Publication Ethics

Journal of Veterinary Case Reports aims to adhere to the guidelines and core practices set forth by several organizations, including the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) guidelines, the Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing (joint statement by COPE, DOAJ, OASPA, WAME), and Recommendations for the Conduct, Reporting, Editing, and Publication of Scholarly Work in Medical Journals by ICMJE. These guidelines and recommendations are designed to promote transparency, integrity, and best practices in scholarly publishing. By adhering to these standards, the journal aims to ensure that the research it publishes is of high quality and meets the ethical standards of the scientific community.

Journal of Veterinary Case Reports also adheres to the WAME’s Recommendations on Publication Ethics Policies for Medical Journals. These recommendations provide guidance on how to handle conflicts of interest, how to deal with suspected research misconduct, and how to ensure the integrity and transparency of the peer review process. By following these recommendations, the journal helps to ensure that the research it publishes meets the highest ethical standards.

Authors are advised to use EASE Ethics Checklist for Authors to ensure that their manuscripts comply with ethical standards and practices.

Plagiarism and Ethical Misconduct

All submissions are screened by a similarity detection software (Crossref Similarity Check Powered by iThenticate) multiple times during the peer-review and/or production processes.

When you are discussing others' (or your own) previous work, make sure that you cite the material correctly in every instance.

Authors are strongly recommended to avoid any form of plagiarism and ethical misconduct that are exemplified below.

• Citation manipulation: The practice of manipulating the number of citations received by an author, journal, or other publication through various means, such as self-citation, excessive citation of articles from the same journal, or the inclusion of honorary citations or citation stacking.
• Self-plagiarism (text-recycling): The practice of using overlapping sections or sentences from the author's previous publications without properly citing them. This is considered to be a form of plagiarism, as it involves using someone else's work (in this case, the author's own work) without proper attribution.
• Salami slicing: The practice of using the same data from a research study in several different articles. This is considered to be unethical, as it involves reporting the same hypotheses, population, and methods of a study in multiple papers.
• Data Fabrication: The addition of data that never occurred during the gathering of data or experiments. This is considered to be a form of research misconduct, as it involves presenting false or misleading information as if it were real data.
• Data Manipulation/Falsification: The practice of manipulating research data with the intention of giving a false impression. This can include manipulating images, removing outliers or "inconvenient" results, changing data points, and other forms of manipulation. This is also considered to be a form of research misconduct, as it involves presenting false or misleading information as if it were real data.

In the event of alleged or suspected research misconduct such as plagiarism, citation manipulation, or data falsification/fabrication, the Editorial Board will follow the appropriate COPE flowcharts to ensure that the allegations or suspicions are handled in a fair, transparent, and consistent manner.

AUTHORSHIP

All individuals listed as an author should meet the authorship criteria recommended by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE). The ICMJE recommends that authorship is based on the following four criteria:

1. Substantial contributions to the conception or design of the work; or the acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data for the work.
2. Drafting the work or reviewing it critically for important intellectual content.
3. Final approval of the version to be published.
4. Agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved.

In addition to being accountable for the parts of the work they have done, authors should also be able to identify which co-authors are responsible for specific other parts of the work to ensure that the contributions of all authors are accurately and appropriately acknowledged. Authors may use CRediT (Contributor Roles Taxonomy) to provide information about individual contributions at the time of submission. It is expected that all authors agreed upon their individual contributions as shared by the corresponding author. The authors’ contribution statement will be published with the final article and should accurately reflect contributions to the work.

Furthermore, authors should have confidence in the integrity of the contributions of their co-authors. This means that they should trust that their co-authors have conducted the research in an ethical and responsible manner, and that the data and results presented in the manuscript are accurate and reliable.

Individuals who do not meet all four of the authorship criteria should not be included as authors on the manuscript. However, they can still be acknowledged on the title page of the manuscript for their contributions to the research in order to recognize the contributions of these individuals and to provide transparency about who was involved in the research.

If the editorial board suspects a case of ghost, honorary or gift authorship, the submission will be suspended and the relevant COPE flowchart and COPE Policy on authorship and contributorship will be followed.

