Ethical standards are crucial to guarantee high quality of scientific distributions, credibility of scientific findings, and the respective authors duly receive credit for their work. Herald Scholarly Open Access has several policies set up to assurance high ethical standards. These guidelines could be seen in the General Terms, the General Obligations for Editors, the General Obligations for Authors and the General Obligations for Reviewers.
In addition to these rules, Herald Scholarly Open Access prescribes the Code of Conduct and Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors and the Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers developed by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) as best practice.
In addition to different obligations, editors need to guarantee that all manuscripts appropriated by their journal are reviewed for their scientific content without regard to sex, gender, race, religion, citizenship, etc. of the authors. Besides, the editor’s requirement to ensure that any data with respect to manuscripts put together by the authors is kept confidential.
The reviews of submitted manuscripts must be carried out unbiased, and the reviewers ought to express their perspectives plainly with supporting arguments. Moreover, reviewers to be mindful that any data regarding the manuscripts they are reviewing ought to be dealt with as privileged information.
Herald Scholarly Open Access itself aims to follow the Code of Conduct for Journal Publishers of COPE by
- Guaranteeing article autonomy
- Respect privacy of almost all stakeholders in the research and publications process.
- Ensuring author's copyright and a liberal dissemination license.
Keeping in mind the end goal to show PubMed that the journal complies with this policy, the instructions to authors should obviously oblige compliance from the authors. Also, the journal homepage on Herald ought to list the requirement in an area that can easily be found by readers, not simply by authors. PubMed demands us making the consistence prerequisites evident to readers also, not simply to authors.
In order to consent with the ethical requirements, the following sentences ought to be incorporated in a separate segment of each one article simply before the citation rundown. The segment might be called “Consistence with Ethics Guidelines”. This must be of importance in the guidelines to authors. In order to apply for review by PubMed, you ought to have no less than two issues that follow these necessities.
While Herald Scholarly Open Access welcomes any original scientific work for distribution, we do expect that:
- The work submitted for publication has not been distributed in the recent past, with the exception in the form of an abstract or proceedings-type publication (including electronic preprints and talk papers), or as major aspect of a published thesis or lecture, and it is not under consideration for peer-reviewed publication elsewhere;
- Its publication has been affirmed by all author(s) and, implicitly or explicitly, by the responsible authorities and/or the institutes where the work has been completed;
- If and when the manuscript is accepted for peer-reviewed distribution, it may be re-utilized under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License but not yet submitted for peer-reviewed publication elsewhere
- The authors have obtained the right to reproduce any material in his/her/their work that has as of recently been published elsewhere
- The authors concur and obeyed with the License and Copyright Agreement
- The authors concur with the Article Processing Charges legitimate on the date of manuscript submission
- The authors agree and have complied the General Obligations for Authors
- The authors are aware that discussion papers remain always archived, citable and accessible
- With respect to the assessment of manuscripts, the editors and the referees will follow their guidelines as compressed in the Guidelines for Editors and in the Guidelines for Reviewers.
- The publication board reserves the right to remove referee reports and whatever viable remarks assuming that they hold individual abuse.
- The utilization of general descriptive names, trademarks, trade names, and so forth, in the articles of this journal, regardless of the fact that not particularly recognized, does not imply that these names are not secured by the applicable laws and regulations.
- While the advice and data in this journal is accepted to be accurate and precise at the date each one article is distributed, none, of these the authors, the editors, nor Herald Scholarly Open Access can accept any legal legitimate obligation regarding any failures or exclusions that may be made. Herald makes no guarantee, communicated or inferred, as for the material held.
A guide for Editors-in-Chief, Associate Editors and Managing Editors
Herald Scholarly Open Access provides handy direction to Journal Editors; Society & Publishing Partners which aides deal with the repercussions possibly emerging from distributed work which could be in breach with the codes of conduct.
Researchers ought to direct their research from research proposal to publication in accordance with best practices and sets of accepted rules of professional bodies and/or national and international regulatory bodies. In uncommon cases, it is conceivable that ethical issues or misconduct could be experienced in your journal when research is submitted for publication.
Developing a Distributing Ethics Policy for your Journal
Practically every venture in the publishing methodology includes important ethical principles. Having clear proclamations on these issues can energize dependable publication practices. COPE has composed rules that might be used to review your journal keeping in mind the end goal to characterize which of the courses of action and practices oblige consideration; An acceptable portrayal of ethical principles will help oversee author expectations and will help oversee circumstances that may emerge if these statements have not been adhered to by authors.
