Retraction guidelines

COPE's Retraction guidelines for advice and guidance for editors: when should a retraction be considered, what to include in a notice, how quickly to issue a retraction, who should issue a retraction, and what to do when there is inconclusive evidence of a retraction.

COPE Guidelines are formal COPE policy and are intended to advise editors and publishers on expected publication ethics practice.

Key points

Editors should consider retracting a publication if: They have clear evidence that the findings are unreliable, either as a result of major error (eg, miscalculation or experimental error), or as a result of fabrication (eg, of data) or falsification (eg, image manipulation)

It constitutes plagiarism

The findings have previously been published elsewhere without proper attribution to previous sources or disclosure to the editor, permission to republish, or justification (ie, cases of redundant publication)

It contains material or data without authorisation for use

Copyright has been infringed or there is some other serious legal issue (eg, libel, privacy)

It reports unethical research

It has been published solely on the basis of a compromised or manipulated peer review process

The author(s) failed to disclose a major competing interest (a.k.a. conflict of interest) that, in the view of the editor, would have unduly affected interpretations of the work or recommendations by editors and peer reviewers.

Notices of retraction should: Be linked to the retracted article wherever possible (ie, in all online versions)

Clearly identify the retracted article (eg, by including the title and authors in the retraction heading or citing the retracted article)

Be clearly identified as a retraction (ie, distinct from other types of correction or comment)

Be published promptly to minimise harmful effects

Be freely available to all readers (ie, not behind access barriers or available only to subscribers)

State who is retracting the article

State the reason(s) for retraction

Be objective, factual and avoid inflammatory language

Retractions are not usually appropriate if: The authorship is disputed but there is no reason to doubt the validity of the findings

The main findings of the work are still reliable and correction could sufficiently address errors or concerns

An editor has inconclusive evidence to support retraction, or is awaiting additional information such as from an institutional investigation See also Expressions of Concern Forum discussion.

Author conflicts of interest have been reported to the journal after publication, but in the editor’s view these are not likely to have influenced interpretations or recommendations or the conclusions of the article.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.24318/cope.2019.1.4

Source:https://publicationethics.org/

Version IV: Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing

According to the new guidelines, all published content, including special issues and conference proceedings, should adhere to these Principles. A journal’s procedures must be transparently communicated if they differ from those outlined.

The publication should also promote accessibility, diversity, equity, and inclusivity. The decision to publish should be based on scholarly merit. It should not matter where the manuscript originates, including the authors’ nationality, ethnicity, politics, race, or religion. Managing policies for inclusivity should be a regular part of the journal’s operations to ensure none create an exclusionary environment.

There are four major areas that these principles cover, that is, journal content, practices, organization, and business practices. These tenets form the bases on which principles of transparency and best practices for scholarly publications are assessed by COPE, DOAJ, WAME, and OASPA for membership suitability. Additionally, each organization has its own criteria for evaluating applications. Those who failed to demonstrate transparency and best practices will not be included in the list of member journals.

These guiding principles serve as a foundation for best practices and help existing and new journals reach the highest standards possible. It provides guidance on how to make information available on websites, peer review, access, author fees, and publication ethics. Additionally, these principles cover ownership and management, copyright, and licensing, as well as editorial standards.

Considering the changes in scholarly publishing landscapes since the last update of these guidelines in 2018; Four organizations have collaborated on the fourth edition of the principles in order to align them with today’s scholarly publishing environment.

According to Margaret Winker, MD, WAME Trustee; The new version includes more information about peer review practices, publication ethics policies, and author fees to achieve journal transparency. This version emphasizes practices that are achievable by journals regardless of their resources, just as previous versions did. A thorough reorganization has been made to make this version easier to use. It emphasizes the need for inclusivity in scholarly publishing and emphasizes the importance of editorial decisions based on merit and not on the author’s nationality, political beliefs, or religion.

Source: https://blog.theacse.com/

Publication ethics

Dear Authors,

Our Publication Ethics and Publication Malpractice Statement is based on the "Codes of Conduct and Best Practice Guidelines" developed by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) (http://publicationethics.org/resources/code-conduct). The International Standards for Editors and Authors were developed at the 2nd WCRI (see http://publicationethics.org/resources/international-standards-for-editors-and-authors).

Publication decisions: The editor is responsible for deciding which of the articles submitted to the journal should be published. The editor may be guided by the policies of the journal's editorial board and constrained by such legal requirements as shall then be in force regarding libel, copyright infringement, and plagiarism. The editor may confer with other editors or reviewers in making this decision.

Fair play: An editor at any time evaluate manuscripts for their intellectual content without regard to race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy of the authors.

Confidentiality: The 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, as appropriate.

Disclosure and conflicts of interest: Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in an editor's research without the express written consent of the author.

JHRS Editor-in-chief

Ethics toolkit for a successful editorial office

JHRS follows COPE guidelines!

A COPE guide

To help ensure the integrity of the scholarly record and the publication process, editorial offices should define and implement best practices in publication ethics. This COPE guide is a comprehensive toolkit that explains expected ethical practices in scholarly publishing, and highlights resources for editorial offices to develop their codes of ethical conduct and practice.

You can also use this toolkit to prepare your application for COPE membership by identifying areas in need of development within your policies and processes to align with COPE's Core Practices and the Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing.

Key pointsJournals should have robust and well described practices for all the areas within the COPE Core Practices.

Journals should be transparent about their processes and business practices according to the Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing. COPE expects journals to apply these principles in publishing practice.

Clear and transparent policies should be in place describing requirements for authorship and contributorship.

Peer review processes, including what is peer reviewed, what model of peer review is used and how the process is managed must be transparent.

Journals must have processes in place to respond to allegations of research, publication, and review misconduct whether before or after publication.

Journals should clearly describe definitions of what, and how, conflicts of interest must be disclosed by authors, reviewers, editors, journals and publishers.

Requirements for data availability, use of reporting guidelines, and registration of clinical trials and other study designs should be clear in journal guidelines.

Journals must publish clear guidelines on the ethical conduct of research, according to the research discipline.

Copyright and publishing licences must be clearly described, as well as any author or reader fees.

Transparency of journal management is required including the business model, policies, processes, and software for the efficient running of the journal.

Journals must describe how they manage post-publication debate and perform corrections and retractions.

The journal and publisher must have guidelines in place to handle complaints against the journal, its staff, editorial board or the publisher.

Source: https://publicationethics.org/