PUBLICATION ETHICS AND MALPRACTICE

Ethical Guidelines for Journal Publication

For a peer-reviewed journal, the publication of articles plays an essential role in the development of a coherent network of knowledge. It is, therefore, essential that all publishers, editors, authors, and reviewers, in the process of publishing the journals, conduct themselves in accordance with the highest level of professional ethics and standards.


     1. Publisher's Responsibilities
     2. Editor's Responsibilities
     3. Author's Responsibilities
        4.  Reviewer's Responsibilities
        5. Change or Modification of Published Paper
     6. Penalties

1.  The publisher has the following responsibilities:

We follow the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE)'s Code of Conduct for Journal Publishers.

The publisher is dedicated to supporting the vast efforts of the editors, the academic contributions of authors, and the respected volunteer work undertaken by reviewers. The publisher is also responsible for ensuring that the publication system works smoothly and that ethical guidelines are applied to assist the editor, author, and reviewer in performing their ethical duties.

2. The editor has the following responsibilities:

We follow the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE)'s Code of Conduct and Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors. In addition, some key points are listed below.

The editor should acknowledge receipt of submitted manuscripts within two working days of receipt and ensure an efficient, fair, and timely review process.

The editor should ensure that submitted manuscripts are processed in a confidential manner, and that no content of the manuscripts will be disclosed to anyone other than the corresponding author, reviewers, and the publisher, as appropriate.

The editor should recuse himself or herself from processing manuscripts if he or she has any conflict of interest with any of the authors or institutions related to the manuscripts.

The editor should not disclose the names and other details of the reviewers to a third party without the permission of the reviewers.

The editor has the right to make the final decision on whether to accept or reject a manuscript with reference to the significance, originality, and clarity of the manuscript and its relevance to the journal.

The editor should by no means make any effort to oblige the authors to cite his or her journal either as an implied or explicit condition of accepting their manuscripts for publication.

The editor should not use for his or her own research any part of any data or work reported in submitted and as yet unpublished articles.

The editor should respond promptly and take reasonable measures when an ethical complaint occurs concerning a submitted manuscript or a published paper, and the editor should immediately contact and consult with the author. In this case, a written formal retraction or correction may also be required.

3. The author has the following responsibilities:

The author should not submit concurrent manuscripts (or manuscripts essentially describing the same subject matter) to multiple journals. Likewise, an author should not submit any paper previously published anywhere to the journals for consideration. The publication of articles on the specific subject matter, such as clinical guidelines and translations, in more than one journal, is acceptable if certain conditions are met.

The author should present a precise and brief report of his or her research and an impartial description of its significance.

The author should honestly gather and interpret his or her research data. Publishers, editors, reviewers, and readers are entitled to request the author to provide the raw data for his or her research for the convenience of editorial review and public access. If practicable, the author should retain such data for any possible use after publication.

The author should guarantee that the works he or she has submitted are original. If the author has used work and/or words by others, appropriate citations are required. Plagiarism in all its forms constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable.

The author should indicate explicitly all sources that have supported the research and also declare any conflict(s) of interest.

The author should give due acknowledgment to all of those who have made contributions to the research. Those who have contributed significantly to the research should be listed as co-authors. The author should ensure that all co-authors have affirmed the final version of the paper and have agreed on its final publication.

The author should promptly inform the journal editor of any obvious error(s) in his or her published paper and cooperate earnestly with the editor in retraction or correction of the paper. If the editor is notified by any party other than the author that the published paper contains an obvious error, the author should write a retraction or make the correction based on the medium of publication.

4. The reviewer has the following responsibilities:

We follow the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE)'s COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers. In addition, some key points are listed below.

The reviewer who feels unqualified to review the assigned manuscript or affirms that he or she cannot meet the deadline for completion of the review should immediately notify the editor and excuse himself or herself from the process of reviewing this manuscript.

The reviewer should inform the editor and recuse himself or herself from reviewing the manuscript if there is a conflict of interest. Specifically, the reviewer should recuse himself or herself from reviewing any manuscript authored or co-authored by a person with whom the reviewer has an obvious personal or academic relationship if the relationship could introduce bias or the reasonable perception of bias.

The reviewer should treat the manuscript in a confidential manner. The manuscript should not be disclosed to or discussed with others except as authorized by the editor.

The reviewer should approach the peer-review job objectively. Personal criticism of the author is unacceptable.

The reviewer should not use for his or her own research any part of any data or work reported in submitted and as yet unpublished articles.

The reviewer should immediately notify the editor of any similarities between the manuscript under review and another paper either published or under consideration by another journal. The reviewer should immediately call to the editor’s attention a manuscript containing plagiarized material or falsified data.

5. Change or Modification of Published Paper:

Replacement: Papers published can be replaced if the author(s) send an updated paper. Before accepting replacement requests, the editorial board and Executive Editor should talk with the author(s) sufficiently, and at least three reviewers should check the advances. If the paper was agreed to be replaced, the following will be implemented:

  • The paper in the journal database will be replaced.
  • The link in the online publication site will be replaced.
  • The next phrase or similar phrase stating the reason will be shown below the paper title in the Table of Contents and journal. volume page: (This paper was replaced because the author(s) sent an updated version. Contact the editor if you want to check old version).
  • The old version should be kept separately, and if someone wants to check the old version, the editor can send the PDF to him/her.
  • Note that the replacement is acceptable only one time, and only for technical advances.

Removal: Papers published will be removed if reviewers, readers, librarians, publishers, or other subjects noticed significant errors or plagiarism. Before removing a paper, the editorial board and Executive Editor should talk with authors sufficiently and should provide enough time to have authors’ explanations. If the paper was agreed to be removed, the following will be implemented:

  • The paper in the journal database will be removed.
  • The link in the online publication site will be removed.
  • Next phrase or similar phrase stating the reason will be shown below the paper title in the Table of Contents and journal volume page: (This paper was removed because of plagiarism).

6. Penalties:

Double Submission: If the double submission was found or noticed from other sources, the editorial board should check the status. If the double submission was confirmed as an intentional thing:

  • The review process will be terminated.
  • The reason should be sent to reviewers, editorial boards, and authors.
  • All authors’ name will be marked as a blacklist, and these authors can not submit any paper to all CRIBFB journals for three years

Double Publication: If the double publication was found or noticed from other sources, the editorial board should check the status. If the double publication was confirmed as an intentional thing,

  • This will be reported to the editorial board and author(s).
  • This will be sent to the publisher published the same (or very similar) paper.
  • Paper will be removed according to the “Removal” part in Section 5.
  • All authors’ names will be marked as a blacklist, and these authors cannot submit any paper to all CRIBFB journals for three years.

Plagiarism: If plagiarism (including self-plagiarism) was found or noticed from other sources, the editorial board should check the status. If the plagiarism (including self-plagiarism) was confirmed as an intentional thing,

  • This will be reported to the editorial board and authors.
  • This will be sent to the publisher who published the same or similar paper.
  • Paper will be removed according to the “Removal” part in Section 5.
  • All authors’ names will be marked as a blacklist, and these authors cannot submit any paper to all CRIBFB journals for five years.