PUBLICATION ETHICS

JNTETI is a peer-reviewed international journal. All articles submitted to JNTETI are subject to peer-review process by reviewers that are expert their respective fields. The publication of an article in a peer-reviewed journal is an essential building block in the development of a coherent and respected network of knowledge. It is a direct reflection of the quality of the authors’ work and the institutions that support them. Peer-reviewed articles support and embody the scientific method. Therefore, JNTETI commits to uphold standards of expected ethical behavior for all parties involved in the act of publishing: the author, the journal editor, the peer reviewer, the publisher, and the society. Further, the ethical behavior standards are arranged to ensure high-quality scientific publications, public trust in scientific findings, and that involved parties in a scientific endeavor receive appropriate credit for their work.

This publication ethics statement binds the ethical behavior of all parties involved in the act of publishing an article in this journal, including the author, the editor, the peer reviewer, and the publisher. This statement is based on Elsevier policies and COPE’s Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors.

A. DUTIES OF AUTHORS

  1. Reporting Standards:The authors should present an accurate account of the research conducted as well as an objective discussion of its significance. Underlying data should be represented accurately. Results should be presented honestly and without fabrication, falsification or inappropriate data manipulation. Methods and findings should be described clearly and unambiguously. A manuscript should contain sufficient detail and references to permit others to replicate the work. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behavior and are unacceptable.
  2. Originality and Plagiarism:The authors should ensure that they have written entirely original works which have not been published elsewhere in any language. Relevant previous work and publications, both by other researchers and the authors’ own, should be properly acknowledged and referenced. The primary literature should be cited where possible. Plagiarism in all its forms constitutes unethical behavior and is unacceptable.
  3. Multiple, Redundant, or Concurrent Publications:The authors should not, in general, publish manuscripts describing essentially the same research in more than one journal of primary publication. Concurrently submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal constitutes unethical behavior and is unacceptable.
  4. Acknowledgement of Sources:Proper acknowledgment of the work of others must always be given.
  5. Authorship:The authorship of research publications should accurately reflect individuals’ contributions to the work and its reporting. Further, the authorship should be limited to those who have made a significant contribution to the conception, design, execution, or interpretation of the reported study. Those who have made substantial contributions should be listed as co-authors. All authors should agree to be listed and should approve the submitted and accepted versions of the publication.
  6. Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest: The authors should disclose in their manuscript any financial and personal relationships with other people or organizations that could be viewed as inappropriately influencing (bias) their work.
  7. Fundamental Errors in Published Works:When the authors discover a significant error or inaccuracy in their own published work, it is their obligation to promptly notify the journal editor or publisher and cooperate with the editor to retract or correct the paper if deemed necessary.
  8. Hazards and Human or Animal Subjects: The authors should clearly identify in their manuscript if the work involves chemicals, procedures, or equipment that have any unusual hazards inherent in their use.

B. DUTIES OF EDITOR

  1. Publication Decisions: The editors are solely and independently responsible for deciding which of the articles submitted to the journal should be published. They should decide which articles to publish based only on the paper’s importance, originality, and clarity, and the study’s relevance to the remit of the journal. The validation of the work in question and its importance to researchers and readers must always underwrite such decisions.  The editors 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 issues such as libel, copyright infringement, and plagiarism. The editors may confer with other editors or reviewers in making these decisions. They are responsible for everything published in the journal and should therefore take all reasonable steps to ensure the quality of this material.
  2. Review of Manuscripts: The editors shall ensure that the peer review process is fair and unbiased. They also should ensure that peer review is undertaken in a timely manner so that authors do not experience undue delays. The editors should monitor the performance of peer reviewers and take steps to ensure this is of a high standard. For this reason, the editors must select reviewers who have suitable expertise in the relevant field, taking account of the need for appropriate, inclusive and diverse representation, and avoid those with conflicts of interest.
  3. Fair Play: The editors are in a powerful position by making decisions on publications, which makes it very important that this process is as fair and unbiased as possible. They should evaluate manuscripts for their intellectual content without regard to race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy of the authors. Moreover, the editorial policies should encourage transparency and complete honest reporting. The editors should ensure that peer reviewers and authors have a clear understanding of what is expected of them.  
  4. Confidentiality: The editors must protect the confidentiality of all material submitted to the journal and all communications with reviewers unless otherwise agreed with the relevant authors and reviewers. Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in an editor’s own research without the author’s express written consent. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage. As JNTETI applies a double-blind review system, the editors should protect reviewers’ identities and should not indicate a paper’s status with the journal to anyone other than the authors.
  5. Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest: The editors should not be involved in decisions about papers in which they have a conflict of interest.

