Research and Knowledge is a peer reviewed journal that selects and publishes high quality research. To enable this it is important that the peer review and publication process be thorough, objective and fair.
A journal’s reputation is gained and maintained by all stakeholders believing in the clarity and fairness of the peer review and publication process. This trust in the process can be enhanced by the journal having a formal code of ethics that clearly states the behaviour required of the authors, editors and reviewers. Therefore, the following “Code of Ethics” is a comprehensive policy for the peer review and publication process undertaken by Research and Knowledge.
The guidelines in the following code should be studied by all Research and Knowledge authors, editors and reviews as they will ensure that ethical considerations are met during the publication process. Any questions should be sent to the Research and Knowledge Editor, firstname.lastname@example.org. The “Code of Ethics” applies to all manuscripts submitted to Research and Knowledge from 1st January 2015, and changes may be applied at any time by the editor.
RESEARCH AND KNOWLEDGE CODE OF ETHICS FOR AUTHORS
All work submitted to Research and Knowledge must be original and completed by the submitting author.
Work must not be submitted simultaneously to two places, in whole or in part. The work should not be submitted elsewhere at the same time as it is under review with Research and Knowledge. In addition, an author should not use the same data to write two manuscripts. Each manuscript should be unique.
The manuscript and the work it is based on should not have been published or be in the process of being published elsewhere. This applies to the whole manuscript or parts of it, and in any language.
Any material in the manuscript that has been published previously or is being considered for publication as part of another manuscript should be fully cited. In addition, Research and Knowledge must be informed about the information and a copy of the other manuscript sent to the Editor if requested.
Any of the author’s work or ideas that have been previously published must be cited, and where sections of the manuscript are identical they must be placed in quotation marks with an appropriate citation.
While it is important for authors to cite their own previous work where ideas are shared, they should not cite solely to inflate their own citation count.
Authors should not resubmit a manuscript to Research and Knowledge once it has been rejected via the peer review process. If significant new work has been added to the manuscript it might be suitable for reconsideration, and the editor should be contacted to determine if this is a possibility. The significant improvements should be clearly stated for the Editor’s consideration. A second submission will only be allowed in rare circumstances.
There should be no plagiarism or falsification in the manuscript.
There are many types of plagiarism that range from “passing off” of another complete paper as the author’s own to copying or paraphrasing large parts of another paper without a citation to the original, to also publishing and therefore claiming the work done by others. All ideas and work that come from other people should be cited by the authors, no matter the source of the other work, be it published, unpublished or available electronically. Any form of plagiarism is unacceptable.
Any portion of the text (sentences or paragraphs) that is identical to another work should be placed in quotation marks and fully cited by the author.
When cases of major plagiarism are detected the editor will reject the manuscript and the authors may be prohibited from publishing in Research and Knowledge, either permanently or for a period of time. Where the plagiarism is considered to be minor, the authors will be asked to rewrite the problem areas and cite the original source.
Plagiarism cases will be considered on a case-by-case basis by Research and Knowledge.
A single-blind review process is used by Research and Knowledge, in which the authors are not aware of the reviewers’ names. This process should be respected by both parties. The reviewers should not do anything that would reveal themselves to the authors and they should not contact the authors. All correspondence should go through the editor. The authors should not try to identify the reviewers and should not try to contact them.
Any manuscript that is likely to be submitted, is submitted or that has been submitted to Research and Knowledge should not be posted online where the Reviewer might be able to find it.
The authors are responsible for everything submitted to Research and Knowledge. The findings from the work should be fully reported, even if they contradict the expected outcomes.
It is the author’s responsibility to inform the editor if they discover a mistake or inaccuracy in the published work. If any mistakes are found by the publisher or third party, then the author should retract the manuscript, correct the manuscript or provide evidence supporting the original work.
Anyone who is listed as a co-author should have made a significant contribution to the work presented in the manuscript and be responsible for the accuracy of the results. The credit for the work should be in proportion to the work performed. Others who helped with the work but are not authors should be included in the Acknowledgments section.
The consent for publication from all co-authors should have been obtained by the corresponding author before submitting the manuscript to Research and Knowledge.
It is the authors responsibility to ensure that manuscripts do not breach copyright laws and to make sure that any permissions required to comply with copyright laws are obtained.
The language used in the manuscript should not be denigrating to ethnic or other groups. Also use plural instead of single pronouns (“they” as opposed to “he/she”).
