Undisclosed conflict of interest in a submitted manuscript

Editors will follow the step by step process in this flowchart on how to handle the problem when a reviewer suspects an author’s undisclosed conflict of interest in a submitted manuscript. (COPE Council. COPE Flowcharts and infographics — Undisclosed conflict of interest in a submitted manuscript — English. https://doi.org/10.24318/cope.2019.2.6).

 

 

Undisclosed conflict of interest in a published article

The editor will communicate with the author and reader during the investigation.

The author's institution will be involved when the author denies an alleged conflict of interest or to inform an institution in cases of suspected misconduct.

A published article might need to be corrected or retracted, depending on whether the editor considers the conflict of interest to have affected the peer review process or the article.

Editors will follow the step by step process in this flowchart on how to handle the problem when A reader suspects an author’s undisclosed conflict of interest which becomes apparent after publication. (COPE Council. COPE Flowcharts and infographics - Undisclosed conflict of interest in a published article - English. https://doi.org/10.24318/cope.2019.2.7).

 

 

Types (examples) of conflict of interests:

- Payment to authors;

- Close relationship with an author or editor (guest editor), reviewer, publisher, journal staff;

- A reviewer works in the same institution as an author or reviewer has had another type of close relationship or collaboration with an author, such as a familial relationship or being a co-investigator on a grant project;

- A reviewer knows, or very strongly suspects that they know, an author’s identity;

- A patent application for a device which was the subject of the paper that was applied for and granted during the time a paper was being peer reviewed but not declared to the editors.

 

Policy on correction and retraction

If only a small part of an article reports flawed data or content, this should be rectified by a correction.

If only a small section of an article (eg, a few sentences in the discussion) is plagiarised, editors consider a correction, which notes that text was used without appropriate acknowledgement and cite the source.

If redundant publication occurs, the journal issues a notice of redundant publication but does not retract the article unless there are other concerns, such as the reliability of the data.

In cases of partial overlap (ie, when authors present new findings in an article that contains a substantial amount of previously published information) editors should consider whether the entire article is retracted or whether to issue a correction clarifying which aspects had been published previously and providing appropriate attribution to the earlier work. This will depend on the amount and nature of overlap.

The online version of the article will be retained with a clear notice of retraction and will be included in bibliographic databases with a digital object identifier (DOI).

Retractions may be requested by an article’s author(s), by an institution, by readers, or by the editor.

 

According to COPE Retraction Guidelines , editors of the journal consider retracting a publication if:

- They have clear evidence that the findings are unreliable, either as a result of major error (eg, miscalculation or experimental error), or as a result of fabrication (eg, of data) or falsification (eg, image manipulation);

- It constitutes plagiarism;

- The findings have previously been published elsewhere without proper attribution to previous sources or disclosure to the editor, permission to republish, or justification (ie, cases of redundant publication);

- It contains material or data without authorisation for use;

- Copyright has been infringed or there is some other serious legal issue (eg, libel, privacy);

- It reports unethical research;

- It has been published solely on the basis of a compromised or manipulated peer review process;

- The author(s) failed to disclose a major competing interest (aka, conflict of interest) that, in the view of the editor, would have unduly affected interpretations of the work or recommendations by editors and peer reviewers.

 

Notices of retraction:

- Are linked to the retracted article wherever possible (ie, in all online versions);

- Clearly identify the retracted article (eg, by including the title and authors in the retraction heading or citing the retracted article);

- Are clearly identified as a retraction (ie, distinct from other types of correction or comment);

- Will be published promptly to minimise harmful effects;

- Are freely available to all readers (ie, not behind access barriers or available only to subscribers);

- State who is retracting the article;

- State the reason(s) for retraction;

- Are objective, factual, and avoid inflammatory language.

 

In general, a retraction notice covers a single retracted article.

Retraction notice mentions the reasons and basis for the retraction to enable readers to understand why the article is unreliable and also specifies who is retracting the article.

Whenever possible, editors should negotiate with authors and attempt to agree on a form of wording that is clear and informative to readers and acceptable to all parties.

Retraction notices will be published in all versions of the journal (ie, print and online).

Journal is responsible for ensuring that retractions are labeled in such a way that they are identified by bibliographic databases and should also include a link to the retracted article.

In some cases an article will be removed from online publication, such as when the article is clearly defamatory, violates personal privacy, is the subject of a court order, or might pose a serious health risk to the general public. In these circumstances, the metadata (title and authors) will be retained and the retraction notice will clearly state why the full article has been removed.