C. DUTIES OF REVIEWERS

  1. Contribution to Editorial Decision: The reviewers assist the editor in making editorial decisions and through the editorial communications with the author may also assist the author in improving the paper.
  2. Confidentiality: Any manuscripts submitted by authors should be treated as confidential documents. It is inappropriate to share the manuscript and discuss it in detail with others. Privileged information and unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used for personal advantages and to disadvantage or discredit others. Reviewers must refrain from using obtained information for their own research without the author’s express written consent.
  3. Acknowledgement of Sources: The reviewers must ensure that authors have acknowledged all data sources used in the research. They also should identify relevant published work that the authors have not cited. Any statement that an observation, derivation, or argument had been previously reported should be accompanied by the relevant citation. Reviewers should notify the journal immediately if they come across any irregularities, have concerns about ethical aspects of the work, are aware of substantial similarity between the manuscript and a concurrent submission to another journal or a published article, or suspect that misconduct may have occurred during either the research or the writing and submission of the manuscript; reviewers should, however, keep their concerns confidential and not personally investigate further unless the journal asks for further information or advice.
  4. Standards of Objectivity: Reviews should be conducted objectively. Reviewers should be aware of any personal bias they may have and take this into account when reviewing a paper. Reviewers should express their views clearly with supporting arguments and provide constructive reviews and feedback that will help the authors improve their manuscript. They also must refrain from being hostile or inflammatory and from making libelous or derogatory personal comments.
  5. Disclosure and Conflict of Interest: The 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 papers. They must notify the journal immediately and seek advice if they discover either a conflicting interest that was not apparent when they agreed to the review or anything that might prevent them from providing a fair and unbiased review. In the case of double-blind review, if they suspect the identity of the author(s), they should promptly notify the journal if this knowledge raises any potential conflict of interest.
  6. Promptness:  The reviewers only agree to review a manuscript if they are fairly confident that they can return a review within the proposed or mutually agreed time-frame. Reviewers should inform the journal promptly if their circumstances change and they cannot fulfil their original agreement or if they require an extension. It is inappropriate to intentionally prolong the review process, either by delaying the submission of their review or by requesting unnecessary additional information from the journal.

D. CORRECTIONS AND RETRACTIONS
     Retraction is a mechanism for correcting the literature and alerting readers to publications that contain such seriously flawed or erroneous data that their findings and conclusions cannot be relied upon. Journal editors should consider retracting a publication if:

  1. they have clear evidence that the findings are unreliable, either as a result of misconduct (e.g. data fabrication) or honest error (e.g. miscalculation or experimental error);
  2. the findings have previously been published elsewhere without proper cross-referencing, permission or justification (i.e. cases of redundant publication);
  3. it constitutes plagiarism; or
  4. it reports unethical research.

Journal editors should consider issuing a correction if:

  1. a small portion of an otherwise reliable publication proves to be misleading (especially because of honest error); or
  2. the author/contributor list is incorrect (i.e. a deserving author has been omitted or somebody who does not meet authorship criteria has been included).

Sources:

Elsevier Publishing Ethics

COPE: COPE Code of Conduct

COPE: Code of Conduct and Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors

COPE: A Short Guide to Ethical Editing for New Editors

COPE: Responsible research publication: International Standards for Editors

COPE: Responsible research publication: International Standards for Authors

COPE: COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers

COPE: Retractions: Guidance from the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE)