Journal Ethics and Malpractice Statement for EngiScience Journals

EngiScience journals commits to the highest standards of publication ethics and integrity, abiding by the Committee on Publication Ethics' (COPE) guidelines. This detailed statement outlines our expectations for ethical conduct from all parties involved in the publication process: editors, reviewers, authors, and the publisher itself. Our goal is to ensure the integrity of the scholarly record and to provide a transparent, fair, and ethical publishing environment.

 

Ethical Expectations

 

Editors' Responsibilities

Editors are entrusted with the responsibility to uphold and advocate for the highest ethical standards within publishing practices. This commitment encompasses ensuring that every manuscript is assessed strictly on the basis of its scholarly merit, independent of any discriminatory factors or potential commercial gains. Such a principled approach is essential for preserving the integrity and fairness of the academic publishing process.

An integral part of maintaining the integrity of the review process is safeguarding the confidentiality of submissions. Editors must ensure that manuscripts are treated as confidential documents throughout the review process, protecting the intellectual property of the authors and the integrity of the review process itself.

Editors must take decisive action when faced with ethical concerns. Instances of suspected duplicate publication, fraud, plagiarism, or any form of unethical research practices require immediate and thorough investigation. It is the editor's duty to address these issues promptly to maintain the trust and credibility of the publication.

Fostering an environment of ethical compliance involves active engagement and collaboration with authors, reviewers, and the journal's editorial board. By working together, all parties can contribute to a culture of integrity and ethical adherence that underpins the journal's standards.

Moreover, it is crucial for editors to develop, implement, and regularly update policies related to the handling of ethical issues and complaints. These policies should be transparent, accessible, and enforced consistently, ensuring that all ethical concerns are addressed appropriately and in accordance with established guidelines. Regular review of these policies ensures that they remain relevant and effective in addressing the evolving challenges within academic publishing.

Reviewers' Responsibilities

Reviewers play a pivotal role in the editorial decision-making process by providing objective, constructive, and timely assessments of manuscripts. Their expert evaluations are essential for determining the suitability of a manuscript for publication, guiding both authors and editors through potential improvements. This constructive feedback is crucial for enhancing the quality and clarity of the research presented.

The confidentiality of submitted manuscripts and the integrity of the review process must be rigorously maintained by reviewers. This involves treating the manuscripts as confidential documents and not using the information obtained during the review process for personal advantage or sharing it with others before publication.

Reviewers should proactively identify and communicate any potential conflicts of interest to the journal that might influence their review. This includes any financial, personal, or professional relationships with the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the paper. Disclosing conflicts of interest ensures the review process remains impartial and fair.

It is also important for reviewers to adhere strictly to the review deadlines established by the journal. This timeliness is critical for maintaining the efficiency of the publication process. If unforeseen circumstances arise that prevent a reviewer from completing their review within the specified timeframe, they should notify the editor as soon as possible. This allows the editor to make necessary adjustments to the review timeline or seek alternative reviewers, thereby avoiding delays in the manuscript's editorial process.

Authors' Responsibilities

Authors are responsible for ensuring the originality of their submitted manuscripts, which includes properly citing all sources of data and materials. When necessary, authors must also secure permissions for the use of any copyrighted materials included in their submission. This practice upholds the integrity of the scholarly record and respects the intellectual property rights of others.

It is also the duty of authors to verify that their manuscript is not currently under review by another journal, nor has it been published previously. This requirement helps prevent the issues of duplicate publication and fragmentation of research findings, ensuring the novelty and contribution of each submission to the academic discourse.

EngiScience’s journal policies are confirmed as a case of duplicate publication, the following actions will be taken:
1. Retraction of the Manuscript: The article will be retracted from our journals to maintain the integrity of the academic record.
2. Notification to Affiliated Institutions: We will notify author(s) affiliated institutions about the breach of publication ethics.
3. Prohibition on Future Submissions: Author(s) will be prohibited from submitting new manuscripts to EngiScience journals for a period of ONE to FIVE years.

The duration for prohibiting an author from submitting to EngiScience journals due to ethical breaches, like duplicate publication, typically ranges from one to five years, depending on the severity of the violation and the journal's specific policies.

For a first-time offense involving duplicate publication, a common practice is to impose a ban of two to three years. This period is considered sufficient to convey the seriousness of the breach while also allowing the author time to reflect on the importance of ethical standards in scholarly publishing.

