PUBLICATION ETHICS AND PUBLICATION MALPRACTICE STATEMENT

Cogent SciTech is devoted to maintaining and promoting the highest possible standards of ethics in the writing, reviewing, and editing of the material contained in it. With COPE’s Best Practice Guidelines for journal editors as model, it has spelt out the following mandate for itself.

DUTIES OF THE AUTHORS

Reporting standards
Papers purporting to present original research should provide an accurate account of the work being reported as well as an objective discussion of its significance. The data on which the paper is based should be represented accurately and authors should be prepared to provide details as needed by others to replicate the work. Deliberate suppression, misrepresentation, or falsification of information constitutes unethical behavior which is unacceptable. Reviews and other articles should also be accurate and objective, and should unfailingly cite the work on which they are based.
Data access and retention
Authors should be prepared to make available the raw data, on which their paper is based, for editorial review, and should be prepared to provide public access to such data (consistent with the ALPSP-STM Statement on Data and Databases), if practicable. In any event authors must retain raw data with than for a reasonable time of 1 year after publication.
Originality and plagiarism
Authors should ensure that their submission is original and if the authors have used the work and/or words of others, it should be appropriately cited or quoted. Plagiarism in any form, including the touting of material contained in another paper (of the same authors or some other author) with cosmetic changes as a new paper; copying or paraphrasing substantial parts of another’s paper (without attribution), and claiming results from research conducted by others are among the numerous forms of plagiarism. In all its forms plagiarism constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable.
Multiple, redundant or concurrent publication
An author should not in general publish manuscripts describing essentially the same research in more than one journal or primary publication. Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal without the knowledge of the concerned journals constitutes unethical behavior. In general, an author should not submit for consideration to another journal a previously published paper, or the one under consideration with another journal, without the written consent of the two journals involved.
Acknowledgement of sources
Proper acknowledgment of the work of others must always be given. Authors should cite publications (of others as well as their own) that have been influential 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 explicit, written, permission from the source.
Authorship of the paper
Authorship should be limited to those who have made a significant contribution to the conception, design, execution, 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.
Hazards and human or animal subjects
If the work involves chemicals, procedures or equipment that have any unusual hazards inherent in their use, the author must clearly identify these in the manuscript. If the work involves the use of animal or human subjects, the author should ensure that the manuscript contains a statement that all procedures were performed in compliance with relevant laws and institutional guidelines and that the appropriate institutional committee(s) has approved them.
Disclosure and conflicts of interest
All authors should disclose in their manuscript if there is any financial or other substantive conflict of interest (such as institutional policy, employment, consultancy, patenting, etc) that might be construed to influence the results or interpretation of their manuscript. All sources of financial support for the project should be disclosed.
Fundamental 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. If the editor or the publisher learns from a third party that a published work contains a significant error, it is the obligation of the author to promptly retract or correct the paper or provide evidence to the editor of the correctness of the original paper.

DUTIES OF EDITORS

Publication decisions
The editor of a peer-reviewed journal is responsible for deciding which of the articles submitted to the journal should be published and his work should be closely overseen by the journal Editors Board and other forms of brain’s trust. Consideration of the genuineness, novelty, and importance o f reported work should form the basis of editorial decisions. The editor should function with awareness of legal requirements as shall then be in force regarding libel, copyright infringement and plagiarism. The editor may confer with other editors or reviewers (or society officers) in decision-making.
Fair play
An editor should evaluate manuscripts for their intellectual content without fear or ferver, and without any prejudice with 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 own research without the express written consent of the author. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage. Editors should recuse 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, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or (possibly) institutions connected to the papers. Non-peer reviewed sections of their journal should be clearly identified.
Involvement and cooperation in investigations
An editor should promptly and reasonably act when ethical complaints have been presented concerning a submitted manuscript or published paper. The editor should call an explanation from the concerned author and assess its merit, taking help if needed of other experts. If the complaint is upheld, a correction, retraction, expression of concern, or other note, as may be relevant should be published. Every reported act of unethical publishing behavior must be looked into, even if it is discovered years after publication.
Contribution to editorial decisions
Peer review is an essential component of formal scholarly communication, and lies at the heart of the scientific method. All scholars who wish to publish their papers also have an obligation to do a fair share of reviewing as well.

DUTIES OF REVIEWERS

Promptness 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.
Confidentiality
Any manuscripts received for review must be dealt confidentially. It must not be shown to or discussed with others except as authorized by the editor.
Standards of objectivity
Reviews should be conducted objectively and should be written with clarity.
Acknowledgement of sources
Reviewers should be a source of help to the Editor in safeguarding against plagiarism. They should be well-versed with the expected ‘dos’ and ‘donts’ and should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors. They should also call to the editor’s attention any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published paper of which they have personal knowledge.
Disclosure and conflict of interest
Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in a reviewer’s own research without the express written consent of the author. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage. Reviewers should recues themselves from evaluating 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.