SCIENTIFIC-PROFESSIONAL JOURNAL ON COMPLEX REHABILITATION OF DISABLED PEOPLE
CURRENT ISSUE
2/2014
IN CIRCULATION

PUBLICATION ETHICS AND PUBLICATION MALPRACTICE STATEMENT

The following are the standards of expected ethical behaviour for all parties involved in publishing in journal EFETA: the author, the journal editor and editorial board, the peer reviewer and the publisher.

These guidelines are based on existing Elsevier policies and COPE’s Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors.

1. DUTIES OF THE EDITOR AND EDITORIAL BOARD

Publications 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 consult with editorial board, other editors or reviewers in decision making.

Review of manuscripts – each editor must ensure that each manuscript is initially evaluated by the editor for originality, making use of appropriate software to do so. Following the desk review, the manuscript is forwarded for blind peer reviews to the editorial review board that will make a recommendation either to accept, reject, or modify the manuscript.

Fair play – an editor must at any time evaluate manuscripts for their intellectual content without regard to race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, citizenship, or political philosophy of the author(s).
Confidentiality – the editor and any editorial board must not disclose any information about submitted manuscript to any other person than the corresponding author, reviewers, potential reviewers, other editorial advisers, and the publisher, as appropriate.

Disclosure and conflict of interests – the editor of the EFETA Journal will not use unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript for his/her own research without written consent of the author.

2. DUTIES OF REVIEWERS

Contribution to editorial decisions – peer review assists to the editor in making editorial decisions and through the editorial communications with the author may also assist the author in improving the paper.

Promptness – any selected referee who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that the prompt review of the research reported in a manuscript will be impossible, should notify the editor and excuse himself/herself from the review process.

Confidentiality – information regarding the manuscripts submitted by authors should be kept confidential and be treated as privileged information. It must not be shown to or discussed with other persons except as authorized by the author.

Standards of objectivity – reviews should be conducted objectively and the reviewers should express their views clearly, providing supporting arguments. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate.

Acknowledgement of sources – manuscript reviewers must ensure that the authors have acknowledged all sources of data used in the research. Any kind of similarity or overlapping between the manuscripts under consideration or with any other published paper of which the reviewer has personal knowledge must be immediately brought to the editor’s notice.

Disclosure and conflict of interests – privileged information or ideas obtained through peer reviews must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage.

3. DUTIES OF AUTHORS

Reporting standards – authors of reports of original researches should present 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. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behaviour and are unacceptable.

Originality and plagiarism – the authors should ensure that they have written entirely original works, and if they have used the work and/or words of others that this has been appropriately cited or quoted. Plagiarism takes many forms, from ‘passing off’ another’s paper as the author’s own paper, 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 behaviour and is unacceptable.

Multiple, redundant and 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 concurrently constitutes unethical publishing behaviour and is unacceptable.

Acknowledgement of sources – proper acknowledgment of the work of others must always be given. Authors should cite publications 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. 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.

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.

Data access and retention – authors should provide raw data related to their manuscript for editorial review and must retain such data.

Disclosure and conflict of interest – all authors should disclose in their manuscript any financial or other substantive conflict of interest 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.