However, if the situation involves aggravating circumstances or if the author has a history of similar infractions, a longer ban, or even a permanent ban, may be warranted. It's important that the penalty also serve as a deterrent to prevent similar future infractions by others.

Authors must openly disclose any potential conflicts of interest that could be perceived as influencing their research. This disclosure includes any financial, personal, or professional relationships that might be construed as affecting the impartiality of the research findings. Transparent disclosure of conflicts of interest is crucial for maintaining trust in the research process and its outcomes.

The accurate representation of authorship and contributorship is fundamental, with all individuals who made a significant contribution to the work being properly acknowledged. Authors must confirm that everyone listed as an author meets the criteria for authorship and that all authors have reviewed and approved the final manuscript for publication. This ensures accountability and credit are appropriately assigned.

Authors have an obligation to correct any significant errors in their work once they are identified. This may involve publishing corrections, retractions, or expressing concern about the validity of previously published work. Promptly addressing errors maintains the accuracy and reliability of the scholarly record and upholds the standards of academic integrity.

When research involves human participants or animals, authors are required to provide evidence of compliance with ethical standards. This includes demonstrating that informed consent was obtained from all participants or their guardians and that the research received approval from the appropriate ethics committees. Adhering to these ethical guidelines safeguards the welfare of research subjects and ensures the ethical integrity of the research.

Research Involving Human Subjects 

Authors must ensure that research involving human participants, tissues, or data complies with the 1975 Declaration of Helsinki, revised in 2013. Prior to conducting the study, approval from an Institutional Review Board (IRB) or ethics committee is required, and a statement to this effect must be included in the manuscript.

An example of an ethical statement is: "This study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki, with approval from the Ethics Committee of XXX."

For non-interventional studies, ethical approval is also necessary, and participants must be fully informed about the study's purpose and data use. If ethical approval is not needed, authors should provide a justification or reference relevant regulations.

Written informed consent for publication must be obtained from participants if personal data or images are used. Case details and images that include identifiable information must be accompanied by a consent form, although signed forms should not be sent to the journal unless requested.

Studies involving vulnerable groups or categorizing participants by race, ethnicity, or other sensitive criteria must provide clear justification and may undergo additional scrutiny.

This summary emphasizes the importance of ethical compliance and informed consent in research involving human subjects.

Summary of Research Involving the Use of Animals

EngiScience requires that animal research offer significant benefits outweighing any harm, aligning with ethical expectations, and minimizing reader distress. Authors must adhere to the '3Rs' principle:

1. Replacement of animals with alternatives where possible,
2. Reduction in the number of animals used,
3. Refinement of procedures to lessen animal suffering.

Details on animal care, including housing, husbandry, and pain management, must be included in submissions. Authors are guided to consult specific resources for standards on animal housing and care, such as the Code of Practice for the Housing and Care of Animals, the American Association for Laboratory Animal Science, and the European Animal Research Association.

Ethical approval from the appropriate committee is essential for studies involving vertebrates or higher invertebrates. The manuscript should detail the approval code, date, and ethics committee name. For clinical studies or those involving client-owned animals, informed consent from the owner is required, ensuring awareness of any risks and publication intentions.

In cases where ethical approval is not mandated by national law, authors should provide an exemption statement or justify the ethical basis of their research. EngiScience endorses the ARRIVE guidelines for reporting experiments involving live animals and expects adherence to these standards. Submissions may be rejected based on ethical concerns or if the scientific value does not justify the procedures.

EngiScience maintains the right to reject submissions failing to meet ethical standards or lacking sufficient justification.

Citation Policies

Authors are required to adhere to the following citation guidelines to maintain the integrity and transparency of their work:

1. Citation of Sources: Authors must clearly cite all sources of material, including their own previously published work, ensuring the original source is acknowledged. Where necessary, appropriate permissions should be obtained.

2. Use of Quotations: In line with COPE guidelines, any direct quotations from other researchers' work must be enclosed in quotation marks and accurately cited. This rule also applies to quotations from an author's own work.

3. Avoidance of Excessive Self-Citation: Authors should refrain from excessive citation of their own work to maintain the objectivity and credibility of their manuscript.

4. Objective Citation Practices: It is inappropriate to preferentially cite works by the author, their friends, peers, or affiliated institutions. Citation decisions should be based solely on the relevance and merit of the cited work.

5. Reading the Cited Work: Authors must not include references in their work if they have not read the cited material.

6. Prohibition of Advertisements: Citations should not include advertisements or advertorial material.

7. Discussion on Citation Manipulation: COPE has issued a discussion document addressing citation manipulation, offering recommendations for best practices which authors are expected to follow.

