Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement
Journals of Cayley Nielson Press
Ethical standards for publication exist to ensure the quality of the scientific publications. All journals published by Cayley Nielson Press are committed to publishing only original manuscripts and work that has neither been published elsewhere (nor is under review elsewhere). So, it is critical to avoid some specific ethical violations (like plagiarism, simultaneous submission, data fabrication, duplicate publication, improper author contribution, citation manipulation)
Cayley Nielson Press publishes the finest academic and educational writing from around the world. Our mission statement specifies that we aim to ‘Advances academics thinking, scientific research and professional knowledge’. As part of this objective, Cayley Nielson Press itself adopts a neutral position on issues treated within its Journals.
Publication of an article in an academic peer-reviewed journal serves several functions, one is to validate and preserve the “minutes” of research. It is therefore of immense importance that these “minutes” are accurate and trustworthy. The act of publishing involves many parties, each of which plays an important role in achieving these aims. It therefore follows that the author, the journal editor, the peer-reviewer, the publisher and the owner of Society-owned journals have responsibilities to meet expected ethical standards at all stages in their involvement from submission to publication of an article.
Cayley Nielson Press is committed to meeting and upholding standards of ethical behavior at all stages of the publication process. We comply with the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) which set standards and provide guidelines for best practices in order to meet these requirements. Below is a summary of our key expectations of editors, peer-reviewers and authors.
1. Plagiarism is deliberately using someone else’s ideas, or other original material without acknowledging its source and without refers to him/her. Copying even small part (for example one sentence) from someone else’s manuscript, or even one of own that has previously been published, without proper citation is considered plagiarism.
The World Association of Medical Editors (WAME) defines plagiarism as:
"Plagiarism is the use of others’ published and unpublished ideas or words (or other intellectual property) without attribution or permission, and presenting them as new and original rather than derived from an existing source. The intent and effect of plagiarism is to mislead the reader as to the contributions of the plagiarizer."
2. Data fraudulence includes data fabrication and falsification.
3. Data fabrication means the researcher did not actually do the study, but made up the results and had recorded or reported the fabricated information.
4. Data falsification means the researcher did the experiment, but manipulated, changed, or omitted data or results from the research findings. This would lead to public distrust and less willing to provide funding support.
B. Ethical Expectations
1. Publication and authorship
Generally, an author is considered to be someone who has made substantive intellectual contributions to a published study. This includes anyone who made a significant contribution to the conception, design, execution or interpretation of the research study drafted or substantively reviewed or revised the publication approved the final version of the publication.
A publication which is substantially similar to other publications derived from the same research must contain appropriate reference to the other publications.
Publication and dissemination of work electronically or on the web should be treated with the same degree of integrity as every other form of publication.
2. Author's responsibilities
Authors are responsible for adequate planning before undertaking a study, and for safeguarding patients' rights during the study. The author must read all cited references completely, strive for accuracy, and be certain that the material reported is valid, because it will be used in the treatment of patients.
Authors of papers of original research should present an accurate account of the work performed as well as an objective discussion of its significance. Underlying data should be represented accurately in the paper. A manuscript should contain sufficient detail and references to permit others to replicate the work. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behavior and are unacceptable.
Data Access and Retention
Authors may be asked to provide the raw data in connection with a paper for editorial review, and should be prepared to provide public access to such, if practicable, 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 they have written entirely original works, and if the authors have used the work and/or words of others, this must be appropriately cited or quoted. All papers published by International Journal of Cayley Nielson Press are committed to publishing only original material, i.e., material that has neither been published elsewhere, nor is under review elsewhere. Papers that are found to have been plagiarized from a manuscript by other authors, whether published or unpublished, will incur plagiarism sanctions.
Acknowledgment of Sources
Proper acknowledgment 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.
Manipulation of Citations
Submitted papers that are found to include citations whose primary purpose is to increase the number of citations to a given author’s work, or to articles published in a particular journal, will incur sanctions for manipulation of citations.
Data fraudulence (Data Falsification and/or Fabrication)
Submitted papers that are found to have either falsified or fabricated numerical/experimental results, including the manipulation of images, will incur data fabrication and falsification sanctions.
The authorship of a paper 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.
All listed authors must have made a significant scientific contribution to the research in the manuscript and approved all its claims. It is important to list everyone who made a significant scientific contribution, including students and laboratory technicians.
Corresponding Author is the author responsible for communicating with the journal for publication. The corresponding author should ensure that all appropriate co-authors and no inappropriate co-authors are included on the paper, and that all co-authors have seen and approved the final version of the paper and have agreed to its submission for publication.
Acknowledgment of Funding Sources
Funding sources for the research reported in the manuscript should be duly acknowledged after the conclusion and before the list of references.
Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest
All sources of financial support for the project or any substantive conflict of interest that might be interpreted to influence the results of the paper should be disclosed.
Fundamental Errors in Published Works
It is the author's responsibility to promptly notify the Chief Editor/Associate Editor if s/he discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in his/her own published work to retract or correct the paper.
Redundant, Concurrent or Multiple Publications
An author should not in general publish manuscripts describing essentially the same research in more than one journal or primary publication. Manuscripts that are found to have been published elsewhere, or to be under review elsewhere, will incur duplicate submission/ publication sanctions. If authors have used their own previously published work, or work that is currently under review, as the basis for a submitted manuscript, they are required to cite the previous work and indicate how their submitted manuscript offers novel contributions beyond those of the previous work. Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal concurrently constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable. Redundant publications involve the inappropriate division of study outcomes into several articles.
