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
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:
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.
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:
What type of content is or is not adequate for publication:
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.
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:
Keep records of composed correspondence including the affirmation and the proof of the complainant
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
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: 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:
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.
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:
The following listing is intended to make you conscious of the different conceivable outcomes concerning plagiarism:
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.
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.
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:
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?
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.
Plagiarism detection at an early stage may be supportive to:
Notwithstanding the aforementioned focuses, authors ought to be conscious, specifically about the following:
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.
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) 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.
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.
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.
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.