Adherence to these policies is essential to uphold the scholarly standards of publication and ensure the accuracy and fairness of citations within the academic community.

EngiScience Journals' Commitment

Upholding the integrity of the academic record necessitates a steadfast commitment to ethical publishing practices. This involves a continuous effort to ensure that all aspects of the publishing process, from submission to publication, adhere to the highest ethical standards. By doing so, the trustworthiness and reliability of the scholarly record are preserved, fostering confidence among readers, authors, and the wider academic community in the published works.

Supporting editors and reviewers in their pivotal roles within the peer-review process is crucial for maintaining its ethical and efficient execution. Providing them with the necessary resources, guidance, and training enables these key stakeholders to perform their duties effectively, ensuring that the review process is both rigorous and fair. This support system is essential for the detection and prevention of potential ethical issues, enhancing the overall quality and integrity of the publication process.

When allegations of research misconduct arise, it is imperative to address them with a comprehensive and transparent approach, following the guidelines set forth by the COPE Guidelines. This entails conducting investigations with thoroughness and impartiality, ensuring that all parties involved are treated fairly and that the findings of the investigation are communicated clearly. Such transparency is vital for upholding the trust of the academic community and demonstrates a commitment to rectifying and learning from instances of misconduct.

Furthermore, it is essential to safeguard the independence of editorial decisions, ensuring they are made free from undue influence by the journal's publisher or any external entities. This autonomy is fundamental to the integrity of the peer-review process, guaranteeing that manuscripts are evaluated solely on their academic merit and relevance to the journal's scope. Protecting editorial independence ensures that the published content is a true reflection of scholarly achievement and contributes meaningfully to the field.

Dealing with Unethical Behavior

Ensuring a clear and accessible pathway for individuals to voice ethical concerns or report allegations of misconduct is fundamental to maintaining the integrity of the research community. This process should be straightforward and well-publicized, enabling anyone—be they authors, reviewers, or readers—to report potential ethical breaches with confidence and ease. Such a mechanism is vital for fostering an environment where transparency and accountability are paramount, encouraging a proactive stance towards ethical vigilance.

Upon receiving allegations of misconduct, it is paramount that these concerns are treated with the utmost confidentiality. Initiating comprehensive investigations to ascertain the veracity of the complaints is a critical next step. These inquiries should be conducted with diligence and impartiality, ensuring that all parties involved are given a fair opportunity to respond to the allegations. The confidentiality of this process protects the reputations of all parties involved until a conclusive determination is made.

In instances where ethical violations are confirmed, it is imperative to apply sanctions that are commensurate with the severity of the infraction. Such actions may range from issuing formal retractions or corrections to publishing expressions of concern regarding the integrity of the work in question. These measures serve not only as a direct response to the specific incident but also as a deterrent against future violations, underscoring the commitment of the publication and its stakeholders to uphold the highest ethical standards.

Data Transparency and Sharing

Encouraging authors to share their research data is a crucial step towards fostering an open and collaborative scientific environment. Whenever feasible, authors should be prompted to provide clear statements regarding the availability of their research data, detailing how and where the data can be accessed. This practice not only facilitates the replication of research findings by others in the academic community but also enhances the overall credibility and utility of the published work. Additionally, encouraging the use of recognized data repositories for storing and sharing data ensures that this information is preserved in a secure and accessible manner, further promoting the principles of open science.

In parallel to promoting data sharing, it is essential to uphold the principle of transparency throughout the research process. This involves requiring authors to include detailed descriptions of the methodologies and analytical procedures employed in their studies within their manuscripts. By doing so, readers are provided with a comprehensive understanding of how the research was conducted, allowing them to critically assess the validity of the findings and potentially replicate the study if desired. This level of detail supports the integrity of the scientific record and contributes to the advancement of knowledge by enabling the scrutiny and verification of research methodologies and outcomes.

Originality and Plagiarism Policy

To uphold the integrity and originality of scholarly work, it is imperative to employ anti-plagiarism software as a preliminary measure for screening all submissions. This critical step in the editorial process ensures that each manuscript is evaluated for its uniqueness before undergoing further review. By checking submissions against a vast database of published works, this software identifies potential overlaps that could indicate plagiarism, thereby safeguarding the scholarly community against the dissemination of unoriginal content.

