Publication Ethics, Rights, and Publication Malpractice Statement
For all parties involved in the act of publishing (the author, the journal editor(s), the peer reviewer and the publisher) it is necessary to agree upon standards of expected ethical behavior. The ethics statements for our journal are based on the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors and the Code of Conduct for Journal Publishers.
Duties of the Editors-in-Chief
Fair play
Submitted manuscripts are evaluated for their intellectual content without regard to race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy of the authors.
Confidentiality
The Editor-in-Chief, the Managing Editors as well the potential Guest Editors 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.
Disclosure and conflicts of interest
Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in an Editor’s own research without the explicit written consent of the author(s).
Publication decisions
The handling Editor-in-Chief of the journal is responsible for deciding which of the submitted articles should be published. The Editor-in-Chief 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-in-Chief may confer with other editors or reviewers in making this decision.
Ethical oversight
The Editors-in-Chief, assisted by the reviewers, shall assess whether the submitted manuscripts comply with ethical standards of studies carried out with human subjects and animals. If unethical behavior is detected, the manuscript will be rejected. The Editors-in-Chief convene about their duty to report the issue to any external body while taking great care to carry out a fair process.
Handling unethical publishing behavior
The Editors-in-Chief, together with the publisher, shall take reasonable steps to identify and prevent the publication of papers where research misconduct has occurred, and under no circumstances encourage such misconduct or knowingly allow such misconduct to take place. The Editors-in-Chief and Managing Editor evaluate every submitted manuscript. To identify scientific misconduct such as plagiarism and citation manipulation, the plagscan software is used. In cases of alleged or proven scientific misconduct, fraudulent publication or plagiarism, the Editors-in-Chief, in close collaboration with the publisher, will take all appropriate measures to clarify the situation and to amend the article in question. This includes the prompt publication of an erratum or, in the more severe cases, the complete
retraction of the affected work.
Handling complaints and appeals
The Editors-in-Chief, together with the publisher, will handle complaints and appeals fairly and take great care in not defaming any author or complaint. Further information on the complaint will be gathered by the Managing Editor and the Editors-in-Chief to discuss the next steps and to determine whether an external body should be involved to solve the issue. If the complaint was made against an author, the author will be contacted and given the opportunity to respond. Based on this, the Editors-in-Chief will make a decision about the resolution. All complaints or appeals and their processes will be documented by the Managing Editor.
Post-publication discussions and corrections
Post-publication critiques are assessed by the Editors-in-Chief and the Managing Editor to decide whether they should be peer-reviewed and to detect any potentially defaming content, in which case the critique will be rejected. If the critique is raised against an author, the author will be contacted and given the opportunity to write a response. Both texts will be published after review by the Editors-in-Chief to allow a post-publication discussion.
If the critique reveals errors in the original publication, the Editors-in-Chief will, in close collaboration with the author and publisher, take all appropriate measures to clarify the situation and to amend the article in question. This includes the prompt publication of an erratum or, in the more severe cases, the complete retraction of the affected work.
Duties of peer reviewers
Contribution to editorial decisions
Peer review assists the Editor-in-Chief in making editorial decisions and, through the editorial communication with the author, may also assist the author in improving the manuscript.
Promptness
Any invited referee who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its timely review will be impossible should immediately notify the Editor-in-Chief or the Managing Editors so that alternative reviewers can be contacted.
Confidentiality
Any manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. They must not be shown to or discussed with others unless if authorized by the Editor-in-Chief.
Standards of objectivity
Reviews should be conducted objectively. Personal criticism of the author is unacceptable. Referees shouldexpress their views clearly with appropriate supporting arguments.
Ethical oversight
The reviewers shall assess whether the manuscript complies with ethical standards of studies carried out with human subjects and animals. If unethical behavior is detected, reviewers should alert the Editors-in-Chief and the Managing Editor.
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 data of which they have personal knowledge.
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 evaluating 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 submission.
Duties of authors
Reporting standards
Authors reporting results 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 manuscript. 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.
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.
Multiple, redundant, or concurrent publication
An author should not in general publish manuscripts describing essentially the same research in more than one journal or primary publication. Parallel submission of the same manuscript to more than one journal constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable.
Acknowledgement of sources
Proper acknowledgment of the work of others must always be given. Authors should also cite publications that have been influential in determining the nature of the reported work.
Data sharing and reproducibility
Authors should outline their methodology in a clear and comprehensive manner to assure scientific reproducibility of their study. Authors should guarantee access to their datasets either via integration into their manuscripts or via an annex that is shared with readers upon their request.
Authorship of a manuscript
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 named in an Acknowledgement section. The corresponding author should ensure that all appropriate co-authors (according to the above definition) and no inappropriate co-authors are included in the author list of the manuscript, and that all co-authors have seen and approved the final version of the paper and have agreed to its submission for publication.
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 their interpretation in the manuscript. All sources of financial support for the project should be disclosed.
Fundamental errors in published works
Rights
If submitted manuscripts are accepted for print, the submitting authors ensure that all rights (text, figures, photos, videos etc.) are transferred to the Journal via signing a contributor agreement with the Editors-in-Chief representing the Journal. The Journal holds the rights for publication and distribution of the texts. The article will be available on the Journal’s website via open access.
Duties of the Publisher
The Publisher and the Journal do not discriminate on the basis of age, color, religion, creed, disability, marital status, veteran status, national origin, race, gender, genetic predisposition or carrier status, or sexual orientation in its publishing programs, services and activities.
Handling unethical publishing behavior
The publisher, together with the editors, shall take reasonable steps to identify and prevent the publication of papers where research misconduct has occurred, and under no circumstances encourage such misconduct or knowingly allow such misconduct to take place.
In cases of alleged or proven scientific misconduct, fraudulent publication or plagiarism, the publisher, in close collaboration with the Editors-in-Chief, will take all appropriate measures to clarify the situation and to amend the article in question. This includes the prompt publication of an erratum or, in the most severe cases, the complete retraction of the affected work.