3. Peer review / responsibility for the reviewers
Peer review is the principal mechanism by which the quality of research is judged. Scientific journals publishing peer-reviewed articles depend heavily on the scientific referees or reviewers who typically volunteer their time and expertise. Editors, frequently with the assistance of electronic databases of reviewers kept by their journal’s offices, choose reviewers whose expertise most closely matches the manuscript’s topic and invite them to review the paper. The editors also consider the number of manuscripts sent to a reviewer so as not to overburden any one expert. Some journals encourage authors to suggest preferred reviewers and reviewers they would prefer to be excluded.
In most circumstances, at least 2 reviewers are solicited to evaluate a manuscript; some journals request 3 reviews. In cases of controversy or strong disagreement regarding the merits of the work, an additional review may also be solicited or one of the journal’s editors might give an evaluation. More than 3 reviewers are sometimes used if reviewers from several fields are needed to obtain a thorough evaluation of a paper.
Contribution of Double Blind Peer Review
Any identifying information will be stripped out from the submitted paper so that the reviewers do not know any information about the authors and vice versa i.e.: reviewers' comments to the editors are confidential and before passing on to the authors, it will be made anonymous. The Double Blind Peer review assists the reviewers in making editorial decisions, while editorial communications with the author may also assist the author in improving the manuscript. The names of the reviewers known only to the Chief Editor and the Associate Editor and it remain strictly confidential to authors.
Any selected referee who feels unqualified to review the assigned manuscript or unable to provide a prompt review should notify the Chief Editor and the Associate Editor and excuse himself/herself from the review process.
There shall be no personal criticism of the author. Reviewers should express their views clearly with supporting arguments and reviews should be conducted objectively.
Acknowledgment of Sources
Authors should cite relevant references and corresponding citation if any statement in the submitted paper had been previously published or reported elsewhere. Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors. If a reviewer finds any substantial similarity or overlap between the submitted manuscript and any other published works, s/he should inform to the Chief Editor/Associate Editor's.
Material under review should not be shared or discussed with anyone outside the review process unless necessary and approved by the editor. Reviewers should not retain copies of submitted manuscripts and should not use the knowledge of their content for any purpose unrelated to the peer review process. Although it is expected that the editor and reviewers will have access to the material submitted, authors have a reasonable expectation that the review process will remain strictly confidential. If a reviewer is unsure about the policies for enlisting the help of others in the review process, he or she should ask the editor. Without any authorization by the Chief Editor and the Associate Editor, the information of the submitted manuscript must not be shown to, or discussed with, others.
Conflict of Interest
In any reviewers find that the submitted manuscript has conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions, s/he should not review that manuscripts and notify to the Chief Editor/Associate Editor's promptly.
4. Editorial responsibilities
Ethically, the editor is responsible, as a gatekeeper, for ensuring that material to be published is accurate and valid. Nonetheless, the editor also must serve the author by selecting unbiased reviewers and by providing the assurance that material will be selected for publication based solely on the scientific quality of the material.
Decision on the Publication
Based on the double blind peer review of a paper, the Chief Editor and the Associate Editor are responsible for deciding which of the articles accepted for publication. Neither the Chief Editor nor the Associate Editor has the authority to influence the reviewers who are conducting the blind review of the articles submitted for peer review. The Chief Editor and the Associate Editor may be guided by the policies of the journal's Editorial Board and subjected to such legal requirements regarding libel, copyright infringement and plagiarism.
Manuscripts shall be exclusively evaluated based mainly on their intellectual quality and significance. Cayley Nielson Press will not give any consideration on authors' race, gender, sexual orientation, religious beliefs, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy.
The Chief Editor, the Associate 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.
Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest
Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used by anyone who has a view of the manuscript (while handling it) in his or her own research without the express written consent of the author.
5. Publishing ethics issues
Publishing ethics issues include:
Editorial board is responsible for monitoring and safeguarding the publishing ethics.
Any conflicts are to be solved with the consensus decisions.
Business needs or requirements shall not compromise intellectual and ethical standards of published works.
Journal is willing to publish corrections, clarifications, retractions and apologies when needed regardless to the source.
Journal is obliged to maintain the integrity of the academic record.
Clear devotion to “no plagiarism, no fraudulent data” policy and other stated ethical measures.
C.Sanctions for Unethical Behavior
In the event that there are documented violations of any of the above mentioned policies in any journal, regardless of whether or not the violations occurred in a journal published by Cayley Nielson Press, the following sanctions will be applied:
Immediate rejection of the infringing manuscript and every other manuscript submitted to Cayley Nielson Press by any of the authors of the infringing manuscript.
Prohibition against all of the authors for any new submissions to Cayley Nielson Press, either individually or in combination with other authors of the infringing manuscript, as well as in combination with any other authors. This prohibition will be imposed for a minimum of five years.
Prohibition against all of the authors from serving on the Editorial Board of the International Journals of Cayley Nielson Press.
Send a formal letter to the head of the author’s department or funding agency.
Informing the head of the author or reviewer’s department, Abstracting & Indexing services and the readership of the publication.
Reporting the case and outcome to a professional organization or higher authority for further investigation and action.
In cases where the violations of the above policies are found to be particularly outrageous, the publisher reserves the right to impose additional sanctions beyond those described above.
Posted by Jack 25.04.