Clear guidelines on compliance of the work:
- That the work has not been published before (with the exception of in the form of an abstract or as a feature of a published lecture, thesis or review)
- That the work is not under survey somewhere else
- That copyright has not been breached in looking for its publication.
- That the publication has been approved by all co-authors and capable powers at the institute or association where the work has been carried out.
What type of content is or is not adequate for publication:
- Translations of formerly distributed articles are not adequate
- Extended versions of conference proceedings are adequate
Guidelines on what constitutes authorship and how proposed changes to authorship are took care of in spite of the fact that there is no general meaning of what constitutes authorship it is by and large accepted that authors ought to be distinguished by the research group as having contributed sufficiently to the logical work, who are responsible as far as concerns them of the work, and who basically surveyed and affirmed the last composition. Criteria: Drafting, Reviewing, Authoring and Approving.
Description of the peer review process: Peer review is essential in guaranteeing the integrity of the scientific publication process and can hail potential offense at an early stage.
Ethical issues and what to do when you are experiencing conceivable misconduct?
It ought to be noted that there are two notable circumstances: genuine experimental misrepresentation or errors. Errors could be due to negligence (for example statistical errors) or fair failures which are part of the ordinary course of doing research. It is subsequently critical to treat potential cases with care as academic careers could be at risk.
Five steps to follow when experiencing conceivable misconduct:
- To remain a neutral player and to treat all potential misconduct cases privately. Keep records of composed correspondence including the affirmation and the proof of the complainant
- Raise the issue with the accused (co-)author in a convenient way
- Assess what precisely has happened (fact finding) and be transparent and final about choices.
Six fundamental ethical issues have been characterized, and techniques for responding to misconduct have been outlined. It would be ideal if you note that these rules are not expected to give or substitute lawful counsel. Each ethical issue is emulated by recommended actions as exhorted by COPE for Journal Editors and when accessible, extra reading has been included. For follow-up actions by Herald Scholarly Open Access on the best way to the literature upon discovery of misconduct or changes to articles that influence the interpretation and conclusion of the article, yet do not fully invalidate the article after publication
Improper Author Attribution or Contribution
All listed authors must have made a noteworthy scientific contribution to the research in the manuscript and affirmed all its claims. It is paramount to list everyone who made a noteworthy scientific contribution, including students and research center specialists.
Data fabrication/data adulteration
Data fabrication: It concerns the making up of research findings.
Data adulteration: Manipulating research data with the intention of giving a false impression. This incorporates manipulating images (e.g. micrographs, gels, and radiological images), evacuating outliers or “inconvenient” results, changing, including or overlooking data points, and so on.
With respect to image manipulation, it is permitted to actually enhance images for decipherability. Proper specialized control alludes to modifying the contrast and/or brightness or color balance assuming that it is connected to the complete digital image (and not parts of the picture). Any of the technical manipulations by the author ought to be told in the cover letter to the Journal Editor on submission. Improper technical manipulation implies to obscuring, improving, erasing and/or introducing new elements into an image. For the most part, if an author’s figures are questionable, it is prescribed to request the original data from the authors.
Recommended COPE action for Journal Editors:
- Suspected fabricated data in a submitted paper
- Suspected fabricated data in a distributed article
Duplicate Submission/Publication and Redundant Publication
Duplicate submission/publication: This alludes to the act of practice of submitting the same study to two journals or distributed more or less the same study in two journals. These submissions/publications might be almost synchronous or years later.
Redundant publication: This alludes to the situation that one study is part into several parts and submitted to two or more journals. Then again the discoveries have formerly been distributed elsewhere without proper cross-referencing, authorization or justification. “Self-plagiarism” is observed as a type of redundant publication. It concerns reusing or borrowing content from previous work without citation. This practice is across the board and could be not intentional. Transparency by the author regarding the use of previously published work usually normally gives the fundamental data to make an evaluation on whether it is deliberate or unintentional.
Recommended Action for Journal Editors by COPE
- Suspected redundant (duplicate) publication in a submitted manuscript.
- Suspected redundant (duplicate) publication in a published article.
