Publication Ethics

For Authors

1. Reporting Standards: Authors of reports of original research should present an accurate account of the work performed as well as an objective discussion of its significance. Underlying data should be represented accurately in the paper. A paper should contain sufficient detail and references to permit others to replicate the work. Knowingly fraudulent or inaccurate statements constitute unethical behavior and are unacceptable.

2. Data Access and Retention: Authors are required to provide the raw data in connection with a paper for editorial review, and should be prepared to provide public access to such data (consistent with the ALPSP-STM Statement on Data and Databases), if practicable, and should in any event be prepared to retain such data for a reasonable time after publication.

3. Originality and Plagiarism: Authors should ensure that they have written entirely original works, and if the authors have used the work and/or words of others that this has been appropriately cited or quoted.

4. Multiple, Redundant or Concurrent Publication: In general, an author should not publish manuscripts describing essentially the same research in more than one journal or primary publication. Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal at the same time constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable.

5. Acknowledgement of Sources: Proper acknowledgment of the work of others must always be given. Authors should cite publications that have been influential in determining the nature of the reported work.

6. Authorship of the Paper: Essays should be limited to those who have made a significant contribution to the conception, design, execution, or interpretation of the reported research. Any individuals who have made significant contributions should be listed as co-authors. Where others have participated in certain substantive aspects of the research project, they should be acknowledged or listed as contributors. The appropriate author should ensure that all appropriate co-authors and no inappropriate co-authors are included on the paper and that all co-authors have seen and approved the final version of the paper and have agreed to its submission for publication.

7. Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest: All authors should disclose in their manuscript any financial or other substantive conflict of interest that might be construed to influence the results or interpretation of their manuscript. All sources of financial support for the project should be disclosed.

8. Fundamental errors in published works: When an author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in his/her own published work, it is the author's obligation to promptly notify the journal editor or publisher and cooperate with the editor to retract or correct the paper.

9. Hazards and Human or Animal Subjects: If the work involves chemicals, procedures, or equipment that have any unusual hazards inherent in their use, the author must clearly identify these in the manuscript.

To the Editor

1. Fair game: Editors evaluate manuscripts at all times for their intellectual content without regard to the author's race, gender, sexual orientation, religious beliefs, ethnic origin, nationality, or political philosophy.
2. Confidentiality: Editors and editorial staff must not disclose any information about submitted manuscripts to anyone other than the authors, reviewers, potential reviewers, other editorial advisors and the appropriate publishers, as appropriate.
3. Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest: Unpublished material disclosed in submitted manuscripts may not be used in the editor's own research without the written consent of the author.
4. Publication Decision: The journal editor is responsible for deciding which articles submitted to the journal should be published. The validation of the work in question and its importance to researchers and readers should always encourage such decisions. Editors may be guided by the discretion of the journal's editorial board and limited by current legal requirements relating to defamation, copyright infringement and plagiarism. Editors may consult other editors or reviewers in making this decision.
5. Manuscript Review: Editors must ensure that each manuscript is initially evaluated by the editor for originality. Editors must regulate and use peer review fairly and wisely. Editors must describe their peer review process in information to authors and also indicate which sections of the journal are peer reviewed. Editors should use appropriate peer reviewers for papers under consideration for publication by selecting people with sufficient expertise and avoiding those with conflicts of interest.

For Reviewers

1. Contributions to Editorial Decisions: Peer reviews assist editors in making editorial decisions and through editorial communication with authors can also assist authors in improving papers.
2. Speed: Any selected referee who feels unqualified to review the research reported in the manuscript or knows that his expedited review is impossible should notify the editor and excuse himself from the review process
3. Standard of Objectivity: Reviews should be conducted objectively. Personal criticism of the author is not appropriate. Referees must express their views clearly with supporting arguments.
4. Confidentiality: Manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential. They may not be shown or discussed with others except as permitted by the editor.
5. Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest: Information or privileged ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal gain. Reviewers should not consider manuscripts in which they have a conflict of interest resulting from a competitive, collaborative, or other relationship or relationship with any of the authors, companies, or institutions linked to the paper.
6. Source Acknowledgment: The reviewer must identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the author. Any statement that an observation, derivation, or argument has been previously reported must be accompanied by a relevant citation. Reviewers should also call the editor's attention if there are substantial similarities or overlaps between the manuscript under consideration and other published papers of which they have personal knowledge.