Editors will retract publications (or issue expressions of concern) even if all or some of the authors do not agree.

Publications will be retracted as soon as possible after the editor is convinced that the publication is seriously flawed, misleading, or falls into any of the categories described above.

If a letter or commentary that has been submitted for publication raises serious concerns about an article, an editor will not wait for a decision on publication of the letter or commentary to consider whether the article may also need to be retracted (or whether an expression of concern is needed).

If necessary, a previously corrected article will be further corrected or a previously corrected article will be retracted following the outcome of an institutional investigation. When possible, the outcome of institutional investigations will be quoted from and cited in the notice, and any findings of misconduct will be appropriately attributed to the institution who made the finding.

If conclusive evidence about the reliability of a publication cannot be obtained, or will not be obtained for a significant period of time, retraction will not be appropriate, but an editor will consider publishing an expression of concern.

If there is no reason to doubt the validity of the findings or the reliability of the data, it is not appropriate to retract a publication solely on the grounds of an authorship dispute. In such cases, the editor should inform those involved in the dispute that they cannot adjudicate in such cases but will be willing to publish a correction to the author/contributor list if the authors/contributors (or their institutions) provide appropriate proof that such a change is justified.

If retraction is due to the actions of some, but not all, authors of a publication, the notice of retraction will mention this when possible. However, authorship entails some degree of joint responsibility for the integrity of the reported research so it is not appropriate for authors names to be removed from a publication even if they were not directly culpable for the errors or actions that led to retraction.

 

Policies on data fabrication and falsification

 

Fabricated and/or falsified data in a submitted manuscript

Initial steps by the journal will include asking the reviewer for evidence and investigating the concerns.

Authors will be contacted to discuss concerns about data integrity, allowing them an opportunity to respond or clarify before proceeding with any formal actions or decisions.

Potential actions based on the journal’s findings could include notifying relevant parties, rejecting the manuscript, or reporting to the authors’ institutions, depending on the severity of the misconduct identified.

Editors will follow the step by step process in this flowchart on how to handle the problem when a reviewer suspects data fabrication and/or falsification in a submitted manuscript. (COPE Council. COPE Flowcharts and infographics — Fabricated data in a submitted manuscript — English. https://doi.org/10.24318/cope.2019.2.3).

 

 

Fabricated and/or falsified data in a published article

Initial steps by the journal will include investigating the concerns and considering a second opinion from another reviewer.

Authors will be contacted to discuss concerns about data integrity, allowing them an opportunity to respond or clarify before proceeding with any formal actions or decisions.

Potential actions based on the findings could include notifying relevant regulatory bodies, retracting the paper, or publishing an expression of concern.

The journal will also consider reporting to the authors’ institutions, depending on the severity of the misconduct identified. 

Editors will follow the step by step process in this flowchart on how to handle the problem when a reader suspects data fabrication and/or falsification in a published article. (COPE Council. COPE Flowcharts and infographics — Fabricated data in a published article — English. https://doi.org/10.24318/cope.2019.2.4).

Policies on intellectual property (plagiarism)

A definition of plagiarism is as follows: “When somebody presents the work of others (data, words or theories) as if they were his/her own and without proper acknowledgment.”

For Geo-Technical Mechanics journal, this applies to data, images, words or ideas taken from any materials in electronic or print formats without sufficient attribution. This can include:

- Abstracts;

- Seminar presentations;

- Laboratory reports;

- Thesis or dissertation;

- Research proposals;

- Computer programs;

- Online posts;

- Grey literature;

- Unpublished or published manuscripts.

The use of any such material either directly or indirectly should be properly acknowledged in all instances. Authors should always cite their source.

Geo-Technical Mechanics journal uses screening service (software) in order to detect unoriginal material. Authors submitting to Geo-Technical Mechanics journal should be aware that their manuscript may be submitted to plagiarism check at any point during the peer-review or production processes.

Where overlap is found, the results of the screening will be examined by the journal to establish whether it constitutes plagiarism or if there are legitimate reasons for the overlap.

The maximum acceptable score of similarity should not exceed 15%. If it exceeds 15% manuscript will be rejected.

 

The common types of plagiarism are as follows:

- Direct copying of text, with or without paraphrasing, from a single source without proper acknowledgement;

- Mosaic plagiarism (patchwork plagiarism), when text is lifted from a few different sources (which may include your own previous work) and put into your manuscript to create the impression of new text. This includes rewording pieces of sourced material while keeping the structure/syntax of the original texts;

- Self-plagiarism/ text-recycling means redundant reuse of your own work (e.g., text, data, and images), including text translated from another language, usually without proper citation. It creates repetition in the academic literature and can skew meta-analyses if you publish the same sets of data multiple times as “new” data. Two forms of self-plagiarism include:

- redundant / duplicate publication: is the publication of what is essentially the same paper in more than one journal, but without indication that the paper has been previously published elsewhere.

