Publication Ethics
Publication Ethics
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.
Duplicate Submission
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.
Plagiarism
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authors, whether published or unpublished, will come under plagiarism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.
Manipulation in Citation
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.
Falsification and Fabrication of
Data
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.
Author Contribution in Improper
Manner
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.
Misappropriation of the ideas of
others
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.
Violation of generally accepted
research practices
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.
Material failure to comply with
legislative and regulatory requirements affecting research
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.
Inappropriate behavior in
relation to misconduct
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.
Authorizations & Regulations:
Responses to possible misconduct
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
QUICK LINKS
- SUBMIT MANUSCRIPT
- RECOMMEND THE JOURNAL
-
SUBSCRIBE FOR ALERTS