The validation of the work in question and its importance to researchers and readers must always drive such decisions. The editors 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. Editors have to take responsibility for everything they publish and should have procedures and policies in place to ensure the quality of the material they publish and maintain the integrity of the published record.

Review of Manuscripts

The editor must ensure that each manuscript is initially evaluated for originality. The editor should organize and use peer review fairly and wisely. Editors should explain their peer review processes 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 people with sufficient expertise and avoiding those with conflicts of interest.

Fair Play

The editor must ensure that each manuscript received by the journal is reviewed for its intellectual content without regard to sex, gender, race, religion, citizenship, or other personal characteristics of the authors. An important part of the responsibility to make fair and unbiased decisions is the upholding of the principle of editorial independence and integrity. Editors are in a powerful position by making decisions on publications, which makes it very important that this process is as fair and unbiased as possible.

Confidentiality

The editor must ensure that information regarding manuscripts submitted by authors is kept confidential. Editors should critically assess any potential breaches of data protection and patient confidentiality. This includes requiring properly informed consent for the actual research presented and consent for publication where applicable.

Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest

The editor of the journal will not use unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript for his or her own research without written consent of the author. Editors should not be involved in decisions about papers in which they have a conflict of interest.

Confidentiality

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

Acknowledgement 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 an observation, derivation, or argument had been previously reported should be accompanied by the relevant citation. Reviewers should notify the journal immediately if they come across any irregularities, have concerns about ethical aspects of the work, are aware of substantial similarity between the manuscript and a concurrent submission to another journal or a published article, or suspect that misconduct may have occurred during either the research or the writing and submission of the manuscript. Reviewers should, however, keep their concerns confidential and not personally investigate further unless the journal asks for further information or advice.

Standards of Objectivity

Review of submitted manuscripts must be done objectively and reviewers should express their views clearly with supporting arguments. Reviewers should follow the journal's instructions on the specific feedback required of them. Reviewers should be constructive in their reviews and provide feedback that will help authors improve their manuscript. Reviewers should make clear which suggested additional investigations are essential to support claims made in the manuscript under consideration and which will only strengthen or extend the work.

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. In the case of double-blind review, if reviewers suspect the identity of the author or authors and this knowledge raises any potential conflict of interest, they should notify the journal.

Promptness

Reviewers should respond within a reasonable time-frame. Reviewers should only agree to review a manuscript if they are fairly confident they can return a review within the proposed or mutually agreed time-frame, informing the journal promptly if they require an extension. If a reviewer feels it is not possible to complete the review within the stipulated time, this information must be communicated to the editor so that the manuscript can be sent to another reviewer.