{"id":5187,"date":"2016-12-21T11:13:14","date_gmt":"2016-12-21T11:13:14","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/lumen.international\/?page_id=5187"},"modified":"2016-12-21T11:13:14","modified_gmt":"2016-12-21T11:13:14","slug":"cope-best-practice-guidelines","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"http:\/\/lumen.international\/ceenashs2017\/ethics-of-publication\/cope-best-practice-guidelines\/","title":{"rendered":"COPE – Best Practice Guidelines"},"content":{"rendered":"

LUMEN, as member of COPE, aims at complying \u00a0with the\u00a0Codes of Conduct and Best Practice Guidelines and in order for our users to be up- to – date regarding the guidelines that COPE is expressing in order to sustain and develop a good practice in editorial processes, we expose some extracts from the\u00a0Code of Conduct and Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors<\/a>, as it follows:<\/p>\n

***<\/strong><\/p>\n

“7. Editorial and peer review processes<\/strong>
\n7.1. Editors should strive to ensure that peer review at their journal is fair, unbiased and timely.
\n7.2. Editors should have systems to ensure that material submitted to their journal remains
\nconfidential while under review.
\nBest practice for editors would include:
\n\u2022 ensuring that people involved with the editorial process (including themselves) receive adequate
\ntraining and keep abreast of the latest guidelines, recommendations and evidence about peer review
\nand journal management
\n\u2022 keeping informed about research into peer review and technological advances
\n\u2022 adopting peer review methods best suited for their journal and the research community it serves
\n\u2022 reviewing peer review practices periodically to see if improvement is possible
\n\u2022 referring troubling cases to COPE, especially when questions arise that are not addressed by the
\nCOPE flowcharts, or new types of publication misconduct are suspected
\n\u2022 considering the appointment of an ombudsperson to adjudicate in complaints that cannot be
\nresolved internally<\/p>\n

8. Quality assurance<\/strong>
\n8.1. Editors should take all reasonable steps to ensure the quality of the material they publish,
\nrecognising that journals and sections within journals will have different aims and standards.
\nBest practice for editors would include:
\n\u2022 having systems in place to detect falsified data (e.g. inappropriately manipulated photographic
\nimages or plagiarised text) either for routine use or when suspicions are raised
\n\u2022 basing decisions about journal house style on relevant evidence of factors that raise the quality of
\nreporting (e.g. adopting structured abstracts, applying guidance such as CONSORT2) rather than
\nsimply on aesthetic grounds or personal preference.<\/p>\n

9. Protecting individual data<\/strong>
\n9.1. Editors must obey laws on confidentiality in their own jurisdiction. Regardless of local statutes,
\nhowever, they should always protect the confidentiality of individual information obtained in
\nthe course of research or professional interactions (e.g. between doctors and patients). It is
\ntherefore almost always necessary to obtain written informed consent for publication from
\npeople who might recognise themselves or be identified by others (e.g. from case reports or
\nphotographs). It may be possible to publish individual information without explicit consent if
\npublic interest considerations outweigh possible harms, it is impossible to obtain consent and a
\nreasonable individual would be unlikely to object to publication.
\nBest practice for editors would include:
\n\u2022 publishing their policy on publishing individual data (e.g. identifiable personal details or images) and
\nexplaining this clearly to authors
\nNote that consent to take part in research or undergo treatment is not the same as consent to publish
\npersonal details, images or quotations.<\/p>\n

10. Encouraging ethical research (e.g. research involving humans or animals)<\/strong>
\n10.1. Editors should endeavour to ensure that research they publish was carried out according to the
\nrelevant internationally accepted guidelines (e.g. the Declaration of Helsinki
\nfor clinical research,the AERA and BERA guidelines for educational research).
\n10.2. Editors should seek assurances that all research has been approved by an appropriate body
\n(e.g. research ethics committee, institutional review board) where one exists. However, editors
\nshould recognise that such approval does not guarantee that the research is ethical.
\nBest practice for editors would include:
\n\u2022 being prepared to request evidence of ethical research approval and to question authors about
\nethical aspects (such as how research participant consent was obtained or what methods were
\nemployed to minimize animal suffering) if concerns are raised or clarifications are needed
\n\u2022 ensuring that reports of clinical trials cite compliance with the Declaration of Helsinki8, Good Clinical
\nPractice
\nand other relevant guidelines to safeguard participants
\n\u2022 ensuring that reports of experiments on, or studies of, animals cite compliance with the US
\nDepartment of Health and Human Services Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals
\nor\u00a0other relevant guidelines
\n\u2022 appointing a journal ethics advisor or panel to advise on specific cases and review journal policies
\nperiodically<\/p>\n

11. Dealing with possible misconduct<\/strong>
\n11.1. Editors have a duty to act if they suspect misconduct or if an allegation of misconduct is brought
\nto them. This duty extends to both published and unpublished papers.
\n11.2. Editors should not simply reject papers that raise concerns about possible misconduct. They are
\nethically obliged to pursue alleged cases.
\n11.3. Editors should follow the COPE flowcharts\u00a0where applicable.
\n11.4. Editors should first seek a response from those suspected of misconduct. If they are not
\nsatisfied with the response, they should ask the relevant employers, or institution, or some
\nappropriate body (perhaps a regulatory body or national research integrity organization) to
\ninvestigate.
\n11.5. Editors should make all reasonable efforts to ensure that a proper investigation into alleged
\nmisconduct is conducted; if this does not happen, editors should make all reasonable attempts
\nto persist in obtaining a resolution to the problem. This is an onerous but important duty.<\/p>\n

12. Ensuring the integrity of the academic record<\/strong>
\n12.1. Errors, inaccurate or misleading statements must be corrected promptly and with due
\nprominence.
\n12.2. Editors should follow the COPE guidelines on retractions
\nBest practice for editors would include:
\n\u2022 taking steps to reduce covert redundant publication (e.g. by requiring all clinical trials to be
\nregistered)
\n\u2022 ensuring that published material is securely archived (e.g. via online permanent repositories, such as
\nPubMed Central)
\n\u2022 having systems in place to give authors the opportunity to make original research articles freely
\navailable.<\/p>\n

13. Intellectual property<\/strong>
\n13.1. Editors should be alert to intellectual property issues and work with their publisher to handle
\npotential breaches of intellectual property laws and conventions.
\nBest practice for editors would include:
\n\u2022 adopting systems for detecting plagiarism (e.g. software, searching for similar titles) in submitted
\nitems (either routinely or when suspicions are raised)
\n\u2022 supporting authors whose copyright has been breached or who have been the victims of plagiarism
\n\u2022 being prepared to work with their publisher to defend authors\u2019 rights and pursue offenders (e.g.
\nby requesting retractions or removal of material from websites) irrespective of whether their journal
\nholds the copyright.<\/p>\n

14. Encouraging debate<\/strong>
\n14.1. Editors should encourage and be willing to consider cogent criticisms of work published in their
\njournal.
\n14.2. Authors of criticised material should be given the opportunity to respond.
\n14.3. Studies reporting negative results should not be excluded.
\nBest practice for editors would include:
\n\u2022 being open to research that challenges previous work published in the journal.<\/p>\n

15. Complaints<\/strong>
\n15.1. Editors should respond promptly to complaints and should ensure there is a way for dissatisfied
\ncomplainants to take complaints further. This mechanism should be made clear in the journal
\nand should include information on how to refer unresolved matters to COPE.
\n15.2. Editors should follow the procedure set out in the COPE flowchart on complaints.<\/p>\n

16. Commercial considerations<\/strong>
\n16.1. Journals should have policies and systems in place to ensure that commercial considerations do
\nnot affect editorial decisions (e.g. advertising departments should operate independently from
\neditorial departments).
\n16.2. Editors should have declared policies on advertising in relation to the content of the journal and
\non processes for publishing sponsored supplements.
\n16.3. Reprints should be published as they appear in the journal unless a correction needs to be
\nincluded in which case it should be clearly identified.
\nBest practice for editors would include:
\n\u2022 publishing a general description of their journal\u2019s income sources (e.g. the proportions received from
\ndisplay advertising, reprint sales, sponsored supplements, page charges, etc.)
\n\u2022 ensuring that the peer review process for sponsored supplements is the same as that used for the
\nmain journal
\n\u2022 ensuring that items in sponsored supplements are accepted solely on the basis of academic merit
\nand interest to readers and decisions about such supplements are not influenced by commercial
\nconsiderations.<\/p>\n

17. Conflicts of interest<\/strong>
\n17.1. Editors should have systems for managing their own conflicts of interest as well as those of their
\nstaff, authors, reviewers and editorial board members.
\n17.2. Journals should have a declared process for handling submissions from the editors, employees
\nor members of the editorial board to ensure unbiased review
\nBest practice for editors would include:
\n\u2022 publishing lists of relevant interests (financial, academic and other kinds) of all editorial staff and
\nmembers of editorial boards (which should be updated at least annually)”<\/p>\n

Source: \u00a0COPE –\u00a0\u00a0Code of Conduct and Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors<\/a>\u00a0available online at\u00a0http:\/\/publicationethics.org\/resources\/code-conduct<\/strong><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

LUMEN, as member of COPE, aims at complying \u00a0with the\u00a0Codes of Conduct and Best Practice Guidelines and in order for our users to be up- to – date <\/span><\/div>\n
Read More<\/a><\/div>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"parent":5184,"menu_order":1,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","template":"","meta":{"footnotes":""},"class_list":["post-5187","page","type-page","status-publish","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/lumen.international\/ceenashs2017\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/5187","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/lumen.international\/ceenashs2017\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/lumen.international\/ceenashs2017\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/page"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/lumen.international\/ceenashs2017\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/lumen.international\/ceenashs2017\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=5187"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"http:\/\/lumen.international\/ceenashs2017\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/5187\/revisions"}],"up":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/lumen.international\/ceenashs2017\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/5184"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/lumen.international\/ceenashs2017\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=5187"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}