Publishing Ethics

  • Share:

Journal of Radars publishes research articles with multiple roles, one of which is to validate, document and preserve the results of the research. Therefore, the authenticity and reliability of the research results are very important. There are many parties involved in publishing a scholarly research paper, including authors, editors, reviewers and publishers, all of whom play an important role in the publication process. Therefore, authors, editors, reviewers and publishers, among others, are responsible for meeting the expected standards of ethical behavior in publishing at all stages from submission to publication of the manuscript.

In order to meet the standards of ethical publishing behavior at all stages of the publishing process, Journal of Radars pays close attention to the ethical standards or codes of practice of relevant industry associations and keeps our standards of ethical publishing behavior up to date. These industry associations include, but are not limited to, the International Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) [1], the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICJME) [2] and the World Association of Medical Editors (WAME) [3], among others. The following are the main expectations of the Journal of Radars for editors, reviewers and authors.

1  Ethical expectations

1.1  Duties of Editors

To act in a balanced, objective and fair way while carrying out their expected duties, without discrimination on grounds of gender, sexual orientation, religious or political beliefs, ethnic or geographical origin of the authors.

To handle submissions for sponsored supplements or special issues in the same way as other submissions, so that articles are considered and accepted solely on their academic merit and without commercial influence.

To adopt and follow reasonable procedures in the event of complaints of an ethical or conflicting nature, in accordance with the policies and procedures of the Society where appropriate. To give authors a reasonable opportunity to respond to any complaints. All complaints should be investigated no matter when the original publication was approved. Documentation associated with any such complaints should be retained.

1.2  Duties of Reviewers

To contribute to the decision-making process, and to assist in improving the quality of the published paper by reviewing the manuscript objectively, and in a timely manner

To maintain the confidentiality of any information supplied by the editor or author. To not retain or copy the manuscript.

To alert the editor to any published or submitted content that is substantially similar to that under review.

To be aware of any potential conflicts of interest (financial, institutional, collaborative or other relationships between the reviewer and author) and to alert the editor to these, if necessary withdrawing their services for that manuscript.

1.3  Duties of Authors

Journal of Radars is committed to upholding the integrity of the scientific record, and will follow the COPE guidelines on how to deal with potential acts of misconduct.

Authors should refrain from misrepresenting research results which could damage the trust in the journal and ultimately the entire scientific endeavor. Maintaining integrity of the research and its presentation can be achieved by the following rules of good scientific practice.

i)   The manuscript has not been submitted to more than one journal for simultaneous consideration.

ii)  The manuscript has not been published previously (partly or in full), unless the new work concerns an expansion of previous work (please provide transparency on the re-use of material to avoid the hint of text-recycling (“self-plagiarism”).

iii)  A single study is not split up into several parts to increase the quantity of submissions and submitted to various journals or to one journal over time (e.g. “salami-publishing”).

iv)  No data have been fabricated or manipulated (including images) to support your conclusions.

v)   No data, text, or theories by others are presented as if they were the authors’ own (“plagiarism”). Proper acknowledgments to other works must be given, and this includes material that is closely copied (near verbatim), summarized and/or paraphrased. Quotation marks are used for verbatim copying of material, and permissions are secured for material that is copyrighted.

vi)  Important note: the journal may use software to screen for plagiarism.

vii)  Consent to submit has been received from all co-authors and responsible authorities at the institute/organization where the work has been carried out before the work is submitted.

viii)   Authors whose names appear on the submission have contributed sufficiently to the scientific work and therefore share collective responsibility and accountability for the results.

1.4  Authorship

Authorship should be limited to those who have contributed substantially to the work, and every author has responsibility for the data and argument mentioned in the paper.

The corresponding author must have obtained permission from all authors for the submission of each version of the paper and for any change in authorship.

In addition: changes of authorship or in the order of authors are not accepted after acceptance of a manuscript; requests to add or delete authors at the revision stage or after publication is a serious matter, and may be considered only after receipt of written approval from all authors and a detailed explanation about the role/deletion of the new/deleted author. The decision on accepting the change rests with the editorial department of the journal, and authors should be prepared to send relevant documentation or data in order to verify the validity of the results. This could be in the form of raw data, samples, records, etc.