When revisions are requested to a manuscript, the authors must complete them promptly and inform the Research and Knowledge editor if they are unable to meet the required deadline. This will enable the editor to determine if an extension to the deadline should be given or the manuscript should be rejected.
At publication, the copyright to all articles will be owned by Research and Knowledge.
RESEARCH AND KNOWLEDGE CODE OF ETHICS FOR EDITORS
The editor is expected to be editorially independent and to enable the authors to have editorial freedom. It is the responsibility of the editors to determine whether a manuscript should be rejected or accepted. To do this they will use the advice of the reviewers, but for manuscripts that are clearly not suitable they may reject them with no review.
Editors should ensure that they act in an unbiased and prompt manner while dealing with the confidential information they will receive. They should interact with authors in a constructive and sensitive way. A manuscript should be accepted or rejected based solely on its academic properties: editors should not let their personal ideology interfere in their work.
The only people that should receive information about a manuscript are the reviewer or authors, and the editor or their assistants and they should not disclose any information to anyone else. There should be procedures to maintain confidentiality. The single-blind review process should be maintained at all times. The editor can only release the reviewers’ identity if they have specifically given permission for this to happen.
It is the Editor’s responsibility to make sure that reviews are checked for quality on a regular basis. It is possible for the editor to modify a review before sending it to the author if it was not constructive, appropriate or the Reviewer had revealed themselves. The Research and Knowledge Editor should review performance characteristics and review quality to ensure the Journal has optimal performance.
When the editor is given information from the Reviewers that a manuscript is wrong they should inform the author as soon as possible. If the manuscript has already been published when the Editor receives this information then they should publish an appropriate correction, retraction, expression of concern or other note.
The editor should ensure that all reviews are conducted in a timely manner and that authors are informed of the decision as soon as it has been made. All author queries should be answered promptly.
The ultimate authority for Research and Knowledge lies with the editor. However, the editor should respect the Journal’s individual parts (Readers, authors, reviewers, editors, editorial staff and publisher), work to ensure the Journal’s contents are honest and produced with integrity and also continue to improve the quality of the Journal. It is the editor’s responsibility to form the editorial team, which will include an editorial review board, state the member’s rights and responsibilities and ensure that their performance is at a suitable level.
RESEARCH AND KNOWLEDGE CODE OF ETHICS FOR REVIEWERS
Reviewing for journals should be considered a professional activity that is the responsibility of all scientists. Authors who submit a manuscript to Research and Knowledge are expected to accept invitations from the journal to review other manuscripts.
Right of Refusal:
While authors are expected to accept invitations to review manuscripts there are situations where refusing to is acceptable. A situation like this would be where the reviewer is not qualified to judge the manuscript. In addition, when there is a conflict of interest or if they have reviewed the manuscript previously, the Reviewer should refuse.
As there is a single-blind review process in place for Research and Knowledge, and Reviewers should refuse to review a manuscript where they have had contact with the author and provided advice previously. In addition, it is the reviewers’ responsibility to not do anything within the review process that might identify them to the authors.
Conflict of Interest:
When there is a conflict of interest (from collaborative, financial, institutional, personal or other relationships) the Reviewer should refuse to review the manuscript. If there is a possible conflict of interest then the reviewer should inform the editor and the editor will determine if the reviewer should continue.
Reviewers should be unbiased when reviewing a manuscript and not let their personal feelings affect their judgments so that they are able to review it objectively and fairly.
The review process is confidential and this should be respected by the reviewers. The reviewers should not talk to or consult anyone other than the editor about the manuscript. They should not discuss anything about the manuscript unless they obtain the specific permission of the editor. If misconduct is suspected, then the reviewer should contact the editor and not discuss their concerns with anyone else. It is the editor’s responsibility to deal with the misconduct allegation. The reviewer should not act further unless officially notified by the journal.
The review written by the reviewer should be based their academic judgment of the manuscript’s contents. When writing the review the reviewers should be clear with the authors about their concerns related to the manuscript and they should explain their judgements about the manuscript. The reviewers should explain in suitable detail to the authors why they made their recommendation to the editor. What is said to the authors and editor should be similar, there should not be different information or tone used between what is said to the authors and editor.
The timeliness of the review process is important, and the reviewers should provide prompt reviews. If a reviewer is not able to meet the review deadline they should inform the editor who will decide if an extension should be given or a new reviewer identified.