The publication of an article in a peer-reviewed journal is a very crucial task in disseminating knowledge and contributes for the scientific development. As a peer-reviewed journal, the rigor of scientific publication is expected to be observed in the course of evaluating papers that are submitted. Therefore, ethical behavior is expected for all parties involved during the publishing process: the author, the journal editor, the peer reviewer and the publisher.
Our journals are responsible for ensuring that articles submitted are being evaluated and published based on their merits for publication. We ensure that in every step of the process of publishing papers, appropriate practices in the science of publication are being considered.
In some of our journals, Omnia Publisher uses a business model to offset expenses consisting in charging a publication fee to the authors, institutions or funders for each article published. Omnia Publisher is committed in making possible, when it is possible and viable, to ensure that these fees are not a barrier for Open Access publication.
Duties of Authors
Authors of original empirical articles must present precise account of the procedures executed and the intentions for deliberately performing such works. All data should be explicitly stated in the paper along with its specific details and sources to ensure that replication can be done in future researches. Inaccurate or fraudulent accounts stated in submitted research articles would enunciate ethical violations since it is not an acceptable practice in scientific publications.
Originality and plagiarism
Authors or contributors are required to properly cite and quote sources of literature that they utilized in formulating their research articles. Plagiarism may be manifested in variety of ways such as using another’s paper as the author’s own paper, intentional or unintentional copying or paraphrasing parts of another’s paper without citation, claiming results from research conducted by others. Plagiarism is an unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable.
Redundant or concurrent publication
Authors should not in general publish manuscripts describing essentially the same research in more than one journal or primary publication. Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal concurrently constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable. Authors should not submit for consideration in another journal a previously published paper.
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. Information obtained privately, as in conversation, correspondence, or discussion with third parties, must not be used or reported without explicit, written permission from the source. Information obtained in the course of confidential services, such as refereeing manuscripts or grant applications, must not be used without the explicit written permission of the author of the work involved in these services.
Authorship of the paper
Authorship should be limited to those who have made a significant contribution to the conception, design, execution, or interpretation of the reported study. All those who have made significant contributions should be listed as co-authors. Where there are others who have participated in certain substantive aspects of the research project, they should be acknowledged or listed as contributors. The corresponding author should ensure that all co-authors have seen and approved the final version of the paper and have agreed to its submission for publication.
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. Examples of potential conflicts of interest which should be disclosed include employment, consultancies, stock ownership, honoraria, paid expert testimony, patent applications/registrations, and grants or other funding. Potential conflicts of interest should be disclosed at the earliest stage possible, and must be communicated to the editor in the cover letter when sending the manuscript at the first time.
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. If the editor or the publisher learns from a third party that a published work contains a significant error, it is the obligation of the author to promptly retract or correct the paper or provide evidence to the editor of the correctness of the original paper.
Duties of editors
The editor of a peer-reviewed journal is responsible for deciding which of the articles submitted to the journal should be published. The validation of the work in question and its importance to researchers and readers must always drive such decisions. The editor may be guided by the policies of the journal’s editorial board and constrained by such legal requirements as shall then be in force regarding libel, copyright infringement and plagiarism. Editor’s decisions are based on the manuscript evaluation reports of peer reviewers or editorial board members.
An editor should evaluate manuscripts for their intellectual content without regard to race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy of the authors. Double blind reviews will be executed to ensure that biases in the process of evaluating manuscripts. In this type of review, reviewers are not aware of the author’s personal and professional profile, the same way as the authors will not be given information regarding the reviewer’s identity.
The editor and any editorial staff must not disclose any information about a submitted manuscript to anyone other than the corresponding author, reviewers, potential reviewers, other editorial advisers, and the publisher, as appropriate.
Disclosure and conflicts of interest
Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in an editor’s own research without the express written consent of the author. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage. Editors should recuse themselves (i.e. should ask a co-editor, associate editor or other member of the editorial board instead to review and consider) from considering manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or (possibly) institutions connected to the papers. Editors should require all contributors to disclose relevant competing interests and publish corrections if competing interests are revealed after publication. If needed, other appropriate action should be taken, such as the publication of a retraction or expression of concern. It should be ensured that the peer-review process for sponsored supplements is the same as that used for the main journal. Items in sponsored supplements should be accepted solely on the basis of academic merit and interest to readers and not be influenced by commercial considerations.
Duties of reviewers
Contribution to editorial decisions
Peer review assists the editor in making editorial decisions and through the editorial communications with the author may also assist the author in improving the paper. Peer review is an essential component of formal scholarly communication, and lies at the heart of the scientific method.
Any selected referee who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should notify the editor and excuse himself from the review process.
Any manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. They must not be shown to or discussed with others except as authorized by the editor.
Standards of objectivity
Reviews should be conducted objectively. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate. Referees should express their views clearly with supporting arguments.
Acknowledgement of sources
Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors. Any statement that an observation, derivation, or argument had been previously reported should be accompanied by the relevant citation. A reviewer should also call to the editor’s attention any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published paper of which they have personal knowledge.
Disclosure and conflict of interest
Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in a reviewer’s own research without the express written consent of the author. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage. Reviewers should not consider manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers.
Publication Ethics and Publication Malpractice Statement (based on Elsevier recommendations and COPE’s Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors). Retrieved from https://publicationethics.org/ [2017-12-27]
Issues concerning Open Access publication have been derived from PLOS Editorial and Publishing Policies. Retrieved from https://www.plosone.org/static/policies.action [2014-12-27]
(Most of the listed guidelines were derived from the Publication Ethical Guidelines of Academy Publisher and Elsevier).