Publication Ethics and Publication Malpractice Statement

Our ethic statements are based on Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE)’s Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors. The relevant responsibilities of editors, reviewers, and authors of the journal are set out below.

Editors have the following responsibilities:

•    To acknowledge receipt of submitted manuscripts within a few days of receipt and to ensure the efficient, fair and timely review process of submitted manuscripts.

•   To ensure that submitted manuscripts are handled in a confidential manner, with no details being disclosed to anyone, with the exception of the referees, without the permission of the author, until a decision has been taken as to whether the manuscript is to be published.

•   To invite reviewers, probably considering the use of an author's suggested referees for his/her submitted article, but to ensure that the suggestions do not lead to a positive bias (e.g. co-authors of previous publications, mentor). The editor maintains the right to use referees of his/her own choice.

•    Not to use referees which an author has requested not to be consulted, unless the editor reasonably considers there to be a significant overriding interest in so doing.

•    To ensure the confidentiality of the names and other details of referees; adjudication and appeal referees may be informed of the names of prior referees, if appropriate.

•    To make the final decision concerning acceptance or rejection of a manuscript with reasonable speed and to communicate the decision in a clear and constructive manner.

•   To decide to accept or reject a manuscript for publication with reference only to the manuscript’s importance, originality and clarity, and its relevance to the journal.

•       To respect the intellectual independence of authors.

•    To make known any conflicts of interest that might arise. Specifically, in cases where an editor is an author of a submitted manuscript, the manuscript must be passed to another editor for independent peer review.

•       Not to use for their own research, work reported in unpublished submitted articles.

•     To respond to any suggestions of scientific misconduct, usually through consultation with the author. This may require the publication of a formal 'retraction' or correction.

•       To deal fairly with an author’s appeal against the rejection of a submitted manuscript.

•     To monitor and ensure the fairness, timeliness, and thoroughness of the peer-review process.