- salami slicing (salami publication): is the segmentation of a large study which should have been reported in a single paper into smaller published studies.

Other types of plagiarism also exist. What they all have in common is that there is a lack of transparency to the original source of the material which has been used in the manuscript.

 

In order to avoid plagiarism authors should have:

- Clearly marked quoted verbatim text from another source with quotation marks;

- attributed and referenced the source of the quotation clearly within the text and in the Reference section;

- Obtained permission from the original publisher and rights holder when using previously published figures or tables.

 

Plagiarism in a submitted manuscript

The journal will ask the reviewer for full documentary evidence and investigate the concerns.

Authors will be contacted where there is clear plagiarism or copying, explaining the journal’s process and next steps.

The author's institution will be informed, where necessary.

If the author has copied from their own work, editors refer to the flowchart redundant (duplicate) publication in a submitted manuscript.

Editors will follow the step by step process in this flowchart on how to handle the problem when a reviewer suspects plagiarism in a submitted manuscript. (COPE Council. COPE Flowcharts and infographics — Plagiarism in a submitted manuscript — English. https://doi.org/10.24318/cope.2019.2.1).

 

Plagiarism in a published article

Authors will be contacted explaining the journal’s process and next steps.

The journal will consider whether a retraction or correction is required, depending on the degree of copying.

Where necessary, editors of other journals involved should be informed.

Editors will follow the step by step process in this flowchart on how to handle the problem when a reader suspects plagiarism in a published article. (COPE Council. COPE Flowcharts and infographics — Plagiarism in a published article — English.

https://doi.org/10.24318/cope.2019.2.2).

 

Policies and processes on peer review (including reviewer responsibilities, handling of papers authored by editorial board members)

 

Processes on peer review

Processes on peer review are described in more detail within Guidelines for Reviewers.

 

Reviewer responsibilities

According to (COPE Council. COPE Ethical guidelines for peer reviewers — English. https://doi.org/10.24318/cope.2019.1.9) in order to assign appropriate reviewers, editors match reviewers with the scope of the content in a manuscript to get the best reviews possible. Potential reviewers should  provide journal with personal and professional information that is accurate and a fair representation of their expertise, including verifiable and accurate contact information. Impersonation of another individual during the review process is considered serious misconduct.

When approached to review, reviewer should agree to review only if reviewer has the necessary expertise to assess the manuscript and can be unbiased in assessment. It is better to identify clearly any gaps in reviewer’s expertise when asked to review.

Reviewer should notify the journal as soon as possible if reviewer finds he/she does not have the necessary expertise to assess the relevant aspects of a manuscript so as not to unduly delay the review process.

Reviewers may have concerns that misconduct occurred during either the research or the writing and submission of the manuscript, or they may notice substantial similarity between the manuscript and a concurrent submission to another journal or a published article. In the case of these or any other ethical concerns, reviewers should contact the editor directly and do not attempt to investigate on their own. Reviewers should cooperate with the journal, but not to personally investigate further unless the journal asks for additional information or advice.

 

Handling of papers authored by editorial board members

A paper submitted by an editor will be handled by one of the other editors who does not have a conflict with the review and who is not at the same institution as the submitting editor. The other editor will select referees and make all decisions on the paper. In such circumstances, full masking of the process must be ensured so that the anonymity of the peer reviewers is maintained. Therefore, the editor submitting the paper will not have access to the review records of their own manuscript.

 

Submission from the same institution

A paper submitted by author at the same institution as one of the editors will be handled by one of the other editors. The other editor will select reviewers and make all decisions on the paper.

 

Editor responsibilities

The editor should evaluate manuscripts for intellectual content regardless of the nationality, religious or political beliefs, gender or other characteristics of the authors, origins of a manuscript or by commercial considerations. The editor will not disclose any information about a manuscript under consideration to anyone other than the author(s), reviewers and potential reviewers.

The editor as well as editorial board members must not disclose any information about a submitted manuscript to anyone other than the corresponding author, reviewer(s), and the publisher.

 

Hazards

If the work involves chemicals, procedures or equipment that have any unusual hazards inherent in their use, the authors must clearly identify these in the manuscript.