Publication Ethics and Publication
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
• 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their own research, work reported in unpublished submitted articles.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
• 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.