To reach the highest standards in publication ethics, Journal of Scientific Research in Science (JSRS) applies the principles of publication recommended by Committee on Publication Ethics.
We encourage authors to refer to the Committee on Publication Ethics’ (COPE), International Standards for Authors
(https://publicationethics.org/resources/international-standards-for-editors-and-authors).
Authors’ Responsibilities
Before submitting an article, authors should ensure that they satisfy the following criteria.
- Authors must claim, that the submission has not been previously published, nor is it before another journal for consideration (or an explanation has been provided in Comments to the Editor). If authors decide to submit their manuscript to another journal, they must withdraw their paper from JSRS.
- The corresponding author will ensure that all contributing co-authors have approved the final version of the manuscript and agreed to its submission for publication. Only authors who have made a significant contribution to the submitted study will be included.
- Authors must ensure that their manuscript is original and provide a list of references for the material that is taken from other sources.
- Authors must acknowledge their funding for the submitted manuscript. They must state all sources of financial support they received and the role of the funder.
- Authors must carefully read the copyright statement and accept responsibility for releasing necessary information during the submission process.
- Authors should ensure that their data belong to them. If authors do not own the data, they must state that they have permission to use it.
- Authors should ensure that they conform to all research ethics guidelines, especially if human or animal subjects are involved in their research. They should ensure that they obtained proof of consent from participants in their research.
- Authors must state any potential conflict of interest on submission of their manuscript.
- Authors are obliged to participate in a peer review process of their submitted manuscript. They should respond to all the comments and any recommendations of reviewers before the given deadline.
- All contributing authors have a responsibility to inform the Editor of JSRS immediately, if any error or mistake occurs after the submission of a manuscript or after the publication of a manuscript.
- Authors can submit only their original work, not submitted for the publication anywhere else.
- Authors need to be sure they have obtained all necessary permissions for the reproduction of any copyright works used in their work.
- Authors are obliged to adapt the submitted article to the style sheet of the journal and make sure the article contains the full list of references.
- Authors are expected to revise their papers according to the suggestions of the reviewers. In case they refuse to do so without providing satisfactory arguments, the Editors reserve the right to deny publication.
- Corrected page proofs must be returned within the deadline set by the Editors.
Reviewers’ Responsibilities
Peer review in all its forms plays an important role in ensuring the integrity of the scholarly record. The process depends to a large extent on trust, and requires that everyone involved behaves responsibly and ethically.
Timeliness
- Reviewers should respond to an invitation to peer review within a reasonable time-frame, even if they cannot undertake the review. If they feel qualified to judge a particular manuscript, they should agree to review only if they are able to return a review within the proposed or mutually agreed time-frame.
Confidentiality
- Reviewers should keep the review process confidential and refrain from using information obtained during the peer review process for their own or another’s advantage, or to disadvantage or discredit others.
- Reviewers should not involve anyone else in the review of a manuscript, without first obtaining permission from the journal.
Bias and Competing Interests
- Reviewers should remain unbiased by considerations related to the nationality, religious or political beliefs, gender or other characteristics of the authors, origins of a manuscript or by commercial considerations.
- Reviewers should inform the Journal Editor, if they suspect any potential competing or conflicts of interest.
Suspicion of Ethics Violations
- Reviewers should inform the Journal Editor, if they come across any irregularities with respect to research and publication ethics.
Objectivity
- Reviewers should be objective and constructive in their review, providing feedback that will help the authors to improve their manuscript. They should be specific in their review, and provide supporting evidence with appropriate references to substantiate general statements, to help editors in their evaluation.
Editors’ Responsibilities
Decisions to accept or reject a paper for publication should be based only on the paper’s importance, originality and clarity, and the study’s relevance to the remit of the journal
- Editors should ensure that the manuscripts conform to the ethical policies of their journal.
- Editors should not discriminate against authors on the basis of gender, race, color, religion, national origin, and sexual orientation.
- Editors should address authors’ complaints and keep any documents related with the complaints.
- Editors should ensure that the manuscripts are reviewed in a confidential manner.
- Editors should ensure that authors and reviewers are properly advised regarding the review process as well as publication ethics and policies.
Retraction Guidelines
Journal editors should consider retracting a publication if:
- they have clear evidence that the findings are unreliable, either as a result of misconduct (e.g. data fabrication) or honest error (e.g. miscalculation or experimental error)
- the findings have previously been published elsewhere without proper cross-referencing, permission or justification (i.e. cases of redundant publication)
- it constitutes plagiarism
- it reports unethical research
Journal editors should consider issuing an expression of concern if:
- they receive inconclusive evidence of research or publication misconduct by the authors
- there is evidence that the findings are unreliable but the authors’ institution will not investigate the case
- they believe that an investigation into alleged misconduct related to the publication either has not been, or would not be, fair and impartial or conclusive
- an investigation is underway but a judgment will not be available for a considerable time
Journal editors should consider issuing a correction if:
- a small portion of an otherwise reliable publication proves to be misleading (especially because of honest error)
- the author / contributor list is incorrect (i.e. a deserving author has been omitted or somebody who does not meet authorship criteria has been included)
COPE Council. Ethical guidelines for peer reviewers. September2017. https://publicationethics.org/files/Ethical_Guidelines_For_Peer_Reviewers_2.pdf
COPE Council. COPE Guidelines: A Short Guide to Ethical Editing for New Editors. May 2019
Retraction Guidelines https://publicationethics.org/files/retraction%20guidelines_0.pdf
Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) Guidelines on Good Publication Practice
