Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement

1      Introduction and definitions
2      Ethical oversight
3      Authorship and contributorship
4      Complaints and appeals
5      Allegations of research misconduct
6      Conflicts of interest
7      Data sharing and reproducibility
8     Intellectual property
9      Post-publication discussions
10    Corrections and retractions

1 Introduction and definitions

This statement is based on the Committee on Publication Ethics’ (COPE) publications, especially the Ethics toolkit for a successful editorial office[1]. It states how journals hosted at Linköping University Electronic Press (LiU E-press) handles ethical issues and malpractice.

This statement is a general policy, valid for all journals published with LiU E-press. However, each journal may have developed and made public their own ethical and practical guidelines concerning their publication process for both authors and reviewers. Such guidelines should be based on or refer to this statement and should further reflect the standards of the specific discipline of the Journal. The specific journal guidelines may include descriptions of working with research ethical issues like the informed consent of research participants, ethics approval and compliance with international research guidelines, as well as an approach to institutional oversight. The Editor-in-Chief ensures that he/she is taking responsibility for ethical issues and that the Journal is a serious and solid publisher of research.

Besides a reference to this document, each Journal website include specific guidelines and policies regarding;

practical guidelines to the authors, for example reference style, length of article, file formats.
how the Author should declare authorship, conflicts of interest and financial support upon submission,
if there are any publication fees charged to the Authors. And how much it costs to publish in the Journal,
if a data availability statement is required and if the Journal request submission and/or publication of research data,
the intellectual property rights of the Author, the license Publications will be published with, and the self-archiving policy,
how Authors, Editors and Reviewers may use artificial intelligence tools.
the peer-review system used, including the level of anonymity.
the decision-making process for adjudicating potential conflicts of interest,

The following chapters are common statements for all journals hosted at LiU E-press, describing how the journal editors shall act in respect to their authors and reviewers. Henceforth, the following definitions apply:

the Journal – any journal hosted at LiU E-press.

Submission – a submitted manuscript to the Journal.

Publication – a published publication (e.g. article) in the Journal.

the Author – collectively all authors of a Submission or Publication.

the Editor – any editor at the Journal responsible for a Submission.

the Editor-in-Chief – the main Editor responsible for the Journal.

the Reviewer – a person that has been given a role of reviewing a Submission.

2 Ethical oversight

The Editors of the Journal should actively act towards avoiding cases of ethical misconduct such as plagiarism, fabrication, falsification, conflicts of interest or papers manufactured by a so-called paper mill[2]. Editors should follow the guidelines from COPE on how to handle suspected misconduct on special occasions[3]. LiU E-press offers the Editors access to a service to check manuscript similarities to other published sources via Similarity Check, but the Editors and Reviewers also need to manually check the manuscripts for misconduct. Further, Editors and Reviewers should investigate if vulnerable populations are protected and handled with respect in the Submissions and Publications. If research is performed on human subjects or animals the Authors need to follow the laws in their countries regarding ethics approval.

3 Authorship and contributorship

Authorship and corresponding author responsibilities:

Authorship of Publications should be limited to humans[4] 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. Individuals who have participated in certain substantive aspects of the research project should be noted in Acknowledgements or listed as contributors. The affiliation and corresponding address for all authors and co-authors must be clearly stated. All authors are accountable for the work and the publication.

The corresponding author should ensure that all appropriate co-authors and no inappropriate co-authors are included on the paper. Furthermore, the corresponding author should ensure that all co-authors have reviewed and approved the final version of the paper for submission and publication. Any changes to authorship during the submission, review, and publication process must be promptly communicated in writing to Editor-in-Chief (or equivalent) of the Journal.

Any disputes regarding authorship will suspend the review or publication process until resolved by the involved authors. [5]

Research integrity and accuracy:

Authors of original research reports should provide an accurate account of their work and an objective discussion of its significance. Underlying data should be represented accurately in the paper (as described in the chapter Data sharing and reproducibility). A paper should contain sufficient detail and references to permit others to judge the academic and scientific merits of the work. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements are considered unethical and will lead to retraction of the submission or published work.

All authors should disclose in their manuscript any financial support or other substantive conflict of interest that might be construed to influence the results or interpretation of their manuscript. All sources of financial support for the project should be disclosed.

Plagiarism and attribution:

The Author is responsible for that his/her submitted content does not include plagiarism or violates any applicable copyright law. Information obtained privately, as in conversation, correspondence, or discussion with third parties, must not be used or reported without explicit, written permission from the source. The Submission must not contain copyrighted material used without permission. If copyrighted material is used, The Author needs to clearly state that permission is granted, refer to the original source and, if applicable, include license information. The Author must appropriately acknowledge the work of others and cite influential publications. If material from another publication of the same author is used, and The Author has transferred any part of the copyright to publisher, he/she needs to grant permission to use it.

The Author should ensure he/she has written entirely original works and, if he/she has used materials such as images and/or texts from others ensure that it has been appropriately cited and quoted. Plagiarism takes many forms, from stealing of ideas, via ‘passing off’ another’s paper as the author’s own paper, to copying or paraphrasing substantial parts of another’s paper (without attribution), to claiming results from research conducted by others. Plagiarism in all its forms is considered unethical publishing behavior and will lead to retraction of the paper or submission.

The Author should not publish manuscripts describing essentially the same research in more than one journal or primary publication. Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal concurrently constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable. In general, The Author should not submit for consideration in another journal a previously published paper.

In special cases material may be republished. For example, when a text has been translated or rewritten for another target group. The Author then needs to ensure with the previous publisher, other copyright holders and the Editor that republication is allowed. The Author must clearly state in the publication that the material is republished including a reference to the original publication.

Peer-review process

Peer-review is essential for assisting editors in making editorial decisions and, through communication with authors, aiding in the improvement of submitted papers. Manuscripts should be sent for peer-review to reviewers who know the research field well and have experiences in writing own articles. Peer-review can be performed in different levels of anonymity. Manuscripts submitted for anonymous review must be treated as confidential documents and should not be shared or discussed with unauthorized individuals. Reviews should be conducted objectively, avoiding personal criticism of the author and providing clear, supported arguments.

Including in the role of the Reviewer is to identify relevant published works that have not been cited by The Authors. Any acknowledgment of previously reported observations, derivations, or arguments should be accompanied by appropriate citations. Furthermore, The Reviewer should bring to The Editor's attention any significant similarity or overlap between the Submission under review and any other published work within their knowledge.

The Reviewer must refrain from using any unpublished materials disclosed in a Submission for their own research without explicit written consent from The Author. Privileged information or ideas obtained through the peer-review process should be treated confidentially and not exploited for personal gain. The Reviewer should also abstain from evaluating Submissions in which they have conflicts of interest.

Use of Artificial Intelligence tools

The fast development and extensive use of generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) tools has radically changed how research is performed. Authors, Editors and Reviewers should be transparent in their communication if GenAI tools has been used in their processes. If GenAI tools have been used, they must state which tools that have been used, and how they have been used. However, a GenAI tool cannot be named as an author to a publication in the Journal.

If the confidentiality such tool cannot be used by Editors and Reviewers in the peer-review process

Each Journal may have their own specific policy on which GenAI tools that are recommended or prohibited to use.[6]

4 Complaints and appeals

The Author, The Reviewer and The Editor are expected to adhere to all the guidelines outlined by The Journal. Complaints and appeals regarding the conduct of Journal Editors, Editorial Assistants, or other journal staff should be communicated in writing to the Editor-in-Chief. If the complaint or appeal concerns the Editor-in-Chief, it should be directed to -in-Chief or the publisher will then review the complaint. Initially, they will facilitate communication between both parties, especially if the issue requires further clarification. If a resolution cannot be reached, the case may either be closed without resolution or, if deemed serious, further action will be taken by the Editor-in-Chief or the publisher. These actions might include contacting the institution of the person facing the complaint or appeal to make decisions on further investigations and penalties.

Complaints and appeals regarding the conduct of the Reviewer should be communicated in writing to The Editor handling the manuscript. The Editor will review the complaint or appeal and then communicate it to the reviewer, requesting their response. The reviewer's answer will then be relayed to the author. The Editor, in this case, should act as a mediator, setting a timeline for the discussion to prevent prolonged debates without resolution. If the issue remains unresolved and is deemed a serious concern for the journal, The Editor can assess if it constitutes misconduct and take appropriate action. If needed The Editor may also contact the institution where the reviewer is affiliated.

For allegations of research, publication, and review misconduct, please see next session 5 allegations of research misconduct.

5 Allegations of research misconduct

Allegations of research, publication, and review misconduct are taken seriously by the Journal. Such allegations should be promptly communicated in writing to The Journal.

If the allegations concern research or publication misconduct:

The allegations should be communicated to the Editor-in-Chief. The Editor-in-Chief will communicate the allegations to the Editorial Board, which will review and investigate the allegations or appoint a committee for further investigation. If the investigating party determines that additional information is necessary after reviewing the allegations, they will contact the complainant/whistleblower for clarification. If no further details are provided, the investigating party will consider whether the case can be further pursued or not. In the case where the investigating party considers that there is no possibility of investigating the allegations, the complainant/whistleblower will be informed. If the investigation party pursues the case further, The Author of the publication will be contacted and requested to provide relevant details. If the investigating party deems the clarifications from The Author sufficient, the submission or publication may proceed without adjustments or with corrections (for information on corrections, see Section 10 Corrections and Retractions). If the clarification from the Author is deemed insufficient or missing, the investigating party will contact the Authors’ institution for further discussion and clarification. Further, if other parties such as other journals are involved in the case the Editor may inform them as well about the misconduct. If the response is satisfactory, the submission or publication may proceed without adjustments or with corrections. If there is no response or a response deemed unsatisfactory by the investigating party, the submission or publication will be retracted, and the appropriate authorities will be notified. The complainant/whistleblower will be informed if the investigation results in any corrections or retractions. For further information on correction or retraction see 10 Corrections and retractions and COPE flowcharts[7].

If allegations concern review misconduct:

The allegations should be communicated to The Editor handling the manuscript. The Editor will investigate the issue, if deemed necessary, The Editor might contact the complainant/author to supply further details and clarifications. The Editor will then decide whether the claims are well founded. If the claims are not well founded, the complainant/author may be requested to provide more information or informed about the decision not to investigate the claims further. If the claims are found to be well founded, The Editor will contact the reviewer explaining the concerns and requesting an explanation. If the explanation is satisfactory the Editor will inform the complainant/author. In the case where the explanation from the reviewer is missing or is not satisfactory, The Editor should contact the institution where the reviewer is affiliated and suspend the reviewer until the case is closed. The reviewer should be informed of this action by the Editor. A reviewer found of review misconduct may be removed permanently from the database of reviewers. [8]

6 Conflicts of interest

There are many steps in the publishing process where one must exercise judgment. This is for example the case when; making editorial decisions, during the peer review process, and when handling potential research misconduct. Such judgements can become skewed by conflicts of interest, which makes it important the journals have in place policies to handle such influences of scientific judgements.

Such policies should for each important function in the publishing process – editors, reviewers, editorial staff, and, of course, authors – define what interest should be disclosed and spell out how potential conflicts of interest should be handled.

7 Data sharing and reproducibility

To ensure good research practice, the author needs to save his/her research data. The data should be stored safely, and the authors must be able to show the data upon request. Data may be requested to reproduce the findings and to ensure the research is performed according to good research practice.

If an author has used research data in his/her research, the dataset should be cited according to the reference instructions for each journal.

Data Accessibility Statements:

The Journal may demand the author to upload a Data Accessibility Statement (DAS) upon submission. The DAS will provide information about if and how the data may be made available. The DAS will be published within the text of the publication.

8 Intellectual property

All journals with LiU E-press publishes all publications with Open Access (OA) without any publication fees. The Author always retains their copyright to their work. A license agreement must be signed upon submission or acceptance of the article. The agreement will give LiU E-press a non-exclusive license to publish the publication. All publications are also published with a Creative Commons license. For most journals the Creative Commons-Attribution license (CC BY) is used as standard, but in all journals a CC BY license may be used upon request from the Authors.

Self-archiving:

Self-archiving of publications in for example institutional repositories may be performed for all articles, according to the principles of the Creative Commons license used. For self-archiving it is therefore preferable that The Author use the published version of the article. Further information about self-archiving of pre-prints and post-prints (author accepted manuscripts) is referred to the instructions for self-archiving on each journal website.

9 Post-publication discussions

Post-publication commentary or discussion can bring alternative interpretations of published data to light. (For allegations of research, publication, and review misconduct, please see Allegations of research misconduct)

If post-publication critiques are submitted for publication, they may be published as ‘letters to the editor’, ‘commentaries’, or ‘comments’. In cases of such submissions the editor-in-chief will first facilitate communication between both parties (e.g., if regarding an issue which needs more clarification) where the the conversations. The editor will provide a timeline for this process from the outset to avoid prolonged discussions without resolution. Both parties will be informed of this timeline and encouraged to adhere to it. If the authors of the critique still wish to publish their critique after such communication the editor will invite the original authors of the critiqued article to write a ‘response’ or ‘reply’ to be published alongside the critique. The editorial board will only consider critiques for publication if claims are supported and if they are found to be a constructive exchange about issues important to the journal’s readership and useful to the community. If the critique's content is potentially libelous or defamatory, it will be rejected. [9]

10 Corrections and retractions

Content may be corrected or retracted after publication. Reasons for corrections and retractions may be, but are not limited to, the results of processes described in previous sections of this document.

