Publication
Ethics & Malpractice
The ethics statement of the RUSAD is based on the “Code of Conduct and Best-Practice Guidelines for Journal
Editors–2011” and “Code of Conduct for Journal
Publishers” of the
Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). Accordingly, the ethical responsibilities of editors,
authors, and publishers are as follows:
Duties of
Editors
1. Fair play and editorial independence
Editors evaluate submitted manuscripts exclusively based on their academic merit (importance, originality, study’s validity,
clarity) and their relevance to the journal’s scope, without regard to the
author’s race, gender, sexual orientation, ethnic origin, citizenship,
religious belief, political philosophy or institutional affiliation. Decisions
to edit and publish are not determined by the policies of governments or any
other agencies outside of the journal itself. The Editor-in-Chief has full
authority over the entire editorial content of the journal and the timing of
publication of that content.
2. Confidentiality
Editor 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.
3. Disclosure and conflicts of interest
Editor and editorial board members will not use unpublished
information disclosed in a submitted manuscript for their research purposes
without the author’s explicit written consent. Privileged information or ideas
obtained by editors as a result of handling the manuscript will be kept
confidential and not used for their advantage. Editors will recuse
themselves from considering manuscripts in which they have conflicts of
interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other
relationships/connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions
connected to the papers; instead, they will ask another member of the editorial
board to handle the manuscript.
4. Publication decisions
The editor ensures that all submitted manuscripts being
considered for publication undergo peer review by at least two reviewers who
are experts in the field. The editor 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
reviewers’ comments, and such legal requirements as are currently in force
regarding libel, copyright infringement and plagiarism. The editor may confer
with other Editorial boards or reviewers in making this decision.
5. Involvement and cooperation in investigations
The editor (in conjunction with the publisher and/or
society) will take responsive measures when ethical concerns are raised about a submitted manuscript or published paper. Every reported act of
unethical publishing behavior will be looked into, even if it is discovered
years after publication. Editors follow the COPE Flowcharts when dealing with
cases of suspected misconduct. If on the investigation, the ethical concern is
well-founded, a correction, retraction, expression of concern, or other note as
may be relevant, will be published in the journal.
Duties of Reviewers
1. Contribution to editorial decisions
Peer review assists editors in making editorial
decisions and, through editorial communications with authors, may assist
authors in improving their manuscripts. Peer review is an essential component
of formal scholarly communication and lies at the heart of the scientific
endeavor.
2. Promptness
Any invited referee who feels unqualified to review
the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its prompt review will be
impossible should immediately notify the editors and decline the invitation to
review so that alternative reviewers can be contacted.
3. Confidentiality
Any manuscripts received for review are confidential documents and must be
treated as such; they must not be shown to or discussed with others except if
authorized by the Editor-in-Chief (who would only do so under exceptional and
specific circumstances). This applies also to invited reviewers who decline the
review invitation.
4. Standards of objectivity
Reviews should be conducted objectively and
observations formulated clearly with supporting arguments so that authors can
use them for improving the manuscript. Personal criticism of the authors is
inappropriate.
5. Acknowledgement of sources
Reviewers should identify relevant published work that
has not been 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 notify the
editors of any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration
and any other manuscript (published or unpublished) of which they have personal
knowledge.
6. Disclosure and conflicts of interest
Any invited referee who has conflicts of interest
resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or
connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to 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 must not be used in a reviewer’s 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 reviewer’s advantage. This applies also to invited reviewers who decline the
review invitation.
Duties of Authors
1. 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 permit others to replicate the
work. Review articles should be accurate, objective, and comprehensive, while
editorial 'opinion' or perspective pieces should be identified as such.
Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behavior
and are unacceptable.
2. Data access and retention
Authors may be asked to provide the raw data of their
study together with the manuscript for editorial review. They should be prepared
to make the data publicly available if practicable. In any event, authors
should ensure accessibility of such data to other competent professionals for
at least 10 years after publication (preferably via an institutional or
subject-based data repository or other data center), provided that the
confidentiality of the participants can be protected and legal rights
concerning proprietary data do not preclude their release.
