International Scientific Publications
© 2007-2025 Science Events Ltd
Termeni de utilizare  ·  Politica de confidențialitate
Language English French Polish Romanian Bulgarian

Etica publicării

Pe lângă informațiile furnizate pe această pagină, recomandăm autorilor, recenzorilor și editorilor noștri să consulte Comitetul de Etică a Publicațiilor (COPE). COPE oferă îndrumări și resurse complete pentru a sprijini practicile etice de publicare, abordând probleme precum plagiatul, disputele privind autorul și abaterile de la cercetare.

1. Authorship

1.1. Researchers should ensure that only those individuals who meet authorship criteria (i.e. made a substantial contribution to the work) are rewarded with authorship and that deserving authors are not omitted. Institutions and journal editors should encourage practices that prevent guest, gift, and ghost authorship.

1.2. All authors should agree to be listed and should approve the submitted and accepted versions of the publication. Any change to the author list should be approved by all authors including any who have been removed from the list. The corresponding author should act as a point of contact between the editor and the other authors and should keep co-authors informed and involve them in major decisions about the publication (e.g. responding to reviewers’ comments).

1.3. Authors should not use acknowledgements misleadingly to imply a contribution or endorsement by individuals who have not, in fact, been involved with the work or given an endorsement.

2. Originality

2.1. Authors should adhere to publication requirements that submitted work is original and has not been published elsewhere in any language. Work should not be submitted concurrently to more than one publication.

2.2. Applicable copyright laws and conventions should be followed. Copyright material (e.g. tables, figures or extensive quotations) should be reproduced only with appropriate permission and acknowledgement.

2.3. Relevant previous work and publications, both by other researchers and the authors’ own, should be properly acknowledged and referenced. The primary literature should be cited where possible.

2.4. Data, text, figures or ideas originated by other researchers should be properly acknowledged and should not be presented as if they were the authors’ own. Original wording taken directly from publications by other researchers should appear in quotation marks with the appropriate citations.

2.5. Authors should inform editors if findings have been published previously or if multiple reports or multiple analyses of a single data set are under consideration for publication elsewhere.

2.6. Multiple publications arising from a single research project should be clearly identified as such and the primary publication should be referenced. Translations and adaptations for different audiences should be clearly identified as such, should acknowledge the original source, and should respect relevant copyright conventions and permission requirements. If in doubt, authors should seek permission from the original publisher before republishing any work.

3. Plagiarism

3.1. Plagiarism is defined as the use of another individual’s ideas, data, or textual material—published or unpublished—without appropriate acknowledgment. It may occur at any stage of research or writing and extends to the reissuing of existing work under altered authorship or in a new format (or language).

3.2. Authors must accurately disclose all sources, properly attribute referenced material, and obtain permission for substantial reuse of third-party content. Before publication, all submissions are thoroughly checked for plagiarism. If any cases are found, the journal will take appropriate actions, which may include correcting the article, retracting it, and informing the relevant parties.

3.3. Authors, reviewers, and editors are each obligated to maintain vigilance, report suspected misconduct, and adhere to recognized standards of citation and academic honesty.

4. Competing Interests

4.1. All sources of research funding, including direct and indirect financial support, supply of equipment or materials, and other support (such as specialist statistical or writing assistance) should be disclosed.

4.2. Authors should disclose relevant financial and non-financial interests and relationships that might be considered likely to affect the interpretation of their findings or which editors, reviewers or readers might reasonably wish to know.

5. Peer-review

5.1. While authors are encouraged to suggest potential reviewers for their manuscripts, there is no requirement for editors to adhere to these suggestions. Editors must maintain complete independence in selecting reviewers.

5.2. Reviewers hold a strict duty of confidentiality regarding the manuscripts they evaluate. They must ensure that any colleagues consulted for expert input also respect this confidentiality and do not disseminate the information beyond what is necessary for the review process.

5.3. Under no circumstances should the reviewer or editor retain, copy, or store the manuscript, or any part thereof, for purposes not related to the evaluation process.

5.4. Neither reviewers nor editors may utilize the data, analyses, interpretations, or findings contained in a manuscript for their own research, publications, or other interests, unless explicit permission from the author(s) has been granted.

5.5. Reviewers are expected to provide timely, accurate, fair, and well-substantiated evaluations. Their reports should assist editors in making informed decisions while offering authors constructive feedback that helps improve the scholarly quality of the work.

5.6. If at any point reviewers suspect unethical behavior, fabrication of data, plagiarism, or other forms of misconduct, they should discreetly report their concerns to the editor.

6. Research fraud

6.1. The research being reported should be sound and carefully executed.

6.2. Authors should take collective responsibility for their work and for the content of their publications. Researchers should check their publications carefully at all stages to ensure methods and findings are reported accurately. Authors should carefully check calculations, data presentations, typescripts/submissions and proofs.

6.3. Researchers should present their results honestly and without fabrication, falsification or inappropriate data manipulation. Research images (e.g. micrographs, X-rays, pictures of electrophoresis gels) should not be modified in a misleading way.

6.4. Researchers should strive to describe their methods and to present their findings clearly and unambiguously. Researchers should follow applicable reporting guidelines. Publications should provide sufficient detail to permit experiments to be repeated by other researchers.

6.5. Reports of research should be complete. They should not omit inconvenient, inconsistent or inexplicable findings or results that do not support the authors’ or sponsors’ hypothesis or interpretation.

6.6. Authors should alert the editor promptly if they discover an error in any submitted, accepted or published work. Authors should cooperate with editors in issuing corrections or retractions when required.

7. Research involving humans or animals

7.1. The research being reported should have been conducted in an ethical and responsible manner and follow all relevant legislation.

7.2. If requested by editors, authors should supply evidence that reported research received the appropriate approval and was carried out ethically (e.g. copies of approvals, licences, participant consent forms).

7.3. Researchers should not generally publish or share identifiable individual data collected in the course of research without specific consent from the individual (or their representative).

8. Retracting a publication

8.1. Retraction is a mechanism for correcting the literature and alerting readers to articles that contain such seriously flawed or erroneous content or data that their findings and conclusions cannot be relied upon. Unreliable content or data may result from honest error, naïve mistakes, or research misconduct.

8.2. The main purpose of retraction is to correct the literature and ensure its integrity rather than to punish the authors.

8.3. Editors should consider retracting a publication if:

9. Artificial intelligence and authorship

9.1. AI-based tools and technologies include but are not limited to large language models (LLMs), generative AI, and chatbots (for example, ChatGPT).

9.2. AI tools cannot meet the requirements for authorship as they cannot take responsibility for the submitted work. As non-legal entities, they cannot assert the presence or absence of conflicts of interest nor manage copyright and license agreements.

9.3. When authors employ generative artificial intelligence (AI) and AI-assisted technologies during the writing process, their use should be limited to enhancing readability and language clarity. It is essential for authors to maintain human oversight and control over this technology. Authors must rigorously review and edit the AI-generated content, as it may produce outputs that, while seemingly authoritative, could be inaccurate, incomplete, or biased.

9.4. Authors should disclose the use of AI tools in the manuscript and include a statement that the authors have reviewed and edited the AI-generated content. The statement should appear in a distinct section, detailing the names of the tools utilized and the rationale behind their use.

9.5. Authors should not use AI tools to generate content that is not based on their own research or ideas. Authors are accountable for the originality, validity and integrity of the content of their submissions.

9.6. The final decision on whether it is appropriate or permissible to use AI tools for a submitted manuscript or a published article lies with the journal's editor or the person in charge of the publication's editorial policy.

10. Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Accessibility

10.1. We are committed to fostering a scholarly environment that actively supports Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Accessibility (DEIA). This includes ensuring that authors, reviewers, editors, and all other contributors, regardless of their race, ethnicity, gender, age, sexual orientation, religion, disability, or any other aspect of their identity, are treated with dignity, respect, and fairness.

10.2. We strive to maintain equitable and inclusive editorial and review practices that recognize and value the unique perspectives and contributions arising from a broad range of backgrounds and experiences.

10.3. We welcome constructive feedback from authors, reviewers, readers, and the broader academic community regarding our DEIA policies and practices.

Sources:

Wager E & Kleinert S (2011) Responsible research publication: international standards for authors. A position statement developed at the 2nd World Conference on Research Integrity, Singapore, July 22-24, 2010. Chapter 50 in: Mayer T & Steneck N (eds) Promoting Research Integrity in a Global Environment. Imperial College Press / World Scientific Publishing, Singapore (pp 309-16). (ISBN 978-981-4340-97-7)

COPE Council. COPE Guidelines: Retraction Guidelines. November 2019

Authorship and AI tools. COPE: Committee on Publication Ethics. February 2023

Prin utilizarea acestui site, sunteți de acord cu Politica noastră de confidențialitate și Termenii și condițiile de utilizare. Folosim cookie-uri, inclusiv pentru analiză, personalizare și reclame.