|
Publication Ethichs Statement
The editorial team of Chiasmi International is committed to ensuring the integrity of the publication process by upholding the Code of Conduct of the Committee of Publication Ethics (COPE). Conformance to standards of ethical behavior is therefore expected of
all parties involved: Authors, Editors, Reviewers, and the Publisher. Authors
Authors should present an objective discussion of the significance
of research work as well as sufficient detail and references to permit
others to judge the academic and scientific merits of the work.
Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical
behavior and are unacceptable. Review articles should also be
objective, comprehensive, and accurate accounts of the state of the
art. The authors should ensure that their work is entirely original
works, and if the work and/or words of others have been used, this has
been appropriately acknowledged. Plagiarism in all its forms
constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable.
Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal concurrently
constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable. Authors
should not submit articles describing essentially the same research to
more than one journal. The corresponding author should ensure that
there is a full consensus of all co-authors in approving the final
version of the paper and its submission for publication.
Editors
Editors should evaluate manuscripts exclusively on the basis of
their academic merit. An editor must not use unpublished information in
the editor's own research without the express written consent of the
author. Editors should take reasonable responsive measures when ethical
complaints have been presented concerning a submitted manuscript or
published paper.
Reviewers
Any manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential
documents. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review
must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage. Reviews
should be conducted objectively, and observations should be formulated
clearly with supporting arguments, so that authors can use them for
improving the paper. 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. 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 paper.
|
|