Corrections may be published to correct important errors made by either the Author or the Journal that affects the scientific integrity of the Publication, the publication record, or the reputation of the Author or of the Journal.

A notice of correction will be issued by the Journal to document and correct substantial errors that appear in articles when these errors significantly affect the content or understanding of the work reported (e.g., error in data presentation or analysis) or when the error affects the publication's metadata (e.g., misspelling of an author's name). In these cases, the Journal will publish a correction that will be linked to the original article. The editor-in-chief has the discretion to choose to correct the article itself and re-post it online including information that the article has been corrected. If that course is taken, a correction notice will also be created to document the changes to the original article.

The Journal will retract publications if they constitute plagiarism, contain material or data without authorisation for use, if copyright has been infringed, there are legal issues of severity (e.g., libel, privacy), or if the publication reports research that is found to be unethical (e.g. research that has been conducted without required ethical reviews or in violation of ethical approvals). The Journal may also retract publications if the author(s) failed to disclose a competing interest (a.k.a. conflict of interest) that, in the view of the editor-in-chief, would have affected interpretations of the work or recommendations by editors and peer reviewers. Articles published based on a compromised or manipulated peer review process may also be retracted.

Editors may consider retracting a publication if they conclude that the findings are unreliable, either because of errors (e.g., miscalculation or experimental error), or because of fabrication (e.g., of data) or falsification (e.g., image manipulation). Editors may also consider retracting a publication if the findings have previously been published elsewhere without proper attribution to previous sources or disclosure to the editor, permission to republish, or justification (i.e., cases of redundant publication).

If only a small part of an article reports flawed data or content, or if only a small section of an article (e.g., a few sentences in the discussion) is plagiarised, editors should consider a correction (which could note that text was used without appropriate acknowledgement and cite the source) rather than retracting the entire article, which may contain sound research.

In cases where the Journal retracts published content the notices of retraction will be clearly identified as a retraction (i.e., distinct from other types of correction or comments), be linked to the retracted article wherever possible (i.e., in all online versions) and clearly identify the retracted article (e.g., by including the title and authors in the retraction heading or citing the retracted article). They will also include information on who is retracting the article and the reason(s) for retraction. A notice of retraction should be published promptly and be freely available.

In cases where there isn't evidence decisive enough for retraction the editor-in-chief may publish an ‘expression of concern’ or an ‘editorial note’. This should include a clear and factual account of the concerns, but also state why they don’t constitute reasons for a retraction. These instances should be avoided by The Journal by making definitive decisions, as raising such concerns puts The Journal and the published research in an ambiguous position. [10]

[1] COPE, Ethics toolkit for a successful editorial office, 2022 Available at: https://doi.org/10.24318/AkFpEBd1

[2] See COPE, Paper mills research, available at: https://doi.org/10.24318/jtbG8IHL

[3] For example, see COPE, Ethical oversight, available at: https://publicationethics.org/oversight

[4] Generative Artificial intelligence tools cannot be an author, cf. the chapter “Use of Artificial Intelligence tools”

[5] Further read the discussion document from COPE, “Authorship” (2019), available at: https://doi.org/10.24318/cope.2019.3.3

[6] For example see: COPE, Artificial intelligence (AI) in decision making, (2021), available at: https://doi.org/10.24318/9kvAgrnJ

[7] Further read the flowcharts from COPE: “Suspected ethical problem in a submitted manuscript” available at: https://doi.org/10.24318/cope.2019.2.19 and “Responding to whistleblowers when concerns are raised directly” available at: https://doi.org/10.24318/cope.2019.2.25

[8] Further read the flowchart from COPE: “Reviewer suspected to have appropriated an author’s ideas or data” available at: https://doi.org/10.24318/cope. 2019.2.5

[9] Based on COPE’s flowchart “handling of post-publication critiques”, available at: https://doi.org/10.24318/o1VgCAih

[10] The guidelines in this section are based on the COPE Council’s Retraction guidelines https://doi.org/10.24318/cope.2019.1.4