General duties and responsibilities of Editors of Scientiae Radices

In Scientiae Radices we adopt the COPE guidelines on publication ethics.

In Scientiae Radices, Editor-in-Chief, Associate Editors as well as Editorial Board Members are held responsible for all published materials in the Journal. They do their best to:
• meet the necessary requirements of Readers and Authors;
• continuously improve the Journal’s materials;
• ensure the quality of published materials;
• ensure the freedom of expression;
• keep the integrity of all academic record;
• and to publish corrections, clarifications, retractions and apologies, when necessary.

Relations with Readers

Readers are always informed about the individuals or the entities who funded the research and on the role of any sponsors in the research, if applicable.

Relations with Authors

In Scientiae Radices, Editors are held responsible to take any necessary actions to ensure the highest quality of published materials.

All decisions of the Editors to accept or reject any paper for publication are solely based on the paper’s importance, originality, and clarity, and the relevance to the Journal’s scientific profile.

Peer review process is clearly described, and Editors should justify any important deviations from the described processes.

Scientiae Radices have clearly defined process for Authors to appeal against Editorial Board’s decisions and they could ask Editors to reconsider their decision by providing necessary facts and reasons.

Scientiae Radices provide guidelines to the Authors on everything which is expected from them. The guidelines are published on the Journal’s website and are regularly updated.

In Scientiae Radices the Editors do not have the permission to overturn decisions to publish submissions made by the previous Editor, unless serious problems are detected.

Relations with Reviewers

Scientiae Radices provide guidelines to Reviewers on everything which is expected from them. The guidelines are regularly updated. In Scientiae Radices Editors have appropriate systems to make sure that peer Reviewers’ identities are protected.

The peer-review process

In Scientiae Radices, Editors have access to appropriate systems to ensure that materials submitted are kept confidential while they are under review process.

Complaints and Pursuing misconduct

In Scientiae Radices, Editors follow the procedure set out in the COPE flowchart. All Editors respond to complaints quickly and make sure there is a way for dissatisfied complainants to appeal from the unsatisfactory decision by the Editors by sending an email to the Journal’s Editor-in-Chief. This mechanism is made clear in the Journal and include information on how to refer unresolved matters to COPE.

In Scientiae Radices, Editors must follow the COPE guidelines for the following purposes:
General approach to publication ethics for the editorial office
How to recognize potential manipulation of the peer review process
What to consider when asked to peer review a manuscript
Handling of post-publication critiques
Peer review manipulation suspected after publication
Peer review manipulation suspected during the peer review process
Image manipulation in a published article
How to recognize potential authorship problems
Systematic manipulation of the publication process
Fabricated data in a submitted manuscript
Undisclosed conflict of interest in a submitted manuscript
Undisclosed conflict of interest in a published article
Responding to whistleblowers when concerns are raised via social media
How to spot authorship problems
Ghost, guest, or gift authorship in a submitted manuscript
Plagiarism in a submitted manuscript
Reviewer suspected to have appropriated an author’s ideas or data
Redundant (duplicate) publication in a submitted manuscript
Suspected ethical problem in a submitted manuscript
Plagiarism in a published article
Redundant (duplicate) publication in a published article
Changes in authorship: Removal of author – before publication
Changes in authorship: Addition of extra author – after publication
Changes in authorship: Removal of author – after publication
Fabricated data in a published article
Changes in authorship: Addition of extra author – before publication

Editors have to make all reasonable effort to ensure that the proper investigation is conducted. If this does not happen, Editors have to make all reasonable attempts to persist in obtaining a resolution to the problem. This is an onerous but important duty.

Encouraging debate

In Scientiae Radices, reasonable criticisms of published works is welcome for publication unless Editors have convincing reasons on why it is not justified for publication. Authors of criticized material are also given the opportunity to respond.

In Scientiae Radices, studies that challenge previous works published in the Journal should be given an especially sympathetic hearing.

In Scientiae Radices, studies reporting negative results should not be rejected.

Encouraging academic integrity

In Scientiae Radices, Editors should ensure that research material they publish conforms to internationally accepted ethical guidelines.

