Publication Ethics

The Editorial Board of “NANOSCIENCE & NANOTECHNOLOGY – Nanostructured Materials Applications and Innovation Transfer” takes the obligation to observe the currently accepted rules for publication ethics as they have been formulated by the Committee On Publication Ethics (COPE), taking at the same time into consideration the Bulgarian legislation presently in force on ethical issues.

 

1. General duties and responsibilities of editors

1.1. Editors are accountable for everything published in the Series.

This means that we as editors are

1.2. Striving to meet the needs of readers and authors;

1.3. Striving to constantly improve the Series;

1.4. Having processes in place to assure the quality of the material we are publishing;

1.5. We champion freedom of expression;

1.6. We maintain the integrity of the academic record;

1.7. We preclude business needs from compromising intellectual and ethical standards;

1.8. We always be willing to publish corrections, clarifications, retractions and apologies when needed.

We are devoted to observing the best practice for editors, which includes:

• We are actively seeking the views of authors, readers, reviewers and editorial board members about ways of improving their journal’s processes
• We are encouraging and being aware of research into peer review and publishing and reassessing the Series processes in the light of new findings
• We are working to persuade our publisher (National Coordination Council on Nanosciences) to provide appropriate resources, guidance from experts (e.g. designers, lawyers)
• We are supporting initiatives designed to reduce research and publication misconduct
• We are supporting initiatives to educate researchers about publication ethics
• We are assessing the effects of the Series policies on author and reviewer behaviour and revising policies, as required, to encourage responsible behaviour and discourage misconduct
• We are ensuring that any press releases issued by the Series reflect the message of the reported article and put it into context

2. Relations with readers

2.1. Readers should be informed about who has funded research or other scholarly work and whether the funders had any role in the research and its publication and, if so, what this was.

Best practice for us as editors would include:

• ensuring that all published reports and reviews of research have been reviewed by suitably qualified reviewers (including statistical review where appropriate)
• ensuring that non-peer-reviewed sections of the Series are clearly identified
• adopting processes that encourage accuracy, completeness and clarity of research reporting including technical editing and the use of appropriate guidelines
• considering developing a transparency policy to encourage maximum disclosure about the provenance of non-research articles
• adopting authorship or contributorship systems that promote good practice (i.e. so that listings accurately reflect who did the work) and discourage misconduct (e.g. ghost and guest authors)
• informing readers about steps taken to ensure that submissions from members of the Series Editorial Board receive an objective and unbiased evaluation

3. Relations with authors

3.1. Our decisions as editors to accept or reject a paper for publication will be based on the paper’s importance, originality and clarity, and the study’s validity and its relevance to the scope of the journal.

3.2. We shall not reverse any decisions to accept submissions unless serious problems are identified with the submission.

3.3. New editors should not overturn decisions to publish submissions made by the previous editor unless serious problems are identified.

3.4. A description of our peer review processes will be published, and we as editors shall be ready to justify any important deviation from the described processes.

3.5. The Series shall have a declared mechanism for authors to appeal against editorial decisions.

3.6. We as editors shall publish guidance to authors on everything that is expected of them. This guidance should be regularly updated and should refer or link to this code.

3.7. We shall provide guidance about criteria for authorship and/or who should be listed as a contributor following the standards within the relevant field.

Best practice for us as editors would include:

• reviewing author instructions regularly and providing links to relevant guidelines
• publishing relevant competing interests for all contributors and publishing corrections if competing interests are revealed after publication
• ensuring that appropriate reviewers are selected for submissions (i.e. individuals who are able to judge the work and are free from disqualifying competing interests)
• respecting requests from authors that an individual should not review their submission, if these are well-reasoned and practicable
• being guided by the COPE instructions in cases of suspected misconduct or disputed authorship
• publishing details of how they handle cases of suspected misconduct
• publishing submission and acceptance dates for articles

4. Relations with reviewers

4.1. We shall provide guidance to reviewers on everything that is expected of them including the need to handle submitted material in confidence. This guidance shall be regularly updated and shall refer to the present Publication Ethics.

4.2. We shall require reviewers to disclose any potential competing interests before agreeing to review a submission.

4.3. We shall take measures to ensure that peer reviewers’ identities are protected unless they use an open review system that is declared to authors and reviewers.

