Loading
     

Pezzottaite Journals aim to publish quality research with a series of multi-disciplinary journals. Our mission statement specifies that we aim to ‘acknowledge thoughts of academicians backed by quality research, to transform education for social improvement and corporate development’. As part of this objective, the Pezzottaite Journals adopts a decisive position on issues related to its journals and those of our publishing partners.

Publication of an article in an academic peer-reviewed journal serves several functions, one of which is to validate and preserve the “minutes” of research. It is therefore of immense importance that these “minutes” are accurate and trustworthy. The act of publishing involves many parties, each of which plays an important role in achieving these aims. It therefore follows that the author, the journal editor, the peer-reviewer, the publisher and the owner of journals have responsibilities to meet expected ethical standards at all stages in their involvement from submission to publication of an article. We are committed to meet and uphold standards of ethical behaviour at all stages of the publication process. Refer our ‘Code of Conduct & Ethical Policy’ for more information.

We encourage our Authors, Referees, and Editors to follow these Guidelines when considering a submission to / or when dealing with papers submitted for consideration for publication in, Pezzottaite Journals.

Together we can assure the integrity of the peer review process, and the integrity of articles which are published as a result of that process.

Below is a summary of our key expectations of editors, peer-reviewers and authors.

Ethical Expectations

Editors’ Responsibilities

We ask editors to make every reasonable effort to ensure the following criteria are taken into account for those submitted manuscripts they deem worthy of consideration by peer review.

  • 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 conflict 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;
  • Editor should give unbiased consideration to each manuscript submitted for consideration for publication, and should judge each on its merits, without regard to race, religion, nationality, sex, seniority, or institutional affiliation of the author(s);
  • Editor has sole responsibility for the acceptance or the rejection of a submitted manuscript;
  • Editor may reject a submitted manuscript without resort to formal peer review if she or he considers the manuscript to be inappropriate for the Journal and outside its scope;
  • Editor should make all reasonable effort to process submitted manuscripts in an efficient and timely manner;
  • Editor, Associate Editors, and members of the Editorial Board should treat the peer review process as entirely confidential, and neither the submitted manuscript, nor information about the submitted manuscript, nor correspondence related to their peer review should be shared or circulated to any person not engaged in the peer review process;
  • Editor should arrange for responsibility for the peer review of any manuscript authored by her- or himself to be delegated to an Associate Editor. Any data or analysis presented in a submitted manuscript should not be used in a Editor's own research except with the consent of the author;
  • If a Editor is presented with convincing evidence that a submitted article is under consideration elsewhere, or has already been published, then the Editor may reject the article forthwith, and, in consultation with Editorial Board, reserve the right to impose sanctions on the submitting author;
  • If a Editor is presented with convincing evidence that the main substance or conclusions of an article published in the Journal are erroneous, then, in consultation with Editorial Board, the Editor should facilitate publication of an appropriate Corrigendum or Erratum;
  • Editor who is in receipt of a Letter which offers evidence that the substance of, or sections within, a published article, are erroneous, may consider publication of the Letter as a Comment, to which the author may offer a Response, and the Commentator a Rejoinder. The Editor should subject all Comments, Responses, and rejoinders to peer review;
  • If a Editor is presented with convincing evidence that an article is under consideration by another Journal, or has been previously published, then the Editor may reject the article forthwith, and, in consultation with Editorial Board, reserve the right to impose sanctions on the submitting author;
  • If a Editor is presented with convincing evidence that an article or parts of an article reproduce text, tables, or figures which are copyrighted to a third party, but which have not been quoted, cited, or acknowledged in the article, then, in consultation with Editorial Board, the Editor should facilitate a Retraction of the article, and, in consultation with Editorial Board, reserve the right to impose sanctions on the author.

Reviewers’ Responsibilities

We ask peer reviewers to make every reasonable effort to ensure the following criteria are taken into account for those submitted manuscripts they have agreed to peer review.

