Publication ethics and malpractice statement
*The following statements are based on Elsevier recommendations and COPE’s Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors
To maintain fair practice we, Romanian Neurosurgery, strongly believe in following these guidelines. We are committed to the fair practice of publication.
Success in this regard can be achieved if ethics are well practised by the following parties:
(1) Authors, (2) Editors, (3) Reviewers & (4) Publisher.
1. Authors: Authors should present sufficient detail and references to permit others to replicate the experiments. Knowingly inaccurate statements are unacceptable as they constitute unethical behaviour. Review articles should also be objective, comprehensive, and accurate accounts of the state of the art. The authors should ensure that their work is entirely original works, and if the work and/or words of others have been used, this has been appropriately acknowledged. Plagiarism in all its forms is unacceptable as it constitutes unethical publishing behaviour. Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal is unacceptable as it concurrently constitutes unethical publishing behaviour. So, authors should not submit articles describing essentially the same research to more than one journal. The corresponding author should ensure that there is a full consensus of all co-authors in approving the final version of the paper and its submission for publication.
What are the duties of the authors?
►► Reporting standards: Authors of reports of original research should present an accurate account of the work performed. They also should declare objective discussion of the significance of their work(s). Data should be represented accurately in the paper. A paper should contain sufficient detail and references to permit others to replicate the work. Knowingly inaccurate statements are unacceptable as they constitute unethical behaviour. Review and professional publication articles should also be accurate and objective, and editorial ‘opinion’ works should be clearly identified as such.
►► Data access: Authors may be asked to provide the raw data in connection with a paper for editorial review, and should, in any event, be prepared to retain such data for a reasonable time after publication.
►► Originality and plagiarism: The authors should ensure that their work is entirely original works, and if the work and/or words of others have been used, this has been appropriately acknowledged. Plagiarism in all its forms is unacceptable as it constitutes unethical publishing behaviour.
►►Multiple, redundant or concurrent publication: authors should not, in general, publish manuscripts describing essentially the same research in more than one journal. Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal is unacceptable as it concurrently constitutes unethical publishing behaviour. In general, an author should not submit for consideration in another journal a previously published paper.
►►Acknowledgement of sources: Proper acknowledgement 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 include a statement disclosing any financial or other substantive conflicts of interest that may be construed to influence the results or interpretation of their manuscript. All sources of financial support for the project should be disclosed.
►►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 to cooperate with the editor to retract or correct the paper in form of an erratum.
2. Editors: Editors should evaluate manuscripts exclusively on the basis of their academic merit. An editor must not use unpublished information in the editor’s own research without the express written consent of the author. Editors should take reasonable responsive measures when ethical complaints have been presented concerning a submitted manuscript or published paper.
What are the responsibilities of the editors?
►►Publication decisions: The editor is responsible for deciding which of the papers submitted to the journal will be published. The editor will evaluate manuscripts without regard to the authors’ race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy. The decision will be based on the paper’s importance, originality and clarity, and the study’s validity and its relevance to the journal’s scope. Current legal requirements regarding libel, copyright infringement, and plagiarism should also be considered.
►►Confidentiality: 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 paper will not be used by the editor or the members of the editorial board for their own research purposes without the author’s explicit written consent.
3. Reviewers: Manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage. Reviews should be conducted objectively, and observations should be formulated clearly with supporting arguments so that authors can use them for improving the paper. 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. 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.
What are the duties of the reviewers?
►► Contribution to editorial decisions: The peer-reviewing process assists the editor and the editorial board in making editorial decisions and may also serve the author in improving the paper.
►►Promptness: 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 withdraw from the review process.
►►Confidentiality: Any manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. They must not be disclosed 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 cases in which relevant published work referred to in the paper has not been cited in the reference section. They should point out whether observations or arguments derived from other publications are accompanied by the respective source. Reviewers will notify the editor of 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: 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 associated with the papers.
4. Publisher: London Academic Publishing does not allow any form of plagiarism. Plagiarism is considered to be a serious breach of scientific ethics by the entire scientific community. Incidents of plagiarism in a manuscript or published paper whether detected or reported will be dealt with seriously. We constantly support/advise and take suggestions from our Editors/Editorial Board/Reviewers on avoiding any malpractice of publication ethics.