Best practice for us as editors would include:

• encouraging reviewers to comment on ethical questions and possible research and publication misconduct raised by submissions (e.g. unethical research design, insufficient detail on patient consent or protection of research subjects (including animals), inappropriate data manipulation and presentation)
• encouraging reviewers to comment on the originality of submissions and to be alert to redundant publication and plagiarism
• considering providing reviewers with tools to detect related publications (e.g. links to cited references and bibliographic searches)
• sending reviewers’ comments to authors in their entirety unless they contain offensive or libellous remarks
• seeking to acknowledge the contribution of reviewers to the Series
• encouraging academic institutions to recognise peer review activities as part of the scholarly process
• monitoring the performance of peer reviewers and taking steps to ensure this is of high standard
• developing and maintaining a database of suitable reviewers and updating this on the basis of reviewer performance
• ceasing to use reviewers who consistently produce discourteous, poor quality or late reviews
• ensuring that the reviewer database reflects the community for the Series and adding new reviewers as needed
• using a wide range of sources (not just personal contacts) to identify potential new reviewers (e.g. author suggestions, bibliographic databases)
• following the COPE instructions in cases of suspected reviewer misconduct

5. Relations with editorial board members

5.1. We take the obligation as editors to provide new editorial board members with guidelines on everything that is expected of them and should keep existing members updated on new policies and developments.

Best practice for us as editors includes:

• having policies in place for handling submissions from editorial board members to ensure unbiased review
• identifying suitably qualified editorial board members who can actively contribute to the development and good management of the Series
• regularly reviewing the composition of the editorial board providing clear guidance to editorial board members about their expected functions and duties, which might include: ——acting as ambassadors for the Series ——supporting and promoting the Series ——seeking out the best authors and best work (e.g. from meeting abstracts) and actively encouraging submissions ——reviewing submissions to the Series ——accepting commissions to write editorials, reviews and commentaries on papers in their specialist area ——attending and contributing to editorial board meetings
• consulting editorial board members periodically (e.g. once a year) to gauge their opinions about the running of the Series, informing them of any changes to Series policies and identifying future challenge

6. Relations with journal owners and publishers

6.1. Our relationship as editors to the publisher (National Coordination Council on Nanotechnologies (NCCNT)) is based firmly on the principle of editorial independence.

6.2. We shall make decisions on which articles to publish based on quality and suitability for the Series and without interference from the NCCNT.

Best practice for us as editors includes:

• establishing mechanisms to handle disagreements between ourselves and the NCCNT publisher with due process

7. Editorial and peer review processes

7.1. We as editors shall strive to ensure that peer review at the Series is fair, unbiased and timely.

7.2. We shall take measures to ensure that material submitted to their journal remains confidential while under review.

Best practice for us as editors includes:

• ensuring that people involved with the editorial process (including themselves) receive adequate training and keep abreast of the latest guidelines, recommendations and evidence about peer review and the Series management
• keeping informed about research into peer review and technological advances
• adopting peer review methods best suited for the Series and the research community it serves
• reviewing peer review practices periodically to see if improvement is possible
• referring troubling cases to COPE, especially when questions arise that are not covered by the COPE instructions, or when some new types of publication misconduct are suspected
• considering the appointment of an ombudsperson to adjudicate in complaints that cannot be resolved internally

8. Quality assurance

8.1. We as editors shall take all reasonable steps to ensure the quality of the material we publish, recognising that the Series and sections within the Series will have different aims and standards.

Best practice for us as editors includes:

• having systems in place to detect falsified data (e.g. inappropriately manipulated photographic images or plagiarised text) either for routine use or when suspicions are raised
• basing decisions about the Series house style on relevant evidence of factors that raise the quality of reporting (e.g. adopting structured abstracts, applying specific guidance where necessary) rather than simply on aesthetic grounds or personal preference

9. Protecting individual data

9.1. We obey the Bulgarian legislation in force on issues of confidentiality in our own jurisdiction. We shall always protect the confidentiality of individual information obtained in the course of research or professional interactions (e.g. between doctors and patients in the respective Section “Bio-concepts and Medical Applications”). It is therefore almost always necessary to obtain written informed consent for publication from people who might recognise themselves or be identified by others (e.g. from case reports or photographs). It may be possible to publish individual information without explicit consent if public interest considerations outweigh possible harms, it is impossible to obtain consent and a reasonable individual would be unlikely to object to publication.

Best practice for us as editors includes:

• publishing our policy on publishing individual data (e.g. identifiable personal details or images) and explaining this clearly to authors

Note that consent to take part in research or undergo treatment is not the same as consent to publish personal details, images or quotations.

10. Encouraging ethical research (e.g. research involving humans or animals)

10.1. We shall endeavour as editors to ensure that research we publish was carried out according to the relevant internationally accepted guidelines (e.g. the Declaration of Helsinki for clinical research).

10.2. We as editors shall seek assurances that all research has been approved by an appropriate body. However, we are aware of the fact that such approval does not guarantee that the research is ethical.

Best practice for us as editors includes:

• being prepared to request evidence of ethical research approval and to question authors about ethical aspects (such as how research participant consent was obtained or what methods were employed to minimize animal suffering) if concerns are raised or clarifications are needed
• ensuring that reports of clinical trials cite compliance with the Declaration of Helsinki for Good Clinical Practice and other relevant guidelines to safeguard participants
• appointing a Series ethics advisor or panel to advise on specific cases and review the Series policies periodically

11. Dealing with possible misconduct

11.1. We have a duty as editors to act if we suspect misconduct or if an allegation of misconduct is brought to us. This duty extends to both published and unpublished papers.

11.2. We shall not simply reject papers that raise concerns about possible misconduct. We are also ethically obliged to pursue alleged cases.

11.3. We shall follow the COPE instructions, where applicable.

11.4. We shall first seek a response from those suspected of misconduct. If we are not satisfied with the response, we shall turn to the relevant employers, or institution, or some appropriate body (perhaps a regulatory body or national research institution) to investigate the case.

11.5. We shall make all reasonable efforts to ensure that a proper investigation into alleged misconduct is conducted; if this does not happen, we as editors shall make all reasonable attempts to persist in obtaining a resolution to the problem. This is an onerous but important duty.

12. Ensuring the integrity of the academic record

12.1. Errors, inaccurate or misleading statements must be corrected promptly and with due prominence.

12.2. We as editors shall stick to the respective COPE guidelines on retractions.

Best practice for us as editors includes:

• taking steps to reduce covert redundant publication
• ensuring that published material is securely archived
• having systems in place to give authors the opportunity to make original research articles freely available

13. Intellectual property

13.1. We as editors are aware of intellectual property issues and we work with the NCCNT to handle potential breaches of intellectual property laws and conventions.

Best practice for us as editors includes:

• adopting systems for detecting plagiarism (e.g. software, searching for similar titles) in submitted items (either routinely or when suspicions are raised)
• supporting authors whose copyright has been breached or who have been the victims of plagiarism
• being prepared to work with the NCCNT to defend authors’ rights and pursue offenders (e.g. by requesting retractions or removal of material from websites) irrespective of whether the Series holds the copyright

14. Encouraging debate

14.1. We shall encourage and be willing to consider cogent criticisms of work published in our Series.

14.2. Authors of criticised material should be given the opportunity to respond.

14.3. Studies reporting negative results should not be excluded.

Best practice for us as editors includes:

• being open to research that challenges previous work published in the Series

15. Complaints

15.1. We as editors shall respond promptly to complaints and we shall ensure that there will be a way for dissatisfied complainants to take complaints further. This mechanism shall be made clear in the Series website and should include information on how to refer unresolved matters to COPE.

15.2. We shall follow the procedure set out in the COPE instructions on complaints.

16. Commercial considerations

16.1. The Series shall develop policies and systems in place to ensure that commercial considerations do not affect editorial decisions (e.g. advertising departments should operate independently from editorial departments).

16.2. We as editors shall declare specific policies on advertising in relation to the content of the Series and on processes for publishing sponsored supplements.

16.3. Reprints shall be published as they appear in the Series unless a correction needs to be included in which case it should be clearly identified.

Best practice for us as editors includes:

• publishing a general description of the Series’s income sources (e.g. the proportions received from display advertising, reprint sales, sponsored supplements, page charges, etc.)
• ensuring that the peer review process for sponsored supplements is the same as that used for the main issue of the Series
• ensuring that items in sponsored supplements are accepted solely on the basis of academic merit and interest to readers and decisions about such supplements are not influenced by commercial considerations

17. Conflicts of interest

17.1. We as editors shall have systems for managing our own conflicts of interest as well as those of the technical staff, authors, reviewers and editorial board members.

17.2. The Series shall have a declared process for handling submissions from the editors, employees or members of the editorial board to ensure unbiased review

Best practice for us as editors includes:

• publishing lists of relevant interests (financial, academic and other kinds) of all editorial staff and members of editorial boards (which should be updated at least annually)