1.5  Disclosure of potential conflict of interests

Authors must disclose all relationships or interests that could influence or bias the work. Although an author may not feel there are conflicts, disclosure of relationships and interests affords a more transparent process, leading to an accurate and objective assessment of the work. Awareness of real or perceived conflicts of interest is a perspective to which the readers are entitled, and is not meant to imply that a financial relationship with an organization that sponsored the research or compensation for consultancy work is inappropriate. Examples of potential conflicts of interest that are directly or indirectly related to the research may include but are not limited to the following:

i)  Honoraria for speaking at symposia;

ii)  Financial support for attending symposia;

iii)  Financial support for educational programs;

iv)  Employment or consultation;

v)  Support from a project sponsor;

vi)  Position on advisory board or board of directors or other types of management relationships;

vii)  Multiple affiliations;

viii)  Financial relationships, for example, equity ownership or investment interest;

ix)  Intellectual property rights (e.g. patents, copyrights and royalties from such rights);

x)  Holdings of spouse and/or children that may have a financial interest in the work.

In addition, interests that go beyond financial interests and compensation (non-financial interests) that may be important to readers should be disclosed. These may include but are not limited to personal relationships or competing interests directly or indirectly tied to this research, professional interests or personal beliefs that may influence your research. The content of the declaration of interest will be placed with the Corresponding Author section. Please see examples below.

Funding: this research was funded by X (grant number X).

Conflict of Interest: Author A has received research grants from Company A. Author B has received a speaker honorarium from Company X and owns stock in Company Y. Author C is a member of committee Z.

If no conflict exists, the authors should state as follows.

Conflict of Interest: The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

1.6  Informed Consent

All individuals have individual rights that are not to be infringed. Each participant has the right to know how their personal data or pictures (recognisable) will be represented in the final paper. Therefore, all participants should give their informed consent in writing before data or images are included in the manuscript. Participants' identifying details (name, date of birth, ID number and other information) should not appear in the textual part of the final paper or in the images, except for information necessary for the research content of the manuscript and for which participants have given informed consent.

Complete anonymity is difficult to achieve in some cases, and informed consent should be obtained if there is any doubt. For example, masking the eye region in photographs of participants is inadequate protection of anonymity. If identifying characteristics are altered to protect anonymity, such as in genetic profiles, authors should provide assurance that alterations do not distort scientific meaning. The following statement should be included:

The following statements should be included in the informed statement:

Informed consent: “Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.”

If identifying information about participants is available in the article, the following statement should be included: “Additional informed consent was obtained from all individual participants for whom identifying information is included in this article.”

2  Procedures for dealing with unethical behavior

2.1  Identification of unethical behavior

Misconduct and unethical behavior may be identified and brought to the attention of the editor and publisher at any time, by anyone. Misconduct and unethical behavior may include, but need not be limited to, examples as outlined above.

Whoever informs the editor or publisher of such conduct should provide sufficient information and evidence for an investigation to be initiated. All allegations should be taken seriously and treated in the same way, until a successful decision or conclusion is reached.

2.2  Investigation

An initial decision should be taken by the editor, who should consult with or seek advice from the publisher, if appropriate. Evidence should be gathered, while avoiding spreading any allegations beyond those who need to know.

2.3  Minor breaches

Minor misconduct might be dealt with without the need to consult more widely. In any event, the author should be given the opportunity to respond to any allegations.

2.4  Serious breaches

Serious misconduct might require that the employers of the accused be notified. The editor, in consultation with the publisher as appropriate, should make the decision whether or not to involve the employers, either by examining the available evidence themselves or by further consultation with a limited number of experts.

2.5  Outcomes (in increasing order of severity; may be applied separately or in conjunction)

Informing or educating the author or reviewer where there appears to be a misunderstanding or misapplication of acceptable standards.

Informing or educating the author or reviewer where there appears to be a misunderstanding or misapplication of acceptable standards.

Publication of a formal notice detailing the misconduct. Publication of an editorial detailing the misconduct.

A formal letter to the head of the author’s or reviewer’s department or funding agency.

Formal retraction or withdrawal of a publication from the journal, in conjunction with informing the head of the author or reviewer’s department, Abstracting & Indexing services and the readership of the publication.

Imposition of a formal embargo on contributions from an individual for a defined period.

Reporting the case and outcome to a professional organization or higher authority for further investigation and action.




  • Share: