Publication Ethics & Malpractice

The ethics statement of the EYOR is based on the Code of Conduct guidelines of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), available at www.publicationethics.org
this journal follows the COPE Code of Conduct and Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors and the Code of Conduct for Journal Publishers.
Duties of Editors

Fair play and editorial independence

The editors will evaluate submitted manuscripts solely on the basis of their scientific merit (significance, originality, validity of the study, clarity) and their relevance to the scope of the journal, without regard to race, gender, sexual orientation, ethnic origin, citizenship, religious beliefs, political philosophy, or institutional affiliation of the author(s). Editorial and publication decisions will not be influenced by the policies of any government or other agency outside the journal itself. The Editor-in-Chief has full authority over all editorial content of the journal and the timing of its publication.
Confidentiality

Editors and editorial staff will 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

Editors and editorial board members will not use unpublished information disclosed in a submitted manuscript for their own research purposes without the explicit written consent of the authors. Privileged information or ideas obtained by editors as a result of handling the manuscript will be kept confidential and not used for personal gain. Editors will recuse themselves from reviewing manuscripts in which they have a conflict of interest due to competitive, collaborative, or other relationships/connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions associated with the work; instead, they will ask another member of the Editorial Board to review the manuscript.

Publication decisions

The editors ensure that all submitted manuscripts considered for publication are peer-reviewed by at least two reviewers who are experts in the field. The Editor-in-Chief is responsible for deciding which of the manuscripts submitted to the journal will be published, based on the validation of the work in question, its importance to researchers and readers, the comments of the reviewers, and such legal requirements as are currently in effect regarding libel, copyright infringement, and plagiarism. The Editor-in-Chief may consult with other editors or reviewers in making this decision.
Involvement and cooperation in investigations

The editors (in conjunction with the publisher and/or society) will take responsive action when ethical concerns are raised about a submitted manuscript or published paper. Any reported act of unethical publishing behavior will be investigated, even if it is discovered years after publication. Editors will follow the COPE flowcharts in handling cases of suspected misconduct. If, after investigation, the ethical concern is substantiated, a correction, retraction, statement of concern, or other appropriate notice will be published in the journal.
Duties of Reviewers

Contribution to editorial decisions

Peer review helps editors make editorial decisions and, through editorial communication with authors, can help authors improve their manuscripts. Peer review is an essential part of the formal scholarly communication process and is at the heart of the scholarly endeavor.

Promptness

Any invited reviewer who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript, or who knows that prompt review will be impossible, should immediately notify the editors and decline the invitation to review so that alternative reviewers can be contacted.

Confidentiality

All manuscripts submitted for review are confidential documents and must be treated as such; they may not be shown to or discussed with others unless authorized by the Editor-in-Chief (who will do so only in exceptional and specific circumstances). This also applies to invited reviewers who decline the invitation to review.
Standards of objectivity

Reviews should be conducted objectively, and comments should be clearly stated with supporting rationale so that authors can use them to improve the manuscript. Personal criticism of authors is inappropriate.

Acknowledgement of sources

Reviewers should identify relevant published work not cited by the authors. Any statement that is an observation, derivation, or argument that has been reported in previous publications should be accompanied by the relevant citation. A reviewer should also inform the editors of any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other manuscript (published or unpublished) of which the reviewer has personal knowledge.

Disclosure and conflicts of interest

Any invited reviewer who has conflicts of interest due to competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions associated with the manuscript and the work described therein should immediately notify the editors to declare their conflicts of interest and decline the invitation to review so that alternative reviewers can be contacted.

Unpublished material disclosed in a submitted manuscript should not be used by a reviewer for his or her own research without the express written consent of the authors. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for the personal benefit of the reviewer. This also applies to invited reviewers who decline the invitation to review.

Duties of Authors

Reporting standards

Authors of original research should present an accurate account of the work performed and the results, followed by an objective discussion of the significance of the work. The manuscript should contain sufficient detail and references to enable others to replicate the work. Review articles should be accurate, objective, and comprehensive, while editorial "opinion" or perspective pieces should be clearly identified as such. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical conduct and are unacceptable.
Data access and retention

Authors may be asked to submit the raw data of their study with the manuscript for editorial review and should be prepared to make the data publicly available, if feasible. In any case, authors should ensure that such data are accessible to other competent professionals for at least 10 years after publication (preferably through an institutional or discipline-based data repository or other data center), provided that the confidentiality of participants can be protected and legal rights to proprietary data do not preclude their release.