3. Originality and plagiarism
Authors should ensure that they have written and
submitted only entirely original works, and if they have used the work and/or
words of others, that this has been appropriately cited. Publications that have
been influential in determining the nature of the work reported in the
manuscript should also be cited. Plagiarism takes many forms, from “passing off”
another’s paper as the author’s own, to copying or paraphrasing substantial
parts of another’s paper (without attribution), to claiming results from
research conducted by others. Plagiarism in all its forms constitutes 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. Hence,
authors should not submit for consideration a manuscript that has already been
published in another journal. Submission of a manuscript concurrently to more
than one journal is unethical publishing behavior and unacceptable.
The publication of some kinds of articles (such as
clinical guidelines, and translations) in more than one journal is sometimes
justifiable, provided that certain conditions are met. The authors and editors
of the journals concerned must agree to the secondary publication, which must
reflect the same data and interpretation of the primary document. The primary
reference must be cited in the secondary publication.
Authorship of the manuscript
Only persons who meet these authorship criteria should
be listed as authors in the manuscript as they must be able to take public
responsibility for the content: (a) made significant contributions to the
conception, design, execution, data acquisition, or analysis/interpretation of
the study; and (b) drafted the manuscript or revised it critically for
important intellectual content, and (c) have seen and approved the final
version of the paper and agreed to its submission for publication.
All persons
who made substantial contributions to the work reported in the manuscript (such
as technical help, writing and editing assistance, and general support) but who do
not meet the criteria for authorship must not be listed as an author, but should
be acknowledged in the "Acknowledgements" section after their written
permission to be named as been obtained. The corresponding author should ensure
that all appropriate coauthors (according to the above definition) and no
inappropriate co-authors are included in the author list and verify that all
coauthors have seen and approved the final version of the manuscript and agreed
to its submission for publication.
1. Disclosure and conflicts of interest
Authors should—at the earliest stage possible
(generally by submitting a disclosure form at the time of submission and
including a statement in the manuscript)—disclose any conflicts of interest
that might be construed to influence 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, membership, employment,
consultancies, stock ownership, or other equity interest, and paid expert
testimony or patent-licensing arrangements, as well as non-financial ones such
as personal or professional relationships, affiliations, knowledge or beliefs
in the subject matter or materials discussed in the manuscript. All sources of
financial support for the work should be disclosed (including the grant number
or other reference number if any).
2. 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 reported work. Information
obtained privately (from the conversation, correspondence, or discussion with third
parties) must not be used or reported without explicit, written permission from
the source. Authors should not use information obtained in the course of
providing confidential services, such as refereeing manuscripts or grant
applications unless they have obtained the explicit written permission of the author(s)
of the work involved in these services.
3. Hazards and human or animal subjects
If the work involves chemicals, procedures, or
equipment that have any unusual hazards inherent in their use, the authors must identify these in the manuscript. If the work involves the use of
animals or human participants, the authors should ensure that all procedures
were performed in compliance with relevant laws and institutional guidelines
and that the appropriate institutional committee(s) has approved them; the
manuscript should contain a statement to this effect. Authors should also
include a statement in the manuscript that informed consent was obtained for
experimentation with human participants. The privacy rights of human
participants must always be observed.
Peer review
Authors are obliged to participate in the peer review
process and cooperate fully by responding promptly to editors’ requests for raw
data, clarifications, proof of ethics approval, patient consent, and
copyright permissions. In the case of a first decision of "revisions
necessary", authors should respond to the reviewers’ comments
systematically, point by point, and promptly, revising and
re-submitting their manuscript to the journal by the deadline given.
Fundamental errors in published works
When authors discover significant errors or
inaccuracies in their published work, they must promptly
notify the journal’s editors or publisher and cooperate with them to correct the paper in the form of an erratum or to retract the paper. If the
editors or publisher learns from a third party that a published work contains a
significant error or inaccuracy, then it is the author’s obligation to promptly
correct or retract the paper or provide evidence to the journal editors of the
correctness of the article.
June 30, 2023
Page
1-28