Publication Ethics and Publication
Malpractice Statement
For all parties involved in the act of
publishing (the author, the journal editor(s), the peer reviewer and
the publisher) it is necessary to agree upon standards of expected
ethical behavior. The ethics statements for the Journal of
Engineering, Project, and Production Management are based on the
Committee on
Publication Ethics (COPE)
Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors.
Editor Responsibilities
Accountability
The editor of a peer-reviewed journal
is responsible for deciding which articles submitted to the journal
should be published, and, moreover, is accountable for everything
published in the journal. In making these decisions, the editor may
be guided by the policies of the journal’s editorial board as well
as by legal requirements regarding libel, copyright infringement and
plagiarism. The editor may confer with other editors or reviewers
when making publication decisions. The editor should maintain the
integrity of the academic record, preclude business needs from
compromising intellectual and ethical standards, and always be
willing to publish corrections, clarifications, retractions and
apologies when needed.
Fairness
The editor should evaluate manuscripts
for intellectual content without regard to race, gender, sexual
orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or
political philosophy of the author(s). The editor will not disclose
any information about a manuscript under consideration to anyone
other than the author(s), reviewers and potential reviewers, and in
some instances the editorial board members, as appropriate.
Confidentiality
The editor and any editorial staff must
not disclose any information about a submitted manuscript to anyone
other than the corresponding author, reviewers, potential reviewers,
other editorial advisers, and the publisher, as appropriate.
Disclosure, conflicts of
interest, and other issues
The editor will be guided by COPE’s
Guidelines for Retracting Articles when considering retracting,
issuing expressions of concern about, and issuing corrections
pertaining to articles that have been published in the Journal of
Engineering, Project, and Production Management.
Unpublished materials disclosed in a
submitted manuscript must not be used in an editor’s own research
without the express written consent of the author. Privileged
information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept
confidential and not used for personal advantage.
The editor is committed to ensuring
that advertising, reprint or other commercial revenue has no impact
or influence on editorial decisions.
The editor should seek to ensure a fair
and appropriate peer review process. Editors should recuse
themselves (i.e. should ask a co-editor, associate editor or other
member of the editorial board instead to review and consider) from
considering manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest
resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or
connections with any of the authors, companies, or (possibly)
institutions connected to the papers. Editors should require all
contributors to disclose relevant competing interests and publish
corrections if competing interests are revealed after publication.
If needed, other appropriate action should be taken, such as the
publication of a retraction or expression of concern.
Involvement and cooperation in
investigations
Editors should guard the integrity of
the published record by issuing corrections and retractions when
needed and pursuing suspected or alleged research and publication
misconduct. Editors should pursue reviewer and editorial misconduct.
An editor should take reasonably responsive measures when ethical
complaints have been presented concerning a submitted manuscript or
published paper.
Reviewer Responsibilities
Contribution to editorial
decisions
Peer review assists the editor in
making editorial decisions and, through the editorial communication
with the author, may also assist the author in improving the
manuscript.
Promptness
Any invited referee who feels
unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows
that its timely review will be impossible should immediately notify
the editor so that alternative reviewers can be contacted.
Confidentiality
Any manuscripts received for review
must be treated as confidential documents. They must not be shown to
or discussed with others except if authorized by the editor.
Standards of objectivity
Reviews should be conducted
objectively. Personal criticism of the author is unacceptable.
Referees should express their views clearly with appropriate
supporting arguments.
Acknowledgement of sources
Reviewers should identify relevant
published work that has not been cited by the authors. Any statement
that an observation, derivation, or argument had been previously
reported should be accompanied by the relevant citation. A reviewer
should also call to the editor's attention any substantial
similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and
any other published data of which they have personal knowledge.
Disclosure and conflict of
interest
Privileged information or ideas
obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used
for personal advantage. Reviewers should not consider evaluating
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
submission.
Author Responsibilities
Reporting standards
Authors reporting results of original
research should present an accurate account of the work performed as
well as an objective discussion of its significance. Underlying data
should be represented accurately in the manuscript. A paper should
contain sufficient detail and references to permit others to
replicate the work. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements
constitute unethical behavior and are unacceptable.
Originality and Plagiarism
The authors should ensure that they
have written entirely original works, and if the authors have used
the work and/or words of others that this has been appropriately
cited or quoted.
Multiple, redundant or
concurrent publication
An author should not in general publish
manuscripts describing essentially the same research in more than
one journal or primary publication. Parallel submission of the same
manuscript to more than one journal constitutes unethical publishing
behavior and is unacceptable.
Acknowledgement of sources
Proper acknowledgment of the work of
others must always be given. Authors should also cite publications
that have been influential in determining the nature of the reported
work.
Authorship of a manuscript
Authorship should be limited to those
who have made a significant contribution to the conception, design,
execution, or interpretation of the reported study. All those who
have made significant contributions should be listed as co-authors.
Where there are others who have participated in certain substantive
aspects of the research project, they should be named in an
Acknowledgement section.
The corresponding author should ensure
that all appropriate co-authors (according to the above definition)
and no inappropriate co-authors are included in the author list of
the manuscript, and that all co-authors have seen and approved the
final version of the paper and have agreed to its submission for
publication.
Hazards and human or animal
subjects
If the work involves chemicals,
procedures or equipment that have any unusual hazards inherent in
their use, the authors must clearly identify these in the
manuscript.
Disclosure and conflicts of
interest
All authors should disclose in their
manuscript any financial or other substantive conflict of interest
that might be construed to influence the results or their
interpretation in the manuscript. All sources of financial support
for the project should be disclosed.
Fundamental errors in published
works
When an author discovers a significant
error or inaccuracy in his/her own published work, it is the
author’s obligation to promptly notify the journal’s editor or
publisher and cooperate with them to either retract the paper or to
publish an appropriate erratum.
Publisher’s Confirmation
In cases of alleged or proven
scientific misconduct, fraudulent publication or plagiarism the
publisher, in close collaboration with the editors, will take all
appropriate measures to clarify the situation and to amend the
article in question. This includes the prompt publication of an
erratum or, in the most severe cases, the complete retraction of the
affected work.
|