Publication Ethics Statement
Duties of Authors
Authors of original research reports should include an accurate overview of the work done as well as an objective discussion of its significance. The underlying data should be appropriately reported in the study. A paper should include enough detail and references to allow others to replicate the work. Fraudulent or willfully inaccurate remarks are unethical and must be avoided.
Authors may be required to contribute the research data that supports their publication for editorial review and/or to comply with the journal's open data policies. Authors should be willing to allow public access to such data if possible and to keep such data for a fair number of years after publication.
The authors should ensure that they have authored totally original works and that if they have used the work and/or words of others, that they have properly cited or quoted them, and that permission has been acquired when necessary.
It is always necessary to properly acknowledge the work of others. Authors should cite publications that impacted the reported work and provide context for the work within the greater scholarly record. Information received privately, such as through conversation, correspondence, or discussion with third parties, shall not be utilized or reported without the source's clear, written permission.
Plagiarism can take several forms, including ' passing off' another's paper as the author's own, copying or paraphrasing major parts of another's paper (without acknowledgement), and claiming results from other people's studies. Plagiarism, in all of its manifestations, is unethical and undesirable behaviour.
Authorship should be limited to individuals who made a major contribution to the study's conception, design, implementation, or interpretation. Everyone who has made a significant contribution should be listed as co-authors.
Others who have contributed to the substantive components of the work (for example, language editing or medical writing) should be acknowledged in the acknowledgements section.
Before submitting their article, writers are expected to carefully study the list and order of authors and to provide the definitive list of authors at the time of the original submission. The Editor will consider (at their discretion) the addition, deletion, or rearranging of authors after the article has been submitted only in extraordinary circumstances, and the author must clearly signal any such request to the Editor. Any such addition, deletion, or rearrangement must be approved by all authors.
The work is collectively owned by the authors. Each author is responsible for ensuring that any questions about the accuracy or integrity of any element of the work are thoroughly explored and resolved.
Declaration of competing interest
Corresponding authors must state any financial and personal affiliations with other people or organizations that could unduly effect (bias) their work on behalf of all submission authors. Employment, consultancies, stock ownership, honoraria, paid expert testimony, patent applications/registrations, and grants or other support are all examples of potential conflicts of interest. All authors, including those who have no competing interests to disclose, should supply the corresponding author with the necessary information (which, where relevant, may specify they have nothing to declare).
Duties of Reviewers
Peer review helps the editor make editorial judgments, and editorial discussions with the author can help the author improve the manuscript. Peer review is an important part of formal scholarly communication and is crucial to the scientific method. In addition to the specific ethics-related tasks outlined below, reviewers are expected to treat authors and their work in the same manner in which they would like to be treated, as well as to adhere to appropriate reviewing etiquette.
Any selected referee who believes he or she is unqualified to examine the research provided in a manuscript or understands that prompt review is impossible should contact the editor and reject to participate in the review process.
Manuscripts for evaluation must be handled as confidential papers. Without permission from the editor, reviewers must not share the review or any information about the manuscript with anybody, nor should they contact the authors directly.
Some editors promote conversation with colleagues or co-reviewing exercises, but reviewers should first discuss this with the editor to ensure confidentiality and appropriate credit for participants.
Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript may not be used in a reviewer's personal research without the author's express written permission. Confidential information or ideas received through peer review must be kept private and not exploited for personal gain.
A reviewer should be aware of any potential ethical difficulties in the work and bring them to the editor's attention, including any significant similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published paper about which the reviewer has personal information. Any claim that an observation, derivation, or argument has previously been reported should be accompanied by a citation.
Reviews should be carried out objectively. Reviewers should be conscious of any personal bias they may have and consider it while evaluating a manuscript. Personal attacks on the author are not appropriate. Referees should convey their opinions clearly and provide supporting evidence.
Reviewers should approach the Editor before agreeing to examine a paper in which they have competing, collaborative, or other relationships or affiliations with any of the authors, companies, or institutions associated with the papers.
If a reviewer proposes that an author include citations to the reviewer's (or their collaborators') work, this must be done for real scientific reasons, not to increase the reviewer's citation count or increase the prominence of their work (or that of their associates).