  • To contribute to the decision-making process, and to assist in improving the quality of the published paper by reviewing the manuscript objectively, 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;
  • Although authors' identities are normally anonymised, content within a manuscript may reveal an author's identity, or aspects of identity. In such cases, a peer reviewer of a manuscript must give unbiased consideration to each manuscript submitted for consideration for publication, and should judge each on its merits, without regard to race, religion, nationality, sex, seniority, or institutional affiliation of the author(s);
  • A peer reviewer should declare any conflict of interest when the manuscript under review is related to the peer reviewer's own work. A peer reviewer should not evaluate a manuscript authored or co-authored by a person with whom the peer reviewer has a personal or professional connection if the relationship would bias judgment of the manuscript;
  • A peer reviewer should treat the peer review process as entirely confidential, and neither the submitted manuscript, nor information about the submitted manuscript, nor correspondence related to their peer review should be shared or circulated to any person not engaged in the peer review process;
  • A peer reviewer should provide a comprehensive, evidenced, and appropriately substantial peer review report;
  • A peer reviewer should be alert to the failure of authors to cite relevant work by other scientist / academicians, and should call to the Journal Editor's attention any significant similarity between the manuscript under consideration and any published paper or any manuscript submitted concurrently to another journal of which she or he is aware;
  • A peer reviewer should make all reasonable effort to submit her or his report and recommendation in a timely manner;
  • A peer reviewer must avoid making statements in submitted articles which might be construed as impugning any person's reputation;
  • An author must declare any potential conflict of interest that might be affected by publication of the results contained in a manuscript, and acknowledge funding.

Authors’ Responsibilities

We require that, prior to publication; authors must make warranties to these effects when signing their Article Publishing Agreement.

  • To maintain accurate records of data associated with their submitted manuscript, and to supply or provide access to these data, on reasonable request. Where appropriate and where allowed by employer, funding body and others who might have an interest, to deposit data in a suitable repository or storage location, for sharing and further use by others;
  • To confirm / assert that the manuscript as submitted is not under consideration or accepted for publication elsewhere. Where portions of the content overlap with published or submitted content, to acknowledge and cite those sources. Additionally, to provide the editor with a copy of any submitted manuscript that might contain overlapping or closely related content;
  • To confirm that all the work in the submitted manuscript is original and to acknowledge and cite content reproduced from other sources. To obtain permission to reproduce any content from other sources;
  • Authors should ensure that any studies involving human or animal subjects conform to national, local and institutional laws and requirements; and confirm that approval has been sought and obtained where appropriate. Authors should obtain express permission from human subjects and respect their privacy;
  • To declare any potential conflicts of interest (e.g. where the author has a competing interest (real or apparent) that could be considered or viewed as exerting an undue influence on his or her duties at any stage during the publication process);
  • To notify promptly the journal editor or publisher if a significant error in their publication is identified. To cooperate with the editor and publisher to publish an erratum, addendum, corrigendum notice, or to retract the paper, where this is deemed necessary;
  • An author must not submit a manuscript to more than one journal simultaneously, nor should an author submit previously published work, nor work which is based in substance on previously published work;
  • An author should present an accurate account of research performed and an objective discussion of its significance, and present sufficient detail and reference to public sources of information so to permit the author's peers to repeat the work;
  • An author must cite all relevant publications. Information obtained privately, as in conversation, correspondence, or discussion with third parties, should not be used or reported in the author's work unless fully cited, and with the permission of that third party;
  • An author must make available all requisite formal and documented ethical approval from an appropriate research ethics committee;
  • An author must follow national and international procedures that govern the ethics of work done on animals;
  • An author must avoid making defamatory statements in submitted articles which could be construed as impugning any person's reputation, for example, making allegations of dishonesty or sharp practice, plagiarism, or misrepresentation; or in any way attacking a person's integrity or competence;
  • An author must ensure all named co-authors consent to publication and being named as a co-author, and, equally, that all those persons who have made significant scientific or literary contributions to the work reported are named as co-authors. Additionally, the author understands that co-authors are bound by these same principles.

 Publisher or Society Responsibilities

  • Both Pezzottaite Journals and those of our associated publishers shall ensure that good practice is maintained to the standards outlined above;
  • For Syndicate-owned Journals, more detailed ethical procedures will be set out and brought to the attention of Journal editors and editorial boards;
  • For Society-owned Journals, Societies will provide assurance that they subscribe to the principles outlined above, or to substantially similar principles, either adopting these formally or producing their own for the attention of their editors and editorial boards.

Procedures to Deal With Unethical Behaviour

Identification of Unethical Behaviour

  • Misconduct and unethical behaviour may be identified and brought to the attention of the editor and publisher at any time, by anyone;
  • Misconduct and unethical behaviour 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 in order 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

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.

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.

 Serious Breaches

  • Serious misconduct might require that the employers of the accused be notified;
  • The editor, in consultation with the publisher or Society 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.  

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;
  • A more strongly worded letter to the author or reviewer covering the misconduct and as a warning to future behaviour;
  • 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 organisation or higher authority for further investigation and action.