Publication Ethics

To preserve the quality of the manuscript in the publication process, the editorial board sets the ethics of scientific Journal JST publication. The ethical rules of this publication apply to authors, editors/section editors, reviewers, and managers of journals/editors.

The ethics of the publication refer to A publication ethics and publication malpractice statement composed using the Publishing EthicsResource Kit and in compliance with Elsevier recommendations http://www.elsevier.com/editors/perk

In general Editor's Duties

These guidelines are based on Elsevier policies and COPE's Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors (http://publicationethics.org/files/u2/Best_Practice.pdf)

Section A: Publication and Authorship 

  1. All submitted papers are subject to a strict peer-review process by at least two Reviewers that are experts in the area of the particular paper.
  2. Review processes are blind peer review.
  3. The factors taken into account in the review are relevance, soundness, significance, originality, readability, and language.
  4. The possible decisions include acceptance, acceptance with revisions, or rejection.
  5. If authors are encouraged to revise and resubmit a submission, there is no guarantee that the revised submission will be accepted.
  6. Rejected articles will not be re-reviewed.
  7. The paper acceptance is constrained by such legal requirements as shall then be in force regarding libel, copyright infringement, and plagiarism.
  8. No research can be included in more than one publication. 

Section B: Authors’ responsibilities

  1. To present a report of the research that has been conducted ethically and responsibly.
  2. To present their results truthfully and without fraudulent, misrepresentation or improper data manipulation.
  3. To provide, if needed, the unprocessed data in connection with a paper for editorial review.
  4. To ensure that the work they submitted is original. If the authors have used the work and words, this has been appropriately cited or referred. Plagiarism in all its forms comprises unethical publishing manners and is intolerable.
  5. To describe their methods clearly and explicitly so that others can confirm their findings.
  6. Take collective responsibility for submitted and published work.
  7. The authorship of research publications should precisely reveal individuals' contributions to the work and its reporting.
  8. To disclose in their manuscript any financial or another 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.
  9. Report to the journal editor or publisher without delay if an author notices a significant inaccuracy or erroneousness in their published work. They have to collaborate with the editor to withdraw or correct the paper. 

Section C: Reviewers’ responsibilities

  1. Reviewers should keep all information regarding papers confidential and treat them as privileged information. 
  2. Reviews should be conducted objectively, with no personal criticism of the author
  3. Reviewers should express their views clearly with supporting arguments
  4. Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors.
  5. Reviewers should also call to the editor-in-chief’s attention any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published paper of which they have personal knowledge.
  6. Reviewers should not review 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. 

Section D: Editors’ responsibilities

  1. Editors have complete responsibility and authority to reject/accept an article.
  2. Editors are responsible for the contents and overall quality of the publication.
  3. Editors should always consider the needs of the authors and the readers when attempting to improve the publication.
  4. Editors should guarantee the quality of the papers and the integrity of the academic record.
  5. Editors should publish errata pages or make corrections when needed.
  6. Editors should have a clear picture of a research’s funding sources.
  7. Editors should base their decisions solely on the paper’s importance, originality, clarity, and relevance to the publication’s scope.
  8. Editors should not reverse their decisions nor overturn the ones of previous editors without serious reason. 
  9. Editors should preserve the anonymity of reviewers. 
  10. Editors should ensure that all research material they publish conforms to internationally accepted ethical guidelines.
  11. Editors should only accept a paper when reasonably certain.
  12. Editors should act if they suspect misconduct, whether a paper is published or unpublished, and make all reasonable attempts to persist in obtaining a resolution to the problem.
  13. Editors should not reject papers based on suspicions; they should have proof of misconduct.
  14. Editors should not allow any conflicts of interest between staff, authors, reviewers, and board members.