Publication Ethics

Publication Ethics for Authors
Publication Ethics for Reviewers
Publication Ethics for Editors


Publication Ethics for Authors

Reporting Standards & Data Access

Authors must report the results of his research accurately and objectively. The data used must be accurately presented. The manuscript must contain sufficient detail and reference so that the work can be replicated by other researchers. Authors may be asked to provide research data for Editorial Review needs.

Originality, Acknowledgment of Source, & Confidentiality

Authors must ensure that the manuscript is original and avoid all forms of plagiarism.

Proper acknowledgment of the work of others must always be given. Authors must cite all publications that influence the written report.

Information obtained from conversations, correspondence, or discussions with third parties must be accompanied with a consent from the source to be reported in the manuscript. Authors must ensure that confidential information is consented too.

Multiple, Redundant, or Concurrent Publication

Authors may not publish essentially the same research work in more than one journal. Authors are also prohibited from submitting the same manuscript simultaneously to more than one journal for publication. Authors may not submit published work except in form of a thesis, lecture material, or electronic preprint.

Authorship of the Paper

Authors should be limited to those who have a significant contribution (determine the concept, design, execution, or interpretation of the manuscript). All such persons should be listed as co-authors.

Parties that participate in certain aspects of the script (eg. language editing) should be recognized in the acknowledgments section.

The corresponding author should ensure that all co-authors have been included in the paper, and no inappropriate co-authors are listed. the corresponding author is also responsible for ensuring that the manuscript submitted for publication in the journal has been approved by all co-authors. Authors take collective responsibility for the work.

Hazards and Human/Animal Subjects

The author should clearly identify in the manuscript if it involves chemicals, procedures, or equipment that have an unusual degree of danger.

Research involving human or animal subjects should be conducted in accordance with relevant laws and institutional guidance. Authors are obliged to write in the manuscript that the procedures performed have been in accordance with the rules and the guideline, and have received formal permission.

If authors want to display case details or personal information, they must obtain a written consent of the patient or the authorities.

All permissions should be presented by authors to Editors if requested.

Competing Interests

All financial resources must be declared in the manuscript. The role of the sponsor(s) in the research should also be written (e.g.: participate in the design of the study, participate in the analysis and interpretation of the data).

Fundamental Errors in Published Works

If the author finds significant errors or inaccuracies in his published work, the author shall notify the Editors to retract the manuscript or to correct it. If Editors learn the error from a third party, then authors are obliged to cooperate with the Editors to clarify, improve, or retract the manuscript.

Image Integrity

It is not acceptable to make image manipulation that can change the meaning of the image. Changing the image to improve clarity is acceptable, but image manipulation for other purposes can be considered as a violation of research ethics.


Publication Ethics for Reviewers

Contribution to Editorial Decisions.

Peer review assists Editors in making editorial decisions and through the editorial communications with authors may also assist them in improving the paper. Peer review is an essential component of formal scholarly communication and lies at the heart of the scientific method. In addition to the specific ethics-related duties described below, reviewers are asked generally to treat authors and their work as they would like to be treated themselves and to observe good reviewing etiquette.

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 and decline to participate in the review process.


Any manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. Reviewers must not share the review or information about the paper with anyone or contact the authors directly without permission from Editors.

Some Editors encourage discussion with colleagues or co-reviewing exercises, but reviewers should first discuss this with Editors in order to ensure that confidentiality is observed and that participants receive suitable credit.

Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in a reviewer’s own research without an expressed written consent of the author. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage.

Alertness to Ethical Issues.

A reviewer should be alert to potential ethical issues in the paper and should bring these to the attention of Editors, including any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published paper of which the reviewer has personal knowledge. Any statement that an observation, derivation, or argument had been previously reported should be accompanied by the relevant citation.

Standards of Objectivity & Competing Interests.

Reviews should be conducted objectively. Reviewers should be aware of any personal bias they may have and take this into account when reviewing a paper. Personal criticism of authors is inappropriate. Referees should express their views clearly with supporting arguments.

Reviewers should consult with Editors before agreeing to review a paper where they have potential conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers.

If a reviewer suggests that an author includes citations to the reviewer’s (or their associates’) work, this must be for genuine scientific reasons and not with the intention of increasing the reviewer’s citation count or enhancing the visibility of their work (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. The validation of the work in question and its importance to researchers and readers must always underwrite such decisions. 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 issues such as libel, copyright infringement, and plagiarism. Editors may confer with reviewers (or society officers) in making these decisions.

Peer review

Editors shall ensure that the peer review process is fair, unbiased, and timely. Research articles must typically be reviewed by at least two reviewers, and where necessary Editors should seek additional opinions.

Editors shall select reviewers who have suitable expertise in the relevant field and shall follow best practice in avoiding the selection of fraudulent peer reviewers. Editor shall review all disclosures of potential conflicts of interest and suggestions for self-citation made by reviewers in order to determine whether there is any potential for bias.

Fair play.

Editor should evaluate manuscripts for their intellectual content without regard to race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy of the authors.

The editorial policies of the journal should encourage transparency and complete, honest reporting, and Editors should ensure that peer reviewers and authors have a clear understanding of what is expected of them. Editors shall use the journal’s standard electronic submission system for all journal communications.

Editors shall establish, along with the publisher, a transparent mechanism for appeal against editorial decisions.

Journal metrics.

Editors must not attempt to influence the journal’s ranking by artificially increasing any journal metric. In particular, the editor shall not require that references to that (or any other) journal’s articles be included except for genuine scholarly reasons and authors should not be required to include references to the editor’s own articles or products and services in which the editor has an interest.


Editor must protect the confidentiality of all material submitted to the journal and all communications with reviewers unless otherwise agreed with the relevant authors and reviewers. In exceptional circumstances, the editor may share limited information with editors of other journals where deemed necessary to investigate suspected research misconduct.

Editor must protect reviewers’ identities.

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. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage.

Declaration of Competing Interests.

Editors must not be involved in decisions about papers which s/he has written him/herself or have been written by family members or which relate to products or services in which the editor has an interest. Further, any such submission must be subject to all of the journal’s usual procedures, peer review must be handled independently of the relevant author/editor and their research groups.

Vigilance over the Published Record.

Editors should work to safeguard the integrity of the published record by reviewing and assessing reported or suspected misconduct (research, publication, reviewer, and editorial), in conjunction with the publisher (or society).

Such measures will generally include contacting the author of the manuscript or paper and giving due consideration to the respective complaint or claims made but may also include further communications to the relevant institutions and research bodies. The editor shall further make appropriate use of the publisher’s systems for the detection of misconduct, such as plagiarism.

Editors presented with convincing evidence of misconduct should coordinate with the publisher (and/or society) to arrange the prompt publication of a correction, retraction, expression of concern, or other correction to the record, as may be relevant.



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.