Rules of Ethics

As part of its activities, the Editorial Board is responsible for the publication of scientific works protected under copyright law.

The Editorial Board:

  • is guided by academic principles, as well as principles of objectivity, professionalism, and impartiality;
  • organizes proper peer-review of submitted articles;
  • builds relationships with authors based on principles of justice, delicacy, objectivity, integrity, and transparency;
  • is guided by the accuracy of submitted information and academic value of the submitted work when making a decision on publication;
  • makes a decision on approving or declining publication based on peer-review reports;
  • reserves the right to decline the publication of the article if the latter does not meet the requirements set by the Board.

The articles submitted to the Katchar / Academia: Social Science Periodical are reviewed at least by one reviewer.

When performing an academic examination of articles for their compliance to copyright laws, the reviewer shall:

  • stay impartial;
  • view the work under revision as a confidential document, which cannot be subjected to consideration or discussion with a third party non-member to the Editorial Board;
  • provide an objective and substantive assessment of his/her decision;
  • complete the reviewer form in the shortest possible period of time;
  • notify any case of conflict of interest to the Editorial Board.

The author(s) of the article shall ensure novelty and accuracy of the submitted research, which means that:

  • the article should be properly structured and should meet the submission requirements of the Katchar / Academia: Social Science Periodical
  • the article should provide reliable research results based on accurate data: visible false or falsified statements are unacceptable
  • the article should be scientifically innovative and up-to-date
  • the article should not be submitted to another periodical for publication or review by the time of its submission to the Katchar / Academia: Social Science Periodical․

 

 

·   Conflicts of interest

Definition

Conflicts of interest comprise those which may not be fully apparent and which may influence the judgment of author, reviewers, and editors.

They have been described as those which, when revealed later, would make a reasonable reader feel misled or deceived.

They may be personal, commercial, political, academic or financial.

“Financial” interests may include employment, research funding, stock or share ownership, payment for lectures or travel, consultancies and company support for staff.

 

·  Peer review

Definition

Peer reviewers are external experts chosen by editors to provide written opinions, with the aim of improving the study.

Working methods vary from journal to journal, but some use open procedures in which the name of the reviewer is disclosed, together with the full or “edited” report.

Action

  1. Suggestions from authors as to who might act as reviewers are often useful, but there should be no obligation on editors to use those suggested.
  2. The duty of confidentiality in the assessment of a manuscript must be maintained by expert reviewers, and this extends to reviewers’ colleagues who may be asked (with the editor’s permission) to give opinions on specific sections.
  3. The submitted manuscript should not be retained or copied.
  4. Reviewers and editors should not make any use of the data, arguments, or interpretations, unless they have the authors’
  5. Reviewers should provide speedy, accurate, courteous, unbiased and justifiable reports.
  6. If reviewers suspect misconduct, they should write in confidence to the editor.
  7. Journals should publish accurate descriptions of their peer review, selection, and appeals
  8. Journals should also provide regular audits of their acceptance rates and publication times.

 

·  Redundant publication

Definition

Redundant publication occurs when two or more papers, without full cross reference, share the same hypothesis, data, discussion points, or conclusions.

Action

  1. Published studies do not need to be repeated unless further confirmation is required.
  2. Previous publication of an abstract during the proceedings of meetings does not preclude subsequent submission for publication, but full disclosure should be made at the time of submis
  3. Republication of a paper in another language is acceptable, provided that there is full and prominent disclosure of its original source at the time of submission.
  4. At the time of submission, authors should disclose details of related papers, even if in a different language, and similar papers in press.

 

· Plagiarism

Definition

Plagiarism ranges from the unreferenced use of others’ published and unpublished ideas, including research grant applications to submission under “new” authorship of a complete paper, sometimes in a different language.

It may occur at any stage of planning, research, writing, or publication: it applies to print and electronic versions.

Action

  1. All sources should be disclosed, and if large amounts of other people’s written or illustrative material is to be used, permission must be

 

· Duties of editors

Definition

Editors are the stewards of journals. They usually take over their journal from the previous editor(s) and always want to hand over the journal in good shape.

Most editors provide direction for the journal and build a strong management team.

They must consider and balance the interests of many constituents, including readers, authors, staff, owners, editorial board members, advertisers and the media.

Actions

  1. Editors’ 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.
  2. Studies that challenge previous work published in the journal should be given an especially sympathetic hearing.
  3. Studies reporting negative results should not be
  4. All original studies should be peer reviewed before publication, taking into full account possible bias due to related or conflicting interests.
  5. Editors must treat all submitted papers as confi
  6. When a published paper is subsequently found to contain major flaws, editors must accept responsibility for correcting the record prominently and

 

·  Sanctions

Sanctions may be applied separately or combined.   

  1. A letter of explanation to the authors, where there appears to be a genuine misunderstanding of principles.
  2. A letter of reprimand and warning as to future
  3. A formal letter to the relevant head of institution or funding body.
  4. Publication of a notice of redundant publication or plagiarism.
  5. An editorial giving full details of the
  6. Refusal to accept future submissions from the individual, unit, or institution responsible for the misconduct, for a stated period.

 

Acknowledgements

The following are gratefully acknowledged for their contribution to the drafting of these guidelines:

  • Philip Fulford (Coordinator)
  • Professor Michael Doherty
  • Ms Jane Smith
  • Dr Richard Smith
  • Dr Fiona Godlee
  • Dr Peter Wilmshurst
  • Dr Richard Horton
  • Professor Michael Farthing
  • Other members of COPE
  • Delegates to the Meeting on April 27 1999
  • Other corresponding editors