Change of Authorship

Any requests for changes to authorship, such as the removal or addition of authors, or changes in the order of authors, should be submitted to the editorial office with a letter stating the reasons for the change. The letter must be signed by all authors, including any who have been removed.

The journal’s Editorial Board will handle all requests for changes to authorship in a consistent and transparent manner, following the relevant COPE flowchart guidelines. These procedures are in place to protect the integrity of the research and the reputation of all involved authors.

Declaration of Interests

Authors must reveal any relationships or interests that may lead to an inappropriate influence or bias in their work. This should be done by disclosing any possible conflicts of interest through the online submission system while submitting their manuscript.

Journal of Veterinary Case Reports also requires and encourages individuals involved in the peer review process of submitted manuscripts to disclose any existing or potential competing interests that might lead to potential bias.

The Editorial Board will handle cases of potential competing interests of editors, authors, or reviewers within the scope of relevant COPE flowcharts.

Financial Disclosure

Journal of Veterinary Case Reports requires authors to disclose any financial support they received to conduct their research. This information should be included in the funding statement, which should be provided when the manuscript is submitted to the journal.

The funding statement should include the name of any granting agencies, the grant numbers, and a description of each funder's role in the research. If the funder had no role in the research, this should be stated in the funding statement as well. This information is important for readers to understand the potential biases and conflicts of interest that may exist in the research.

Post-Publication Correction Requests and Retractions

All post-publication correction requests are subject to editorial review. The editorial board will review the request and determine whether the correction is necessary and appropriate. The decision to publish a correction will be based on the nature of the error, its potential impact on the article, and the availability of supporting evidence. The editorial board may also consult with the authors, reviewers, and other experts as needed to make its decision. If the correction request is approved, the article will be corrected in the journal's archive.

The Editorial Board reviews cases following journal policies and COPE guidelines.

If misconduct allegations are made by whistleblowers directly, the Editorial Board will follow the relevant COPE’s flowchart. The journal will act in accordance with the COPE's flowchart on how to respond to whistleblowers when concerns are raised about a published article on a social media site.

In some cases, an ombudsperson may be assigned to resolve claims that cannot be resolved internally.

To investigate potential ethical misconduct, the editorial board may share information with other editors-in-chief to conduct investigations more efficiently and effectively. If communication with the editor-in-chief is necessary, the editorial board will follow the relevant COPE's recommendations.

If necessary, the journal may also contact institutions to inform them of suspected misconduct by researchers and provide evidence to support these concerns, following COPE guidelines in the process.

In the event of ethical misconduct concerns, the editors will investigate the case according to COPE guidelines. If the investigation verifies the concern, the editors may issue a retraction notice. The retraction notice will be published in the journal and the article's record will be updated to reflect the retraction. The article will remain in the archives of the journal, but it will be clearly marked as retracted. The article's record will also be updated in the relevant indexes to reflect the retraction.

Withdrawal Requests

Withdrawal requests for an article are reviewed by the editorial board of the journal. To request the withdrawal of an article, the authors must send a letter signed by all authors stating their request and the reasons for withdrawal to the journal editor. The editorial board will then review the request and make a decision based on the reasons provided by the authors. If the request is approved, the article will be withdrawn from the journal and the authors will be notified of the decision. It is important to note that authors should not submit their work to another journal for evaluation until the withdrawal request has been approved. This is to avoid any potential conflicts of interest or duplication of publication.

Appeals and Complaint

The editorial board of the journal is responsible for addressing appeals and complaints in accordance with the guidelines and recommendations of the COPE. If an author has an appeal or complaint, they should contact the editorial office directly to discuss their concerns. The editorial board will review the case and make a decision based on COPE guidelines.

The editor-in-chief has the final authority in the decision-making process for all appeals and complaints. In some cases, an ombudsperson may be assigned to resolve claims that cannot be resolved internally. It is important to note that the journal follows a fair and transparent process for handling appeals and complaints, with the goal of preserving the integrity of the scientific record.