Originality and plagiarism

Authors should ensure that they have written and submitted only completely original work and, if they have used the work and/or words of others, that this has been appropriately cited. Publications that were influential in determining the nature of the work reported in the manuscript should also be cited. Plagiarism takes many forms, from "passing off" someone else's work as one's own, to copying or paraphrasing substantial parts of another's work (without attribution), to claiming results from research conducted by others. Plagiarism in any form is unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable.

Multiple, duplicate, redundant or concurrent submission/publication

Papers describing essentially the same research should not be published in more than one journal or primary publication. Therefore, authors should not submit for consideration a manuscript that has already been published in another journal. Simultaneous submission of a manuscript to more than one journal is unethical publishing behavior and unacceptable.
The publication of some types of articles (e.g., clinical guidelines, translations) in more than one journal is sometimes justified, provided that certain conditions are met. The authors and editors of the journals involved must agree to the secondary publication, which must reflect the same data and interpretation as the primary document. The primary reference must be cited in the secondary publication.

Authorship of the manuscript

Only persons who meet these criteria for authorship should be listed as authors on the manuscript, because they must be able to take public responsibility for the content: (i) have made substantial contributions to the conception, design, execution, data collection, or analysis/interpretation of the study; and (ii) have drafted the manuscript or revised it critically for important intellectual content; and (iii) have seen and approved the final version of the paper and agreed to its submission for publication. All persons who have made substantial contributions to the work reported in the manuscript (e.g., technical assistance, writing or editing assistance, general support), but who do not meet the criteria for authorship, should not be listed as authors, but should be acknowledged in the Acknowledgments section after their written permission to be named has been obtained. The corresponding author should ensure that all appropriate coauthors (as defined above) and no inappropriate coauthors are included in the list of authors, and should verify that all coauthors have seen and approved the final version of the manuscript and agree to its submission for publication.

Disclosure and conflicts of interest

Authors should disclose - at the earliest possible stage (usually by submitting a disclosure form at the time of submission and including a statement in the manuscript) - any conflicts of interest that might be construed as influencing the results or their interpretation in the manuscript. Examples of potential conflicts of interest that should be disclosed include financial ones, such as honoraria, educational grants or other funding, participation in speakers' bureaus, memberships, employment, consultancies, stock or other equity holdings, and paid expert testimony or patent licensing arrangements, as well as non-financial ones, such as personal or professional relationships, affiliations, knowledge, or beliefs about the issues or materials discussed in the manuscript. All sources of financial support for the work should be disclosed (including grant number or other reference number, if available).

Acknowledgement of sources

Authors should ensure that they have properly acknowledged the work of others, and should also cite publications that have been influential in determining the nature of the work reported. Information obtained privately (from conversations, correspondence, or discussions with third parties) should not be used or reported without the express written permission of the source. Authors should not use information obtained in the course of providing confidential services, such as reviewing manuscripts or grant applications, without the express written permission of the author(s) of the work involved in those services.

Hazards and human or animal subjects

If the work involves chemicals, procedures, or equipment that have unusual hazards associated with their use, the authors must clearly identify these in the manuscript. If the work involves the use of animals or human participants, the authors should ensure that all procedures have been performed in accordance with relevant laws and institutional policies and have been approved by the appropriate institutional committee(s); a statement to this effect should be included in the manuscript. Authors should also include a statement in the manuscript that informed consent has been obtained for experiments involving human participants. The privacy rights of human participants must always be respected.

Peer review

Authors are required to participate in the peer review process and to cooperate fully by responding promptly to editors' requests for raw data, clarifications, and evidence of ethics approval, patient consent, and copyright permission. In the case of an initial "revisions needed" decision, authors should respond to the reviewers' comments in a systematic, point-by-point, and timely manner, revise their manuscript, and resubmit it to the journal by the specified deadline.

Fundamental errors in published works

If authors discover significant errors or inaccuracies in their own published work, it is their responsibility to notify the editors or publisher of the journal immediately and to work with them either to correct the paper in the form of an erratum or to retract the paper. If the editors or publisher learn from a third party that a published paper contains a significant error or inaccuracy, it is the responsibility of the authors to promptly correct or retract the paper or provide evidence to the journal editors that the paper is correct.