1. Duties of Publisher
1.1. Publisher has a supporting, investing and nurturing role in the scholarly communication process but is also ultimately responsible for ensuring that best practice is followed in its publications.
1.2 Publisher takes its duties of guardianship over the scholarly record extremely seriously.
1.3 Publisher should support the journal’s editorial board in consideration of claims to ethic aspects of publishing materials and help to interact with other journals and/or publishers, if it is a responsibility of the editors.
1.4 Publisher should achieve well-timed publication of journal.
2. Duties of Editors
2.1 The editors of the journal are responsible for deciding which of the articles submitted to the journal should be published. In evaluating the submitted works, the editors should limit themselves only to the intellectual content. The editor 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 editor may confer with other editors or reviewers in making this decision. The editors must ensure the confidentiality of the submitted works until they are published, except in the case of suspicion of double submission. In case the editors decide not to publish a material, the manuscript should not be used for other purposes without the express written consent of the author. The editor of a submitted manuscript must not have a stake in the authors.
2.2 The editor and any editorial staff must not disclose any information about a submitted manuscript to anyone other than the corresponding author, reviewers, potential reviewers, other editorial advisers, and the publisher, as appropriate. Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in an editor's own research without the express written consent of the author..
3. Duties of Reviewers
3.1.Contribution to Editorial Decisions – Peer review assists the editor in making editorial decisions and through the editorial communications with the author may also assist the author in improving the paper. Peer review is an essential component of formal scholarly communication, and lies at the heart of the scientific method. Publisher shares the view of many that all scholars who wish to contribute to publications have an obligation to do a fair share of reviewing.
3.2.Promptness – Any selected referee who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should notify the editor of the journal and excuse himself from the review process.
3.3.Confidentiality – Any manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. They must not be shown to or discussed with others except as authorised by the editor.
3.4.Standard and objectivity – Reviews should be conducted objectively. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate. Referees should express their views clearly with supporting arguments.
3.5.Acknowledgement of Sources – 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. 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.
3.6.Reviewers have no right to use unpublished manuscript materials in their own research without the express written consent of the author. The reviewer is obliged to refrain from examining the manuscript, in connection with which he has a conflict of interests because of the competitive, cooperative or other relationship with the author or organization related to the manuscript.
4. Duties of Authors
4.1.Reporting standards 4.1.1. Authors of reports of original research 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. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behavior and are unacceptable.
4.1.2. Review and professional publication articles should also be accurate and objective, and editorial 'opinion’ works should be clearly identified as such.
4.2.Data Access and Retention – Authors may be asked to provide the raw data in connection with a paper for editorial review, and should be prepared to provide public access to such data (consistent with the ALPSP-STM Statement on Data and Databases), if practicable, and should in any event be prepared to retain such data for a reasonable time after publication.
4.3.Originality and Plagiarism
4.3.1. The authors should ensure that they have written entirely original works, and if the authors have used the work and/or words of others, this has been appropriately cited or quoted.
4.3.2. 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. Plagiarism in all its forms constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable.
4.4.Multiple, Redundant or Concurrent Publication
4.4.1. An author should not in general publish manuscripts describing essentially the same research in more than one journal of primary publication. Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal concurrently constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable.
4.4.2. In general, an author should not submit for consideration in another journal a previously published paper.
4.4.3. Publication of some kinds of articles (eg, 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. Further detail on acceptable forms of secondary publication can be found at www.icmje.org.
4.5.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.
4.6.Authorship of the Paper
4.6.1. Authorship should be limited to those who have made a significant contribution to the conception, design, execution, or interpretation of the reported study. 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.
4.6.2. 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.
4.7.Hazards and Human or Animal Subjects
4.7.1. 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.
4.7.2. 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) have 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. All investigations involving humans should be performed in accordance with the principles of Declaration of Helsinki and other WMA documents as updated at their website: https://www.wma.net/what-we-do/medical-ethics/declaration-of-helsinki/
4.8.Authors must disclose conflicts of interests that could affect the evaluation and interpretation of their manuscript, as well as the sources of financial support for the project (grants, state programs, projects, etc.), which should be necessarily indicated in the manuscript.
5. Complaints to be handled by the Editorial Board
5.1 Authorship complaints It is important that every author of a contribution be credited as such. It is equally as important that a person not be named as an author when he or she is not. The preference is for authors to resolve such matters amongst themselves, although that is not always possible.
5.2 Plagiarism complaints Plagiarism is committed when one author uses another work (typically the work of another author) without permission, credit, or acknowledgment.
5.3 Multiple, duplicate, concurrent publication/Simultaneous submission Articles submitted for publication must be original and must not have been submitted to any other publication. Except in very unusual circumstances (and then only with your agreement as the editor), authors are expected to submit articles that are original and have not been submitted to any other publication.
5.4 Research results misappropriation Authorship of research results is generally a verifiable question of fact. If there is any question as to whether research results reported in a submitted article are original to the purported author or authors, inquiries of the authors and/or their institutions are made.
5.5 Allegations of research errors and fraud where referees or readers come to the publisher or editor saying that: certain laboratories do not have the facilities to conduct the research they published; the gel images look manipulated; the data from the control experiments is too perfect etc, then the possibility of fraud needs to be considered. Fraud is publishing data or conclusions that were not generated by experiments or observations, but by data manipulation or invention. Changing the data measurements to conveniently fit the desired end result is fraud, but excluding inconvenient results is deliberate research error, which, in effect, is the same end result – fraud.
5.6 Research standards violations Research standards violations normally come to light when a referee sees that there was no informed consent on human subjects, or that the animal protection protocols were not being followed.
5.7 Undisclosed conflicts of interest Public trust in the peer review process and the credibility of published articles depend in part on how well conflict of interest is handled during writing, peer review, and editorial decision making. Conflict of interest exists when an author (or the author’s institution), reviewer, or editor has financial or personal relationships that inappropriately influence (bias) his or her actions (such relationships are also known as dual commitments, competing interests, or competing loyalties).
5.8 With respect to the materials considered for publication editorial board selects independent reviewers having enough experience and no conflict of interests.
5.9 Reviewer bias or competitive harmful acts by reviewers Editors should avoid selecting external peer reviewers with obvious potential conflicts of interest, for example, those who work in the same department or institution as any of the authors. Authors often provide editors with the names of persons they feel should not be asked to review a manuscript because of potential conflicts of interest, usually professional. When possible, authors should be asked to explain or justify their concerns; that information is important to editors in deciding whether to honour such requests.