In Scientiae Radices, Editors should seek assurances that all research has been approved by an appropriate body (e.g. research ethics committee, institutional review board). However, Editors should recognize that such approval does not guarantee that the research is ethical.

Protecting individual data

In Scientiae Radices, Editors should protect confidentiality of individual information (e.g. that obtained through the doctor-patient relationship). It is therefore almost always essential to prepare written informed consent from patients described in case reports and for photographs of patients. It may be possible to publish without explicit consent if the report is important to public health (or is in some other way important), consent would be unusually burdensome to obtain, and a reasonable individual would be unlikely to object to publication (all three conditions must be met).

Ensuring the integrity of the academic record

In Scientiae Radices, whenever it is recognized that a significant inaccuracy, misleading statement or distorted report has been published, the Editors will take the necessary actions to correct promptly and with due prominence. If, after an appropriate investigation, an item proves to be fraudulent, it should be retracted. The retraction will be clearly identifiable to the Readers and indexing systems.

Relations with the Journal Owners and Publishers

The relationships of Editors with the Publisher and Owner is based on the principle of Editorial independence. Notwithstanding the economic and political realities of their Journal, Editors should make necessary decisions on which articles to publish based on quality and suitability for Readers rather than for immediate financial or political gain.

Guidelines for disclosure of conflicts of interest (for Authors)

In Scientiae Radices, we follow the COPE guidelines on how to handle potential acts of misconduct.

Authors have to refrain from misrepresenting research outcomes which may destroy the trust in the Journal, the proficiency of scientific origination, and eventually the entire scientific attempts. Integrity of the research and its presentation is facilitated by the following rules of outstanding scientific practice, including the following:

The article must not be submitted to more than one journal for concurrent consideration and must be original that was not previously published in part or complete elsewhere, unless the new work is considered as an expansion of the previous work.

The research paper study cannot be split into different parts to enlarge the number of submissions and be submitted to different journals or to one journal over time. Simultaneous publication is often justifiable, for example in a form of translations of a paper which is considered for a various group of readers.

Results must be presented clearly and with no fabrication, falsification or unsuitable data manipulation.

Authors should keep up with the discipline-specific rules for choosing and processing the necessary data.

An appropriate acknowledgments have to be given to other works, quotation marks (to show words taken from other sources) are implemented for verbatim copying of material, and permissions secured for material that is copyrighted.

Important note: the Journal may use software to screen for plagiarism.

Authors have to make sure they posses all necessary permissions to use the required software, questionnaires/(web) surveys and scales in the accomplished studies (if appropriate). Research articles and non-research articles (e.g. Opinion, Review, and Commentary articles) ought to cite the relevant literature to support their claims. We discourage any inappropriate self-citation. Authors are advised to ensure the Authors’ group, the Corresponding Author, and the order of Authors are all appropriate at submission. Adding and/or removing Authors during the revision stages is only accepted under special circumstances.

Upon request, the Authors have to be prepared to present the relevant documentation or data to verify the validity of the results given in the paper.

All of the above are guidelines, and the Authors need to make sure to respect third parties’ rights such as copyright and/or moral rights.

If there is any misbehavior, the Journal and/or Publisher may carry out an investigation following COPE guidelines. If, after investigation, there is valid evidence of the misbehavior, the Author(s) concerned will be contacted and given an opportunity to address the issue. Depending on the circumstances, this may result in the Journal’s and/or Publisher’s implementation of the following measures, including, but not limited to:

  • If the manuscript is still under review, it may be rejected, and the case is closed.
  • If the article is published online, depending on the nature and severity of the infraction: an erratum/correction may be executed. The reasons will be provided in the published erratum/correction, editorial expression of concern or retraction note. Please note that retraction indicates that the paper is kept on the platform, watermarked “retracted” and the description for the retraction is given in a note associated with the article and the Author’s institution will also be informed about the issue.

Fundamental errors

The Author are obliged to correct mistakes when they detect a significant error in their article. The Author should contact the Journal and describe in what sense the error is influencing the article. The article may be subject to correction or retraction.