Duplication of Text and/or Figures (plagiarism)
Plagiarism occurs happens when someone introduces the work of others (data, content or hypotheses) as though if it were his/her own without proper affirmation. There are diverse degrees of counterfeiting.
The severity is subject to different elements: extent of copied material, originality of copied material, position/context/type of material and referencing/attribution of the material used. Every case is distinctive and subsequently, choices will differ per case. Ask yourself the following question: Does it concern an honest mistake or is there a deliberate deviation from the scientific standards? Do note there are varied grey areas between legitimate, flawed and fake practices.
While reviewing the case, consider the rundown factors:
- Author seniority: Junior authors may be asked to reword the duplicated text if it is believed that they are genuinely not aware that copying phrases is inappropriate. It is expected that a senior author ought to realize a better way.
- Cultural background could be an evidence for possibly diverse practices concerning the amount of copying which could be seen as plagiarism.
The following listing is intended to make you conscious of the different conceivable outcomes concerning plagiarism:
- Copying of someone’s work and submitting it as one’s own.
- Copying of noteworthy portions of text from a single source.
- Mixing duplicated material from multiple sources (“patchwork copy”). This could cover from 1 or 2 paragraphs to significant portions comprising of a few passages.
- Changing key words and phrases, however, holding the essential content of the source as a schema.
- Rephrasing of the content’s original wording and/or structure and submitting it as one’s own.
- Mixing slightly rephrased material from different sources and showing what has been distributed as of recently as new.
- The work is cited, but the cited portions are not clearly identified. This might be combined with copied parts of text without reference.
However, for review papers the above is not directly applicable. Review papers are required to give a synopsis of existing literature. Authors ought to utilize their own particular words with exception of appropriately quoted and/or cited texts and the work ought to incorporate a new interpretation.
Undeclared Conflict of Interest (CoI)
A conflict of interest is a circumstance in which budgetary or other particular contemplations from authors or reviewers have the possibility to compromise or bias professional judgment and objectivity. Authors and reviewers ought to proclaim all conflicts of interest significant to the work under consideration (i.e. relationships, both financial and personal, that might meddle with the elucidation of the work) to evade the potential for bias.
Prescribed Activity for Journal Editors by COPE:
- What to do if an analyst suspects undisclosed Coi in a submitted composition
- What to do if you suspect a reviewer has appropriated an author’s idea or data
- What to do if a reader suspects undisclosed CoI in a distributed article.
On the off chance that there are recorded violations of any of the aforementioned policies in any journal, paying little heed to whether the violations happened in a journal published by Herald Scholarly Open Access, the following assents will be applied:
- Immediate dismissal of the infringing manuscript.
- Immediate dismissal of every other manuscript submitted to any journal published by Herald by any of the authors of the infringing manuscript.
- Prohibition for any new submissions against all of the authors to any journal published by Herald, either individually or in combination with other authors of the infringing manuscript, and in addition infusion from any other authors. This denial will be imposed for a minimum of 36 months.
- Prohibition against all of the authors from serving on the Editorial Board of any journal published by Herald Scholarly Open Access.
In cases where the violations of the above strategies are discovered to be especially offensive, the publisher reserves the right to impose additional sanctions past those depicted previously.
There are ethical issues that identify with patient assent or animal experimentation and the lack of ethical approval.
Recommended action for Journal Editors by COPE: What to do in the event that you think an ethical problem with a submitted manuscript?
What to do when you are experiencing a serious plagiarism case?
For severe plagiarism cases (for example plagiarism by the same group of authors influencing numerous Herald journals or journals from different publishers or cases that may lure the consideration of the media) or different genuine deceptive practices, you are advised to inform your Herald Publishing Editor.
The peer review process is at the heart of the accomplishment of scientific publishing. As a major aspect of our dedication to the protection and enhancement of the peer review process, Herald has a commitment to help the mainstream researchers in all aspects of publishing ethics, particularly in instances of (suspected) duplicate submission or plagiarism.
Using Plagiarism Detection Software
Plagiarism detection at an early stage may be supportive to:
- Educate authors who are less acquainted with the ethics of publishing.
- If the ethical issues are caught at an early stage, it will reduce the workload for editors and reviewers.
