| |
|
|
| |
MATRIX ROM Publishing House is committed to upholding standards of ethical behavior at all stages of the publication process
1. For editors, reviewers, authors and publisher, ethical responsibilities are mentioned below
1.1.Editors responsibilities
- To act objectively in fulfilling its tasks without discrimination on grounds of gender, sexual orientation, religious or political beliefs, ethnic or geographical origin of the authors.
- Articles are considered and accepted solely on their academic merit and without commercial influence.
- Use reasonable procedures for complaints of ethical or conflict nature, providing the authors with a response to any complaints, regardless of when the original publication was approved.
1.2.Reviewers responsibilities
- Ensure an objective review of the manuscript, within a reasonable time, thus contributing to decision process and improving the quality of the proposed paper for publication.
- To maintain the confidentiality of any information supplied by the editor or author and to not retain or copy the manuscript.
- To report the plagiarism (including self-plagiarism), providing sufficient proof in this regard. Plagiarism is defined as reproduction of ideas or a whole text of someone else's without indicating the source citation system.
- Reviewers must inform the Executive Editor if you are not able to examine an article, it's not their competence to evaluate it or it comes down to a conflict of interest (financial, institutional, collaborative or other relationships between the reviewer and author). Otherwise, they need to complete the review process by submitting an evaluation form. No other means of communication cannot replace the evaluation form. In the absence of such a document, evaluation is assigned to another reviewer.
1.3.Authors responsibilities
- Submission of an article implies that the article has not been published and is not being considered for publication by another journal. If portions of content overlap with published or sent content, they must recognize and quote these sources.
- Submission of an article implies that the study described in the article is original and accuracy and does not infringe copyright. In the situations that are required, the author must recognize and cite the content reproduced from other sources, after having previously obtained permission to reproduce the required content from other sources.
- Authors must maintain accurate records of data associated with their submitted manuscript and to provide access to these data, on reasonable request.
- If there are more authors, article content is known and approved by all the authors who contributed to the writing of the article and/or the carrying out of the research described in this paper.
- Author of a paper is assigned only to those who effectively contributes to the writing of the work or the carrying out of the research described in this paper.
- Authors must notify all Grant information, in case the research is financed.
- To declare potential conflicts of interest that may unnecessarily influence any stage in the publication process.
- To notify promptly the Editorial Board if a significant error in their publication is identified. To cooperate with the Editorial Board and the publisher to publish an erratum, addendum, corrigendum notice, or to retract the paper, where this is deemed necessary.
1.4.Publisher responsibilities
- MATRIX ROM shall ensure that good practice is maintained to the standards outlined above.
- If Editorial Board detect, after publication, that a work include plagiarism, the publisher will remove the article from the publication.
2. Description of the process of peer-review evaluation
- The evaluation process is peer-review (scientific quality assessment by members of the Editorial Board) in double-blind method, until the article is published.
- The first check will be made by the Executive Editor. In case of failure to comply with the guidelines or are notified major problems, the article will be immediately rejected and the author informed about the causes of rejection.
- Articles successfully passing this stage will be examined by two members of the Editorial Board; they will receive a copy of the article that do not contain the name and surname of the author or other identifiers (e.g. name of grant funding).
- If between the two reviewers are minor differences regarding the quality of the article, the decision is taken by the Executive Editor on the basis of the importance of the work and according to the editorial policy. If their opinions differ substantially, will be contacted a third reviewer.
- If requesting for a re-evaluation, the author must submit, in addition to the revised manuscript, an anonymous letter showing the modifications made or motivation refusal to address them.
- In the next phase, the reviewers will be required to verify that their suggestions were addressed properly.
- The rejected works will not be returned to the author, but he will be informed about the decision of the publisher.
3. Actions and procedure for non-ethical behavior
- Non-ethical behavior may be identified and brought to the attention of the editor and publisher at any time, by anyone
- Conclusions on non-ethical behavior will be drawn based on the information and evidence available for investigation.
- Minor deviations from non-ethical behavior can be treated without extensive analysis, but the author must be able to respond to accusations.
- Serious deviations from non-ethical behavior need both the author's opinion and the consultation of experts.
- For non-ethical behavior, the Editorial Board together with the Executive Editor can take the following types of measures, depending on the severity of the situation:
- Informing the author / reviewer that in the article elaborate / reviewed by him is a misunderstanding or misapplication of acceptable standards
- Information as at the previous point, but also accompanied by a warning for future behaviors
- Publication of a formal notice detailing the misconduct or if the situation so requires, publication of an editorial detailing the misconduct
- Formal retraction of an article from the journal, in conjunction with informing the reviewer's, Abstracting & Indexing services and the readership of the publication
- Imposition of a formal embargo on contributions from an author or reviewer for a defined period.
|
|
|
|
|
Romana
