Ethical Rules

Ethical Rules for Authors

Authors are expected to follow the ethical guidelines summarized below. Violations may result in the suspension or revocation of publishing rights of the authors by the editors.

1. An author’s main obligation is to present an accurate description of the research performed as well as an objective discussion of its significance.

2. The authors should accurately list their affiliations. This list must include academic, significant corporate and industrial, and non-governmental organization affiliations. As the Editors consider appropriate, this list will be included in the author affiliations printed in the paper.

3. A research paper should contain sufficient detail and reference to public sources of information to permit the author’s colleagues to repeat the work.

4. An author should cite previous publications that have influenced the nature of the reported work and that will guide the reader rapidly to the earlier work that is crucial to understand the present investigation. Except in a review, citation of work that will not be referred to in the reported research should be minimized. An author is obligated to carry out a literature search to find, and then cite, the original publications that describe closely related work. For critical materials used in the work, proper citation to sources should also be made when these were supplied by a non-author.

5. None of the data, tables, figures, or text published elsewhere (in any language) could be used in the reported work, with the exception of abstracts of papers presented at conferences. Figures or tables from other publications could only be used if permission has been obtained from the copyright holder.

6. Any unusual hazards associated with the chemicals, equipment, or procedures used in a research should be clearly identified in a manuscript reporting the work.

7. Division of research reports should be avoided. An extensive study on a system or group of related systems should be organized for publication so that each report gives a well-formed description of a specific aspect of the general study. Fragmentation consumes journal space excessively and obscures literature searches. Convenience is provided to the readers if reports on closely related studies are published in the same journal, or in a small number of journals.

8. When submitting a manuscript for publication, an author should inform the editor of related manuscripts that the author has under editorial consideration or in press. Also, the relationships of such manuscripts to the one submitted should be explained and if required, copies of those manuscripts should be supplied to the editor.

9. It is inappropriate to submit manuscripts describing essentially the same research to more than one journal of primary publication, unless it is a resubmission of a rejected or withdrawn manuscript. It is generally allowable to submit a manuscript for a full paper expanding on a previously published brief preliminary version (a “short communication” or “letter”) of the same study. However, at the time of submission, the editor should be informed about the earlier communication, and the preliminary version should be cited in the manuscript.

10. An author should cite the source of all information quoted or presented, except that which is common knowledge. Information obtained privately, as in conversation, correspondence, or discussion with third parties, should not be used or reported in the author’s work without explicit permission from the investigator with whom the information originated. The authors should not plagiarize any parts of the manuscript, including the literally copying of text, the uncited use of other’s work, or the use of information obtained during a confidential manuscript or research grant proposal review process.

11. An experimental or theoretical study may sometimes justify criticism of another scientist’s work. When appropriate, such criticism may be presented in published papers. However, personal criticism is not considered to be appropriate.

12. All authors should be aware of, and accept responsibility for the submitted manuscript. All authors should make a significant intellectual contribution to the research.

13.  The authors should accurately list the funding sources for the study presented in the acknowledgements section of the paper. All financial contributions to the work being reported, including contributions “in kind”, must be reported. All funding sources will be listed in the published paper.

Ethical Rules for Reviewers

1. The reviewing of manuscripts is an essential step in the publication process. Therefore, every scientist has an obligation to participate fairly to reviewing processes.

2. A chosen reviewer who does not feel adequately qualified to judge the research reported in a manuscript should return it promptly to the editor.

3. A reviewer of a manuscript should judge objectively the quality of the manuscript, of its experimental and theoretical work, of its interpretations and its presentation, with due regard to the maintenance of high scientific and scholarly standards. A reviewer should respect the intellectual independence of the authors.

4. A reviewer should be aware of the presence of a conflict of interest when the manuscript under review is closely related to the reviewer’s published work or ongoing research. If in doubt, the reviewer should return the manuscript promptly without review, advising the editor of the conflict of interest or bias. Alternatively, the reviewer may wish to provide a signed review stating the reviewer’s interest in the work, with the understanding that it may be transmitted to the author, depending on the editor’s decision.

5. A reviewer should not evaluate a manuscript authored or co-authored by a person with whom the reviewer has a personal or professional connection if this relationship would influence evaluation of the manuscript.

6. Reviewers should keep in mind that a manuscript sent for review is a confidential document. It should neither be shown to nor discussed with others except, in special cases, to persons from whom specific advice may be required; in that case, the identities of those consulted should be revealed to the editor.

7. Reviewers should explain and support their judgments adequately so that editors and authors may comprehend the basis of their comments. Any statement that an observation, derivation, or argument had been previously described should be accompanied by the relevant citation. Unsupported claims by reviewers (or by authors in response) are of little value and should be avoided.

8. A reviewer should be attentive for the failure of authors to cite relevant work by other scientists, keeping in mind that complaints that the reviewer’s own research was insufficiently cited may seem self-serving. A reviewer should call to the editor’s attention for any substantial similarity between the submitted manuscript and any published paper or any manuscript submitted concurrently to another journal.

9. A reviewer should act promptly, submitting a report. If a reviewer receives a manuscript at a time when conditions prevent prompt attention to it, the unreviewed manuscript should be returned immediately to the editor. Alternatively, the reviewer may inform the editor of probable delays and suggest a revised review date.

10. Reviewers should not use or disclose unpublished information, arguments, or interpretations included in a manuscript under consideration, with the exception of author’s consent. If this information indicates that some of the reviewer’s work is unlikely to be profitable, the reviewer, however, could ethically discontinue the work. In some cases, it may be appropriate for the reviewer to write the author, with copy to the editor, about the reviewer’s research and plans in that area.

11. The review of a submitted manuscript may sometimes justify criticism from a reviewer. When appropriate, such criticism may be presented in published papers. However, in no case is personal criticism of the author considered to be acceptable.