Notwithstanding the aforementioned focuses, authors ought to be conscious, specifically about the following:
- The Paper submitted to Herald is a unique, unpublished work, and is not under consideration for publication elsewhere. Please be aware that Herald checks all submitted manuscripts for plagiarism. We use iThenticate, the heading edge CrossCheck framework.
- The Paper is submitted in accordance as per Herald's Author Guidelines.
- Signed copyright consents are obtained from copyright owners for any material duplicated from an alternate source and all representations from an alternate source or adapted from another source.
- All facts and references are correct.
- The Author guarantees and warrants that the Paper secures the confidentiality of people or associations mentioned in the Paper, and further warrants that the Author has acquired and can supply upon interest, written consent from any parties for the reproduction of their verbal statements, written statements, or customer records.
- The Author warrants and certifications that, where the paper represents results of research, and where there is an appropriate ethics committee overview of the research, approval has been acquired and conformed to.
- The Author guarantees that he or she is the sole lawful and equitable owner of the paper, and that the author is completely fit for conceding the Exclusive License to Herald and entering into this assention.
- By recognizing consent to the terms and conditions of this assention, the author unconditionally affirms that they have obtained acquired any essential copyright approvals as needed by law from any third party in respect of the uncertain utilization of copyright material of any nature, if data, tables, text or generally which has been used utilized either partially or wholly within any material presented by the author to Herald. The author likewise affirms that any third party copyright materials which have been reused either partially or wholly in any way in handling material submitted to Herald have been completely referred in the author's document by distinguishing the original source and copyright holder and noting any terms and conditions of use of such third party, if explicitly stipulated by the third party or otherwise.
- In respect of any archive submitted by the author and published by Herald through any medium, the author concurs constantly to reimburse Herald in admiration of any loss or damage, consequential or direct, and if arising in tort (including negligence or breach of statutory duty), contract or generally, which may be suffered by Herald as an immediate or circuitous aftereffect of any breach by the author of any of legitimate commitments or obligations, if under these terms of distribution, or as the consequence of any negligence, breach of statutory obligation or any viable gesture or exclusion on the authors part whatsoever. The author consents to pay upon interest any measure for which Herald may get obligated as a result of any action or risk that is acquired by Herald in this respect, and for the doubt avoidance, involving solicitor-client costs of enforcement hereof.
- The Paper submitted to Herald is liable to peer and editorial review. The choice of the Editor-in-Chief whether to accept or reject any paper is full and final.
- Herald holds every last bit of its rights to decline or decrease any paper submitted for consideration for publication, to reject or to distribute any paper, or evacuate or delete any published paper where it is recognized, at Herald’s sole attentiveness, that there has been a breach of any of the terms and conditions of this agreement by the author.
- On acceptance of the paper for distribution, the authors hold the copyright in their work yet appoint an exclusive commercial re-use right to Herald Scholarly Open Access. Authors may make any noncommercial utilization of their work that they wish. However, whosoever is wishing to make commercial use of the work is obliged to look for former written consent from the Publisher, Herald. For the avoidance of doubt, the exclusive commercial re-use right appointed to Herald broadens and incorporates any work (or part thereof) which is given by way of a limited demonstration as far as the Copyright Act 1993 or at common law. Any commercial use (or re-use) of the work without Herald's prior written assent will be a breach of these terms of publication and the author or third party acting in breach of these terms of publication will be subject to Herald for such measure as Herald might have charged for giving authorization for commercial re-use of the work, PLUS all legal/recovery costs in upholding Herald's exclusive commercial re-use rights and license against the party in breach.
- A complimentary PDF of the distributed paper will be supplied to the principal author for noncommercial use only.
With a specific end goal to keep away from ethical violations, all journals published by Herald Scholarly Open Access are focused on only publishing original material that was not published before, with the exception of as a abstract or proceedings-type publication (counting electronic preprints and dialog papers), or that is recognized for publication elsewhere. Authors need to concede to that in an assent structure. Moreover, redundant publications ought to be kept away from.
Author(s) Funding Statement and Contribution
All authors recorded on a displayed scientific work must have contributed a significant part to it. The other route around, all persons who have contributed to the present work necessarily have to be named in the list of authors. Moreover, sources of financial support, if any, must be obviously disclosed.
Author(s) Working in Commercial Institutions
Author(s) employed, for addition or generally, or associated or allied to any commercial institution (including but not limited to the list of examples above) shall NOT reproduce, distribute, link or post their Herald published paper on their organization site in any way that is fundamentally planned for or guided toward commercial advantage or money related payment without first acquiring the earlier composed authorization of Herald. Herald reserves all rights to institute legal proceedings against the author(s) and/or their establishment in such circumstances.
- The author is allowed to post the paper on a website until Herald has accepted the paper for publication. The author ought to add the accompanying notice to the first page of the paper upon its submission to Herald for publication: "This article has been sent to Herald Scholarly Open Access for publication."
- If the paper is accepted for distribution, the author ought to remove the pre-publication version of the paper from any such site where the prepublication paper was accessible.
- Where Herald accepts the paper for distribution, the author ought to post an exact copy of the Paper submitted to Herald for publication on a site with the following notice on the first page of the paper: "This article has been accepted for publication in (supplement name of relevant Herald journal)."
- Upon publication of the paper, the author might revise the notice on the first page of the paper published on such a website to state: "This article is published in (Herald journal name, date, issue and pages)."
- Authors may post the published paper (in .pdf format) on any website that they intend to, subjected to the commercial use/re-use conditions (included in these Terms and Conditions).
Any manipulation of citations (e.g. including citations not contributing to a manuscript's scientific text, citations only aiming at increasing an author’s or a journal’s citations, etc.) is viewed as scientific malpractice.
Plagiarism implies the utilization of any material and plans developed or created by another person without recognizing the original source. To stay away from any type of written falsification, each manuscript newly submitted to the Herald Scholarly Open Access Office Editor (our online editorial support system) will be checked with respect to plagiarism using iThenticate. The decision on if a composition ought to be rejected because of fraud or should proceed to the peer-review process belongs to the handling editor. The similarity reports are additionally made accessible to referees.
The Herald Scholarly Open Access Office Editor immediately updates the handling editor and the Herald Scholarly Open Access Editorial Support if an author, whose previous composition was rejected because of fraud, submits an alternate to one of the journals published by Herald Scholarly Open Access. It is dependent upon the respective handling editor to settle on if the new composition ought to be acknowledged for peer-review.
- General: Where any dispute, contradiction, difference or claim ("Dispute") between the parties in any way emerging out of the production of any paper, these terms and conditions of publication or the Exclusive License or this agreement, or concerning the interpretation or impact of these terms and conditions of publication or the Exclusive License or this agreement, the parties will make a genuine effort to resolve the dispute by utilizing the strategies set out in this dispute resolution clause.
- Urgent interlocutory relief: Neither party ought begin legitimate proceedings against the other save that nothing in this clause will block or counteract either party from making prompt steps to look for earnest injunctive relief before an appropriate court.
- Pending resolution: The dispute of Pending resolution, this agreement will remain in full impact, and the parties ought to proceed to earnestly release their obligations hereunder, however, without prejudicing the parties' individual rights and remedies.
- No public statement: The parties concur that pending final resolution of any dispute hereunder, neither of them shall make any press release, public announcement or explanation concerning the subject matter of the dispute to any individual or organization (saves as explicitly or by implication authorized herein).
The publication of an article in a peer-reviewed journal is a fundamental building square in the improvement of a lucid and respected network of knowledge. It is an immediate impression of the nature of the work of the authors and the institutions that support them. Peer-reviewed articles support and epitomize the logical strategy. It is hence imperative to agree upon standards of expected ethical behavior for all parties included in the act of distributing: the journal editor, the author, the publisher, the peer reviewer and the society of society-owned or sponsored journals.
- Publication decision
- Fair play
- Disclosure and Conflicts of interest
- Involvement and collaboration in investigations
- Contribution to Editorial Decision
- Standards of Objectivity
- Acknowledgement of Source
- Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest
- Reporting standards
- Data Access and Retention
- Originality and Plagiarism
- Multiple, Redundant or Concurrent Publication
- Acknowledgement of Sources
- Authorship of the Paper
- Hazards and Human or Animal Subjects
- Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest
- Fundamental errors in published works
We are focused on guaranteeing that reprint, advertising or other commercial revenue has no effect or impact on editorial decisions. In addition, Herald will support in interchanges with other journals where this is useful to editors. Finally, we are working nearly with different publishers and industry associations to set benchmarks for best practices on ethical matters, errors lapses and withdrawals and are prepared to provide particular legal review and advice if important.