Publication Ethics and Publication Malpractice Statement
Science Reviews's Publication Ethics and Publication Malpractice Statement is based on the Code of Conduct guidelines developed by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). All parties involved in the act of publishing, including authors, reviewers, journal editors, publishers, and the society are expected to comply with the standards of ethical behavior set out below.
Duties of Authors
Any submitted paper must constitute the original work by its author(s). An accurate account of the work performed along with an objective discussion of its importance should be presented, with underlying data represented accurately. Providing fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate information in the paper is unacceptable and may result in rejection thereof.
Authorship should be limited to those who have made a significant contribution to the conception, design, execution or interpretation of the paper. The corresponding author is expected to ensure that all the appropriate co-authors have been included only and have also seen and approved the final version of the paper as well as agreed to its submission for publication.
Generally, authors should not publish papers describing essentially the same research simultaneously in several journals or primary publications. Previously published identical papers are unacceptable. In addition, the paper under review by the journal should not be submitted to other publications.
The works and/or words by others in the paper must be appropriately attributed by means of quotations or citations. The publications that have been influential in determining the nature of the work should be also referred to. All the sources have to be properly acknowledged in correspondence with the formatting guidelines. When written in non-Latin languages, a transliteration of a title and a translation into English must be provided.
If the work involves chemicals, procedures, or equipment that have any unusual hazards inherent in their use, these must be clearly identified in the paper. If the work involves the use of animal or human subjects, its author(s) should ensure that all the procedures were performed in compliance with relevant laws and appropriate institutional guidelines.
Any financial or other substantive conflict of interest that might be suspected of influencing the outcome of the research should be disclosed in the paper by its author(s).
Significant errors or inaccuracies found in the published paper(s) by its author(s) should be promptly reported to the journal editor or publisher to cooperate with the editor in retraction or correction of the paper.
Duties of Reviewers
Reviewers should assist the editor in making editorial decisions about the submitted paper. Their suggestions on improving the paper under consideration may be also conveyed to its author(s) through the editorial communication.
Any invited reviewers who consider themselves not suitable due to the subject matter of the paper or know that their services could not be delivered within a required time should promptly notify the editor about it. Reviewers should refrain from evaluating papers in which they have conflicts of interest arising from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any authors, companies, or institutions related to the submission.
Any papers received for review by reviewers must be treated as confidential data and must not be shown to or discussed with others except if authorized by the editor. Privileged information or ideas obtained through the review process must be kept confidential and not used for a personal advantage of reviewers.
Reviews of any paper should be carried out in an objective manner. Personal criticism of its author(s) is inacceptable. Views of reviewers should be expressed clearly with appropriate supporting arguments.
Reviewers should identify relevant published work(s) that have not been cited in the paper under consideration by its author(s). Reviewers should also inform the editor upon revealing substantial blocks of information in the paper that they have found in other published materials.
Duties of Editors
The journal editor is responsible for final decisions about publication of submitted papers and is furthermore accountable for everything published in the journal. The editor may confer with other editors and reviewers when making publication decisions. In this process, the editor may be guided by the policies of the journal's editorial board and/or the policies of the publisher as well as by the legal requirements regarding libel, copyright infringement, and plagiarism.
The editor should not discriminate any submitted paper with regard to race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy of its author(s). The editor should keep the integrity of the academic record, exclude business needs from compromising intellectual and ethical standards as well as promptly publish corrections, clarifications, retractions, and apologies when needed.
The editor and any editorial staff must not disclose any information about the submitted paper to anyone other than the corresponding author, reviewers, potential reviewers, other editorial advisers, and the publisher, as appropriate. Unpublished works must also not be used in the editor's own research without the explicit written consent of its author(s).
The editor should refrain from dealing with the paper and hand it over to other members of the editorial board instead to review and consider in case of interest arising from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the paper.
The editor should be guided by COPE's Guidelines for Retracting Articles when considering retracting, issuing expressions of concern about, or issuing corrections in relation to the published paper. The editor should take reasonable responsive measures after having received ethical complaints concerning any submitted or published paper and reserves the right to take it to the institutional level if answers of its author(s) are considered unsatisfactory.