The statements are developed according to the Publishing ethics resource kit, COPE’s Best Practice Guidelines and in compliance with Elsevier recommendations.
So, it is important to agree upon specifications of expected ethical behavior for all parties involved in the act of publishing: the author, the journal editors, the peer reviewer, the publisher and the society.
1.1. Publication decisions
The editor of the journal is responsible for deciding which of the articles submitted to the journal should be published without regard to race, gender, sexual Acclimatization, Religious faith, Traditional Origin, citizenship, or political philosophy of the authors. The editor may be shepherd by the policies of the journal's editorial board and strained by such legal requirements as shall then be in force regarding libel, copyright infringement and plagiarism. Other editors, reviewers or members of editorial board can assist in making this decision. We are committed to ensuring that advertising, reprint or other commercial revenue has no impact or influence on editorial decisions.
The editor and any editorial staff must not uncover any information about a submitted manuscript to anyone other than the corresponding author, reviewers, potential reviewers, other editorial advisers, and the publisher, as appropriate.
1.3. Disclosure and conflicts of interest
The Editor-in-chief, Editorial Staff and members of the Editorial Board should not use the unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript in their own researches without the express written consent of the author. Honoured information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage. Editors should recluse themselves (i.e. should ask a co-editor, associate editor or other member of the editorial board instead to review and consider) from considering manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, cut throat, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or (possibly) institutions connected to the papers. Editors should require all contributors to disclose relevant competing interests and publish corrections if competing interests are revealed after publication. If needed, other appropriate action should be taken, such as the publication of annulment or expression of concern.
1.4. Involvement and cooperation in investigations
An editor should take fairly responsive measures when ethical complaints have been presented regarding a submitted manuscript or published paper, in conjunction with the publisher (or society). Such measures will generally include contacting the author of the manuscript or paper and giving due consideration of the respective complaint or claims made, but may also include further communications to the related institutions and research bodies, and if the complaint is upheld, the publication of a correction, retraction, expression of concern, or other note, as may be relevant. Every reported act of unethical publishing behaviour must be explored, even if it is discovered years after publication.
2.1. Contribution to editorial decisions
Peer review backs the editor in making editorial decisions and through the editorial communications with the author may also assist the author in improving and developing the paper. Peer review is an essential component of formal scholarly communication, and lies at the heart of the scientific method.
Any selected referee who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should notify the editor and excuse himself from the review process.
Any manuscripts received for review must be considered as confidential documents. They must not be shown to or discussed with others except as authorized by the editor.
2.4. Standards of Objectivity or Neutrality
Reviews should be conducted objectively. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate. Referees should express their views clearly with supporting arguments.
2.5. Acknowledgement of Sources
Reviewers should diagnose relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors. Any statement that an observation, derivation, or argument had been previously reported should be accompanied by the relevant citation. A reviewer should also call to the editor's considerations any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published paper of which they have personal knowledge.
2.6. Disclosure and Conflict of Interest
Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for self advantage. Reviewers should not consider manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers.
3.1. Reporting standards
Reports of original research should prompt and reveal 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 paper should contain sufficient detail and references to permit others to replicate the work. Dishonest or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behaviour and are unacceptable.
3.2. Data Access and Retention
Authors are asked to supply the raw data in connection with a paper for editorial review, and should be prepared to provide public access to such data, if practicable, and should in any event be prepared to retain such data for a reasonable time after publication.
3.3. Originality and Plagiarism
The authors must ensure that they have written entirely original works, and if the authors have used the work and/or words of others that this has been appropriately cited or quoted. Plagiarism in all its forms establishes unethical publishing behaviour and is unacceptable.
3.4. Multiple, Redundant, Extravagant or Concurrent Publication
An author should not in general publish manuscripts describing essentially the same research in more than one journal or primary publication. Acknowledging the same manuscript to more than one journal concurrently constitutes unethical publishing behaviour and is unacceptable. In general, an author should not submit for consideration in another journal a formerly published paper.
3.5. Acknowledgement of Sources
Proper acknowledgment of the work of others must always be given. Authors should cite publications that have been authoritative in determining the nature of the reported work. Information obtained privately, as in conversation, correspondence, or discussion with third parties, must not be used or reported without accurate, written permission from the source. Information obtained in the course of confidential services, such as refereeing manuscripts or grant applications, must not be used without the explicit written permission of the author of the work involved in these services.
3.6. Authorship of the Paper
Authorship should be limited to those who have made significant inputs to the conception, design, decapitation, 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. 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.
3.7. Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest
All authors should disclose in their manuscript any financial or other substantive conflict of interest that might be defined to influence the results or interpretation of their manuscript. All sources of financial support for the project should be disclosed. Potential conflicts of interest should be disclosed at the earliest stage possible.
3.8 Indispensable errors in published works
When an author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in his/her own published work, it is the author’s obligation to promptly notify the journal editor or publisher and cooperate with the editor to retract or correct the paper.