Publication Ethics

This Publication Ethics is based on the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) guidelines (available at http://publicationethics.org) and Elsevier’ suggestions (available at https://www.elsevier.com/about/policies/publishing-ethics). The statement apply to all parties involved in the act of publishing (editors, authors, reviewers and the publisher).


For Authors[1]:
1. The research being reported should have been conducted in an ethical and responsible manner and should comply with all relevant legislation.
2. Researchers should present their results clearly, honestly, and without fabrication, falsification or inappropriate data manipulation.
3. Researchers should strive to describe their methods clearly and unambiguously so that their findings can be confirmed by others.
4. Researchers should adhere to publication requirements that submitted work is original, is not plagiarised, and has not been published elsewhere.
5. Authors should take collective responsibility for submitted and published work.
6. The authorship of research publications should accurately reflect individuals’ contributions to the work and its reporting.
7. Funding sources and relevant conflicts of interest should be disclosed.

For Editors[2]:
1. Editors are accountable and should take responsibility for everything they publish
2. Editors should make fair and unbiased decisions independent from commercial consideration and ensure a fair and appropriate peer review process
3. Editors should adopt editorial policies that encourage maximum transparency and complete, honest reporting
4. Editors should guard the integrity of the published record by issuing corrections and retractions when needed and pursuing suspected or alleged research and publication misconduct
5. Editors should pursue reviewer and editorial misconduct
6. Editors should critically assess the ethical conduct of studies in humans and animals
7. Peer reviewers and authors should be told what is expected of them
8. Editors should have appropriate policies in place for handling editorial conflicts of interest


For 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. 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.

2. Confidentiality.
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 the editor.
Some editors encourage discussion with colleagues or co-reviewing exercises, but reviewers should first discuss this with the editor 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 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.

3. Alertness to Ethical Issues.
A reviewer should be alert to potential ethical issues in the paper and should bring these to the attention of the editor, 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.

4. 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 the author is inappropriate. Referees should express their views clearly with supporting arguments.
Reviewers should consult the Editor 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).

For Publisher[4]:
1. Set journal policies appropriately and aim to meet those policies, particularly with respect to:
Editorial independence; Research ethics, including confidentiality, consent, and the special requirements for human and animal research; Authorship; Transparency and integrity; Peer review and the role of the editorial team beyond that of the journal editor; Appeals and complaints
2. Communicate journal policies
3. Review journal policies periodically
4. Maintain the integrity of the academic record
5. Assist the parties responsible for the investigation of suspected research and publication misconduct and, where possible, facilitate in the resolution of these cases
6. Publish corrections, clarifications, and retractions
7. Publish content on a timely basis

References:

[1] Wager E & Kleinert S (2011) Responsible research publication: international standards for authors. A position statement developed at the 2nd World Conference on Research Integrity, Singapore, July 22-24, 2010. Chapter 50 in: Mayer T & Steneck N (eds) Promoting Research Integrity in a Global Environment. Imperial College Press / World Scientific Publishing, Singapore (pp 309-16). (ISBN 978-981-4340-97-7)
[2] Kleinert S & Wager E (2011) Responsible research publication: international standards for editors. A position statement developed at the 2nd World Conference on Research Integrity, Singapore, July 22-24, 2010. Chapter 51 in: Mayer T & Steneck N (eds) Promoting Research Integrity in a Global Environment. Imperial College Press / World Scientific Publishing, Singapore (pp 317-28). (ISBN 978-981-4340-97-7)
[3] https://www.elsevier.com/about/policies/publishing-ethics
[4] https://publicationethics.org/system/files/Code_of_conduct_for_publishers_Mar11.pdf

 
http://xpublication.com/index.php/jfet/ethics
xpublication.com
crawl=CC-MAIN-2019-18
16292
application/http; msgtype=response
sha1:VYF22SWNTWSIEOOB2FBRWJRHKF64I6S7
<urn:uuid:ca1ddbab-75fb-4aa4-a28f-612f2eda0f22>
2019-04-25T12:36:49Z
45.113.121.92
text/html
sha1:T2JYFEVKBYIZCBCPKP3KNPDQZZ4Y6FJ7
<urn:uuid:72a495a0-506d-4b55-81fd-0ff0e53ca31e>
http://xpublication.com/index.php/jfet/ethics
response
<urn:uuid:10035d3d-396f-4188-a10a-ee084b5755e1>
isPartOf: CC-MAIN-2019-18
publisher: Common Crawl
description: Wide crawl of the web for April 2019
operator: Common Crawl Admin (info@commoncrawl.org)
hostname: ip-10-109-209-241.ec2.internal
software: Apache Nutch 1.15 (modified, https://github.com/commoncrawl/nutch/)
robots: checked via crawler-commons 1.1-SNAPSHOT (https://github.com/crawler-commons/crawler-commons)
format: WARC File Format 1.1
conformsTo: http://iipc.github.io/warc-specifications/specifications/warc-format/warc-1.1/