Ethics & Malpractice Statement

Ethics & Malpractice Statement

The Editorial Board of Journal and HM Publishers are committed to the highest academic, professional, legal, and ethical standards in publishing work in this journal. To this end, we have adopted a set of guidelines, to which all submitting authors, reviewers and editors are expected to adhere, to assure the integrity and ethical publishing. We also adopt the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) guidelines to deal with publication ethics and malpractice policies.

Here are some general ethical guidelines that Journal adopts and recommends for its authors, reviewers and editors.

Ethical guidelines for Journal authors

We expect all authors submitting to Journal to adhere to the following ethical guidelines:

• All authors must warrant that their article is their own original work, which does not infringe the intellectual property rights of any other person or entity, and cannot be construed as plagiarizing any other published work, including their own previously published work.
• In case copyrighted materials are to be reproduced, it is the responsibility of the authors to obtain permission to reproduce the copyrighted materials. Authors must also include the copyright permission letter while submitting such 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. The corresponding author should ensure that all appropriate co-authors and no inappropriate co-authors are included on the paper and that all co-authors have seen and approved the final version of the paper and have agreed to its submission for publication. All authors named on the paper are equally held accountable for the content of a submitted manuscript or published paper.
• Authors must not submit a manuscript to more than one journal simultaneously. Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal concurrently constitutes unethical publishing behaviour and is unacceptable.
• Authors should not submit previously published work, nor work which is based in substance on previously published work, either in part or whole.
• Authors must appropriately cite all relevant works. Information obtained privately, as in conversation, correspondence, or discussion with third parties, should not be used or reported in the author's work unless fully cited, and with the permission of that third party.
• Authors must make available all necessary formal and documented ethical approval from an appropriate research ethics committee, including evidence of anonymization and informed consent from the client(s) or patient(s) studied, if appropriate.
• Authors may be asked to provide the raw data in connection with a paper for editorial review, and should be prepared to provide public access to such data, if practicable, and should, in any event, be prepared to retain such data for a reasonable time after publication.
• Authors must pay particular attention to making their language non-discriminatory in any way. They should avoid sexist and racist terms and adhere to the basic ethical principle of no harm.
• Authors must declare any potential conflict of interest – be it professional or financial – which could be held to arise with respect to the article.
• Authors must disclose all sources of financial support for the research reported in the paper.
• When authors discover a significant error or inaccuracy in their own published work, it is the authors’ obligation to promptly notify the journal editor and cooperate with the editor to retract or correct the paper.

Ethical guidelines for Journal peer reviewers

We ask all peer reviewers to make every reasonable effort to adhere to the following ethical guidelines for Journal articles they have agreed to review:

• Reviewers must give unbiased consideration to each manuscript, and should judge each on its merits. Reviews should be conducted objectively. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate. Referees should express their views clearly with supporting arguments.
• Reviewers must keep the peer review process confidential; information or correspondence about a manuscript should not be shared with anyone outside of the peer-review process.
• Reviewers should provide a constructive, comprehensive, evidenced, and appropriately substantial peer review report.
• 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 her- or himself from the review process.
• Reviewers should assist the editors in making editorial decisions and through the editorial communications with the author may also assist the author in improving the paper.
• Reviewers should make all reasonable effort to submit their report and recommendation in a timely manner, informing the editor if this is not possible.
• 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. Reviewers 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 are aware.
• Journal strongly recommends that reviewers also adhere to the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers.

Ethical guidelines for Journal editors

We ask all journal editors to make every reasonable effort to adhere to the following ethical guidelines for Journal articles that are worthy of peer review:

• Journal editors should give unbiased consideration to each manuscript and should judge each on its merits, without regard to race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy of the authors.
• Journal editors must keep the peer-review process confidential; information or correspondence about a manuscript should not be shared with anyone outside of the peer-review process.
• Journal editors may reject a submitted manuscript without resort to formal peer review if they consider the manuscript to be inappropriate for the journal and outside its scope.
• If a journal editor receives a claim that a submitted article is under consideration elsewhere or has already been published, then he or she has a duty to investigate the matter with Journal.
• Journal editors should make all reasonable effort to process submitted manuscripts in an efficient and timely manner.
• Journal editors should arrange for the responsibility of the peer review of any original research article authored by themselves to be delegated to a member of the editorial or advisory board as appropriate.
• Journal editors are responsible for deciding which of the articles submitted to the journal should be published. 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. The editor may confer with other editors or reviewers in making this decision.
• If a journal editor is presented with convincing evidence that the main substance or conclusions of an article published in the journal are erroneous, then, in consultation with Journal, the journal editor should facilitate publication of an appropriate corrigendum or erratum.