In tandem with the technological approach to maintaining originality, it is equally important to mandate that authors formally declare the authenticity of their contributions. This declaration involves authors affirming that the work they submit is entirely their own and that any ideas, data, text, or conceptual frameworks borrowed from other sources are clearly identified and properly cited. This dual strategy of using anti-plagiarism tools and requiring personal attestations from authors serves to reinforce the ethical standards expected in academic publishing, ensuring that all works contribute to the advancement of knowledge with integrity and transparency.

Authorship and Contributorship Criteria

In developing the framework for authorship, it is essential to establish transparent criteria that recognize individuals whose significant contributions to the conception, design, execution, or interpretation of the reported study directly impacted the research outcome. This approach ensures that authorship is attributed accurately and fairly, reflecting the intellectual and practical contributions made towards the development of the study. Each author listed should have a clear, definable role that justifies their inclusion, underscoring the collaborative effort required to bring the research to fruition.

Furthermore, it is crucial to formally recognize the contributions of those who provided support or assistance that, while valuable, does not meet the threshold for authorship. This acknowledgment takes place in a dedicated "Acknowledgments" section within the manuscript, where the efforts of technical assistants, critical advisers, data analysts, or any individuals who contributed resources or expertise can be appreciated. This section serves not only as a testament to the collaborative spirit of academic research but also ensures transparency in distinguishing between substantial intellectual contributions and supportive roles.

Changes to Authorship

Authors are expected to carefully consider the composition of the authorship list prior to the submission of their manuscript. To maintain the integrity of the academic record, any changes to the author list, including additions, removals, or rearrangements of author names, must be finalized during the editorial process and before the manuscript's acceptance.

For any change in authorship to be considered, the journal requires the submission of a completed Authorship Change Form. This form must be endorsed with the signatures of all listed authors, including those being added or removed, and must clearly articulate the reason behind the requested change. The unanimous approval of all original and prospective authors is mandatory for any modifications to proceed.

Should there be a request for changes in authorship after the manuscript has been accepted, it will inevitably lead to a delay in the publication process. In instances where the manuscript has already been published, any petitions for alterations in authorship will be declined.

The journal reserves the right to seek evidence substantiating the claims of authorship at any stage. Please be advised that any alterations to authorship following the acceptance of a manuscript will be executed solely at the discretion of the journal's editorial board.

Declaration of Competing Interests

Mandate that all authors disclose any potential conflicts of interest that could influence the reported work. Corresponding authors, representing all contributors to a manuscript, are required to disclose any financial and personal connections with individuals or organizations that could improperly influence (bias) their research. Potential conflicts of interest may include employment, consultancy roles, ownership of stocks, receipt of honoraria, compensation for providing expert testimony, filing of patent applications or holding patents, and receiving grants or other financial support. All authors, including those who have no competing interests to declare, must communicate this information to the corresponding author. The corresponding author is responsible for indicating, where applicable, that there are no conflicts of interest to declare. In instances where no author has a conflict of interest, a standard sentence provided in the journal's template should be included in the submission. If there is any, the corresponding author is responsible for filling out the Disclosure of Conflict of Interest Form and uploading it to the manuscript submission portal at the 'Attach Files' stage.

Use of Generative AI and AI-Assisted Technologies

When authors utilize generative artificial intelligence (AI) and AI-assisted technologies during the writing process, they should employ these tools solely to enhance readability and language. The application of such technology must be supervised and controlled by humans, with authors meticulously reviewing and editing the outcomes. This caution is necessary because AI can produce outputs that appear authoritative yet may be inaccurate, incomplete, or biased. AI and AI-assisted technologies should not be credited as authors, co-authors, or cited as contributors.

This comprehensive ethics and malpractice statement underscores EngiScience's dedication to upholding the integrity of the scholarly record through rigorous, transparent, and ethical publication practices. We invite all participants in the publication process to join us in this commitment.

This statement embodies our commitment to uphold ethical standards and address any ethical concerns or misconduct. For further guidance or to raise concerns, please contact EngiScience at info@engiscience.com.

Journal of Philology and Educational Sciences (JPES) uses Turnitin software for plagiarism detection, manuscripts with less than 20% plagiarism will be sent to reviewers. Researchers who submit their work to the JPES should be devoid of any plagiarism and the material should not have been published earlier.

Multiple submissions          
It is unethical to submit the same manuscript to more than one journal at the same time. Doing this wastes the time of editors and peer reviewers, and can damage the reputation of journals if published in more than one.

Redundant publications (or 'salami' publications)          
This means publishing many very similar manuscripts based on the same experiment. It can make readers less likely to pay attention to your manuscripts.