Ethical standards for publication are necessary to ensure high-quality scientific publications, public trust in scientific findings, and that people receive credit for their ideas. SciTech Central follows all the regulations of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and abides by its Code of Conduct and aims to stick to its important & ethical guidelines.
Manuscripts that are found to have been published in other journal, or to be under review in other journal, will come under duplicate submission/publication sanctions. If authors have used their own previously published work, or work that is currently under review, as the basis for a submitted manuscript, they are required to cite the previous work and indicate how their submitted manuscript offers novel contributions beyond those of the previous work.
All journals published by SciTech Central are committed to publishing only original material, i.e., material that has neither been published elsewhere, nor is under review elsewhere. Manuscripts that are found to have been plagiarized from a manuscript by other authors, whether published or unpublished, will come under plagiarism sanctions.
Submitted manuscripts that are found to include citations whose primary purpose is to increase the number of citations to a given author’s work, or to articles published in a particular journal, will come under citation manipulation sanctions.
Submitted manuscripts that are found to have either fabricated or falsified experimental results, including the manipulation of images, will come under data fabrication and falsification sanctions.
All listed authors must have made a significant scientific contribution to the research in the manuscript and approved all its claims. It is important to list each and every person who made a significant scientific contribution, whether students, laboratory technicians, working staff. Improper assignment of credit, such as excluding others, misrepresentation of the same material as original in more than one publication, inclusion of individuals as authors who have not made a definite contribution to the work published; or submission of multi-authored publications without the concurrence of all authors.
Reiterated publications involve the inappropriate division of study outcomes into several articles. The irrelevance of the data also comes under this.
An important aspect of scholarly activity is the exchange of ideas among colleagues. Scholars can acquire novel ideas from others during the process of reviewing grant applications and manuscripts. However, improper use of such information can constitute fraud. Wholesale appropriation of such material constitutes misconduct.
It includes serious deviation from accepted practices in proposing or carrying out research, improper manipulation of experiments to obtain biased results, deceptive statistical or analytical manipulations, or improper reporting of results.
Including but not limited to serious or substantial, repeated, wilful violations of applicable local regulations and law involving the use of funds, care of animals, human subjects, investigational drugs, recombinant products, new devices, or radioactive, biologic, or chemical materials.
This includes unfounded or knowingly false accusations of misconduct, failure to report known or suspected misconduct, withholding or destruction of information relevant to a claim of misconduct and retaliation against persons involved in the allegation or investigation.
Also, the deliberate misrepresentation of qualifications, experience, or research accomplishments to advance the research program, to obtain external funding, or for other professional advancement are covered under this.
Journals should have an explicit policy describing the process by which they will respond to allegations of misconduct. In drafting such a policy, the guidance provided to editors by a publication of the US Office of Research Integrity may be useful. The process described in the following paragraphs is an example of a policy for SciTech Central Journals Publications:
When allegations concern authors, the peer review and publication process for the manuscript in question will be halted while the process above is carried out. The investigation described above will be completed even if the authors withdraw their paper, and the responses below will still be considered. In the case of allegations against reviewers or editors, they will be replaced in the review process while the matter is investigated.
All such allegations should be kept confidential; the number of inquiries and those involved should be kept to the minimum necessary to achieve this end. Whenever possible, references to the case in writing should be kept anonymous.
Journals have an obligation to readers and patients to ensure that their published research is both accurate and adheres to the highest ethical standard. Therefore, if the inquiry concludes there is a reasonable possibility of misconduct, responses should be undertaken, chosen in accordance with the apparent magnitude of the misconduct. Responses may be applied separately or combined, and their implementation should depend on the circumstances of the case as well as the responses of the participating parties and institutions. The following options are ranked in approximate order of severity:
· A letter of explanation (and education) sent only to the person against whom the complaint is made, where there appears to be a genuine and innocent misunderstanding of principles or procedure.
· A letter of reprimand to the same party, warning of the consequences of future such instances, where the misunderstanding appears to be not entirely innocent.
· A formal letter as above, including a written request to the supervising institution that an investigation is to be carried out and the findings of that inquiry reported in writing to the journal.
· Publication of a notice of redundant or duplicate publication or plagiarism, if appropriate (and unequivocally documented). Such publication will not require approval of authors, and should be reported to the Journal immediately.
· Formal withdrawal or retraction of the paper from the scientific literature, published in the journal, informing readers and the indexing authorities (National Library of Medicine, etc), if there is a formal finding of misconduct by an institution. Such publication will not require approval of authors, should be reported to their institution, and should be readily visible and identifiable in the journal. It should also meet other requirements established by the International Committee of Journal Editors. It is recommended that editors inform readers and authors of their reservation of the right to publish a retraction if it meets these conditions, thereby helping decrease arguments with authors.
· Editors or reviewers who are found to have engaged in scientific misconduct should be removed from further association with the journal & SciTech Central.
In cases where the violations of the above policies are found to be particularly outrageous, the publisher reserves the right to impose additional authorizations & regulations beyond those described above.
Copyright © 2014 SciTech Central, All Rights Reserved