Publication Ethics

Publication Ethics for Authors

Reporting Standards & Data Access

Authors must accurately and impartially summarize the findings of their research. The supplied data must be accurate. The manuscript must include enough specifics and citations to allow other scholars to duplicate the work. For the purposes of the editorial review, authors could be asked to submit research data.

Originality, Acknowledgment of Source, & Confidentiality

The manuscript must be entirely unique, and any instances of plagiarism must be avoided. Always give due credit to other people's contributions. The authors must cite all sources that impacted the written report. Information received through talks, email, or interactions with third parties requires the source's approval to be reported in the manuscript. The consent to disclose confidential information must be obtained by the authors.

Multiple, Redundant, or Concurrent Publication

It is prohibited for authors to publish essentially the same study in multiple journals. The identical manuscript may not be submitted simultaneously for publication in more than one journal by the same author. Authors are only permitted to submit previously published work as a thesis, lecture notes, or an electronic preprint.

Authorship of the Paper

Only those who have a meaningful contribution should be allowed to be authors (determine the concept, design, execution, or interpretation of the manuscript). Co-authors should be mentioned for each of these people. In the acknowledgments section, it is appropriate to acknowledge parties who contributed to certain components of the script (such as language editing). The corresponding author is responsible for ensuring that all co-authors are mentioned in the publication and that no unsuitable co-authors are included. The corresponding author is also in charge of making sure that all co-authors have given their consent for the work to be submitted for publication in the journal. The work's authors accept joint liability for it.

Hazards and Human/Animal Subjects

If the manuscript contains chemicals, techniques, or equipment that pose an unusual level of risk, the author should make it appear in the text. Research involving either human or animal subjects must be carried out in conformity with all applicable legal requirements and institutional guidelines. Authors must state in the paper that all procedures followed the norms and guidelines and had official clearance before being carried out. Authors must seek the patient's or the authorities' written consent before publishing case details or personal information. Authors must submit all permits to editors upon request.

Competing Interests

The manuscript must disclose all financial resources. Also written down should be the sponsor's (or sponsors') role in the study (e.g., participate in the design of the study, participate in the analysis and interpretation of the data).

Fundamental Errors in Published Works

The author should tell the editors to have the manuscript retracted or corrected if the author discovers material flaws or inconsistencies in his previously published work. Authors are required to work with the editors to clarify, improve, or retract the manuscript if the editors become aware of the inaccuracy through a third party.

Image Integrity

Making image manipulations that could alter the image's meaning is not acceptable. Clarification-related changes to the image are permissible. However, manipulating the image for other reasons may be deemed unethical in research.

Publication Ethics for Reviewers

Contribution to Editorial Decisions.

Peer review assists editors in making editorial decisions and may also help authors improve their work through editorial contacts with them. The core of the scientific process is peer review, which is a crucial part of formal scholarly communication. Reviewers are expected to treat authors and their work with respect and to follow appropriate reviewing etiquette in addition to the specific ethical obligations specified below.

Any invited referee who believes they lack the necessary expertise to evaluate the research described in a submission or who is aware that doing so will be impossible should let the editor know and reject to take part in the review process.

Confidentiality.

Any manuscripts that are sent for review need to be handled with confidentiality. Without the editors' consent, reviewers shall not divulge their opinions or information about the work to anybody or get in touch with the authors directly.

However, reviewers should first discuss this with editors to ensure that confidentiality is upheld and that participants receive the proper credit. Some editors promote conversation with peers or co-reviewing exercises.

A reviewer may not use any unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript for their work without the author's clear written approval. Peer review's privileged knowledge or ideas must be kept secret and not used for one's benefit.

Alertness to Ethical Issues.

Any significant resemblance or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published material of which the reviewer has personal knowledge should be brought to the Editors' notice by the reviewer. Any claim that a particular observation, deduction, or argument has already been recorded should be supported by the appropriate citation.

Standards of Objectivity & Competing Interests.

Reviews should be carried out impartially. When assessing a document, reviewers should be conscious of any personal prejudice they may have. It is improper to criticize authors personally. Referees should clearly state their positions and provide evidence to back them up.

Before agreeing to review a manuscript when they have potential conflicts of interest stemming from collaborative, competitive, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, businesses, or institutions associated with the articles, reviewers should speak with editors.

Suppose a reviewer recommends that an author cite their work (or the work of their colleagues). In that case, they must do so for legitimately scientific reasons and not to increase their citation count or make their work more visible (or that of their associates).

Publication Ethics for Editors

Publication Decisions.

Editors are solely and independently responsible for deciding which of the articles submitted to the journal should be published. Such decisions must always be supported by the work in question's validity as well as its significance to readers and scholars. Regarding matters like libel, copyright infringement, and plagiarism, the editor may be led by the editorial board's policies and restrained by any applicable legal requirements at the time. When making these choices, editors may consult with reviewers or society officers.

Peer review

Editors are responsible for ensuring the peer review procedure is unbiased, timely, and fair. Normally, at least two reviewers are required to evaluate research manuscripts, and editors should seek out further input as necessary.

Editors must choose reviewers who have the necessary experience in the subject area and must abide by best practices to prevent choosing dishonest peer reviewers. In order to ascertain whether there is any potential for bias, the editor must go over all disclosures of potential conflicts of interest and recommendations for self-citation made by reviewers.

Fair play.

Editors should examine manuscripts for their intellectual content without taking the writers' citizenship, color, gender, sexual orientation, religion, or political philosophies into consideration.

The journal's editorial policies should promote openness and comprehensive, honest reporting, and editors should make sure that writers and peer reviewers are aware of the expectations placed upon them.

Editors must submit all journal correspondence using the journal's normal electronic submission format. Editors and the publisher must establish an open appeals process for editing decisions.

Journal metrics.

Editors must not make an effort to manipulate any journal metric to affect the publication's ranking. Authors shouldn't be obliged to include references to the editor's articles or to goods and services in which the editor is interested. In particular, the editor shall not require that references to that (or any other) journal's articles be included except for genuine scholarly grounds.

Confidentiality.

Unless otherwise agreed with the pertinent authors and reviewers, the editor must maintain the confidentiality of all material submitted to the journal and all discussions with reviewers. In unusual cases, the editor may share limited information with editors of other journals to look into possible research misconduct.

The editor must keep reviewers' identities confidential.

Without the author's written approval, the editor may not use unpublished information disclosed in a submitted manuscript for independent research projects. Peer review's privileged knowledge or ideas must be kept secret and not used for one's benefit.

Declaration of Competing Interests.

Editors are not allowed to participate in decisions involving papers they have personally authored, that family members have written, or related to goods or services in which they are interested. The relevant author/editor and their research groups must not be involved in the peer review process, which must be handled independently of all other journal procedures.

Vigilance over the Published Record.

With the publisher, editors should analyze and evaluate any reported or suspected wrongdoing in the research, publication, reviewer, and editorial fields to protect the integrity of the published record (or society).

Such actions typically entail getting in touch with the paper's or manuscript's author and giving the complaint or allegation made severe consideration. However, they could also involve additional conversations with pertinent institutions and research groups. The editor must also make proper use of the publisher's tools for catching wrongdoing like plagiarism.

Editors given strong evidence of wrongdoing should work with the publisher (and/or society) to arrange for the swift publication of a correction, retraction, expression of concern, or other adjustments to the record, as necessary.

Reference

https://www.elsevier.com/about/our-business/policies/publishing-ethics

COPE Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editor

COPE Best Practice Guidelines for Peer Reviewers

Responsible research publication: international standards for authors, and Responsible research publication: international standards for editors.