Ethics statement of publishing
Ethics statement of publishing
Here the standards of expected ethical behaviour of the participants in publishing procedure for the Socialno delo journal are described, relevant for authors, editors, the editorial board, and peer-reviewers. The guidelines are based on valid policies of Elsevier Publisher and the COPE's Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors.
Duties of editors and the editorial board
- Editors respect stated and written peer-reviewing procedures in accordance with the policy of Socialno delo journal, and make sure that peer-reviewing procedures are impartial and anonymous (double-blind peer-review).
- Publication decisions: If opinion of an anonymous reviewer(s) is positive, the article is listed for publication. The authors get page break of the text before publication for authorisation purpose. In case of differing opinions about publishability of the article, the case is dealt with by the editor-in-chief with potential consultation with the editorial board. All scientific articles are peer-reviewed anonymously, all non-scientific contributions are examined and need approval before being published.
- Principle of confidentiality: the editor is bound by the principle of confidentiality, including the protection of the author's identity till the end of peer-reviewing procedure.
Duties of reviewers:
Reviewers take part in editorial decisions pertaining to admission of articles for publication, and importantly contribute with their expertise and evaluation.
- Contribution to editorial decisions: an expert evaluation by the reviewer helps the editor in making editorial decisions and can, in communication with the author via the editor, helps the author to improve his/her paper.
- Speed: every selected reviewer who doesn't feel competent enough to inspect the research described in the manuscript, or who knows that he/she won't be able to write the review on time, must notify the editor about this and should refuse to write the review. Reviewers' duty is to do their job quickly and professionally.
- Principle of confidentiality: reviewers should treat all manuscripts that they received for review purpose as confidential documents. They should not disclose the documents to others or discuss them with others.
- Standards of objectivity: reviewing manuscripts must be done objectively. Personal criticisms of the author(s) are not appropriate. Reviewers should express their opinions clearly and with arguments.
- Disclosing information and competing interests: reviewer should keep all protected information described in the paper as confidential and should not use it for his/her personal benefit. They should refrain from reviewing manuscripts in case of competing interests emanating from competition relationship, cooperation relationship or other relationship or association with the author(s), organisation or institution related to the paper.
Duties of authors:
• Standards of reporting: data presented in the paper that form the basis of the research should be exact and precise. The paper should contain enough details and references that other authors can cite them. False or intentionally incorrect statements are considered unethical and unacceptable.
• Originality and plagiarism: the authors should ensure that they have written a completely original work and that, if they used works and/or words of others, these are correctly cited. 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 behaviour and is unacceptable.
• Multiple, redundant and concurrent publication: in general, an author should not publish manuscripts that describe the same results of the same research in more than one journal or primary publication. Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal concurrently constitutes unethical behaviour and is unacceptable.
• Notification of sources: an author should always appropriately cite a work done by others. When reporting about a work, author should cite all publications that influenced this work. Information received privately, for example in conversation, correspondence or discussion with third persons, should not be used or reported without explicit written permission of the source. Information gained during a confidential work, for example while reviewing manuscripts or applications for subsidy calls, should not be used without explicit written permission of the author of the work submitted in these procedures.
• Authorship: authorship and co-authorship is limited to those persons who are real (co)authors of the text. Order of (co)authors should be consistent with the size of their contributions in the final version of the paper. Potential other persons who are not authors of the text but are nevertheless important for its existence (for example, they contributed to the research project or to other contents that are the topics of the paper) can be thanked by the authors in a footnote or in other appropriate place in the paper.
• Disclosing and competing interests: in their manuscript, all authors must disclose potential financial or other major conflict of interests that might affect results or interpretation of their manuscript. All sources of financial support for the project should be clearly stated.
• Major errors in published work: if an author finds a major error or incorrect information in his/her own published paper, it's their duty to immediately inform the editor of the journal or publisher and to cooperate with the editor in removing or correcting the paper.