|
COPE
(Committee on Publication Ethics)
Journal of Information Management abides by COPE
standards (see: http://www.publicationethics.org/
). COPE provides advice to editors and publishers on all aspects
of publication ethics and, in particular, how to handle cases of research
and publication misconduct. This means that Journal of Information
Management adheres to high ethical standards in publishing.
Below is the statement of publication ethics for Journal of
Information Management.
Publication Ethics
Journal of Information Management is dedicated
to publish high-quality academic research papers with ethical standards and
forbids any violation regarding publication. Being concerned with this ethical
issue, we declare the following ethical publication standards and
retraction outlined for authors, the journal editorial board and the
publisher respectively.
1. Duties of Authors
1.1.
Reporting Standards
Authors of reports of original research should present an accurate account
of the work performed as well as an objective discussion of its
significance. Underlying data should be represented accurately in the
paper. A paper should contain sufficient detail and references to permit
others to replicate the work. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements
constitute unethical behavior and are unacceptable. Review and professional
publication articles should also be accurate and objective, and editorial
'opinion' works should be clearly identified as such.
1.2.
Data Access and Retention
Authors may be asked to provide the raw data in connection with a paper for
editorial review, and should in any event be prepared to retain such data
for a reasonable time after publication.
1.3.
Originality and Plagiarism
The authors should ensure that they have written entirely original works,
and the work and/or words of others must be cited or quoted according to
the publication guidelines. Plagiarism takes many forms, from 'passing off'
another's paper as the author's own paper, to copying or paraphrasing
substantial parts of another's paper (without attribution), to claiming
results from research conducted by others. Plagiarism in all its forms
constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable.
1.4.
Multiple, Redundant or Concurrent Publication
An author should not in general publish manuscripts describing essentially
the same research in more than one journal or primary publication.
Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal concurrently
constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable. In general,
an author should not submit for consideration in another journal a
previously published paper.
1.5.
Acknowledgement of Sources
Proper acknowledgment of the work of others must always be given. Authors
should cite publications that have been influential in determining the
nature of the reported work. Information obtained privately, as in
conversation, correspondence, or discussion with third parties, must not be
used or reported without explicit, written permission from the source.
Information obtained in the course of confidential services, such as
refereeing manuscripts or grant applications, must not be used without the
explicit written permission of the author of the work involved in these
services.
1.6.
Authorship of the Paper
Authorship should be limited to those who have made a significant
contribution to the conception, design, execution, or interpretation of the
reported study. All those who have made significant contributions should be
listed as co-authors. Where there are others who have participated in
certain substantive aspects of the research project, they should be
acknowledged or listed as contributors. The corresponding author should
ensure that all co-authors have seen and approved the final version of the
paper and have agreed to its submission for publication.
1.7.
Hazards and Human or Animal Subjects
If the work involves chemicals, procedures or equipment that have any
unusual hazards inherent in their use, the author must clearly identify
these in the manuscript. If the work involves the use of animal or human
subjects, the author should ensure that the manuscript contains a statement
that all procedures were performed in compliance with relevant laws and
institutional guidelines and that the appropriate institutional
committee(s) has approved them. Authors should include a statement in the
manuscript that informed consent was obtained for experimentation with
human subjects. The privacy rights of human subjects must always be
observed.
1.8.
Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest
All authors should disclose in their manuscript any financial or other substantive
conflict of interest that might be construed to influence the results or
interpretation of their manuscript. All sources of financial support for
the project should be disclosed. Examples of potential conflicts of
interest which should be disclosed include employment, consultancy, stock
ownership, honoraria, paid expert testimony, patent
applications/registrations, and grants or other funding. Potential
conflicts of interest should be disclosed at the earliest stage possible.
1.9.
Fundamental Errors in Published Works
When an author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in his/her own
published work, it is the author's obligation to promptly notify the
journal editor or publisher and cooperate with the editor to retract or
correct the paper. If the editor or the publisher learns from a third party
that a published work contains a significant error, it is the obligation of
the author to promptly retract or correct the paper or provide evidence to
the editor of the correctness of the original paper.
2. Duties of Editors
2.1.
Publication Decisions
The editor of a peer-reviewed journal is responsible for deciding which of
the articles submitted to the journal should be published, often working in
conjunction with the relevant society (for society-owned or sponsored
journals). The validation of the work in question and its importance to
researchers and readers must always drive such decisions. The editor may be
guided by the policies of the journal's editorial board and constrained by
such legal requirements as shall then be in force regarding libel,
copyright infringement and plagiarism. The editor may confer with other
editors or reviewers (or society officers) in making this decision.
2.2.
Fair Play
An editor should evaluate manuscripts for their intellectual content
without regard to race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief,
ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy of the authors.
2.3.
Confidentiality
The editor and any editorial staff must not disclose any information about
a submitted manuscript to anyone other than the corresponding author,
reviewers, potential reviewers, other editorial advisers, and the
publisher, as appropriate.
2.4.
Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest
Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used
in an editor's own research without the express written consent of the
author. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must
be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage. Editors should
recues themselves (i.e. should ask a co-editor, associate editor or other
member of the editorial board instead to review and consider) from
considering manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting
from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with
any of the authors, companies, or (possibly) institutions connected to the
papers. Editors should require all contributors to disclose relevant
competing interests and publish corrections if competing interests are
revealed after publication. If needed, other appropriate action should be
taken, such as the publication of a retraction or expression of concern. It
should be ensured that the peer-review process for sponsored supplements is
the same as that used for the main journal. Items in sponsored supplements
should be accepted solely on the basis of academic merit and interest to
readers and not be influenced by commercial considerations. Non-peer
reviewed sections of their journal should be clearly identified.
2.5.
Involvement and Cooperation in Investigations
An editor should take reasonably responsive measures when ethical
complaints have been presented concerning a submitted manuscript or
published paper, in conjunction with the publisher (or society). Such measures
will generally include contacting the author of the manuscript or paper and
giving due consideration of the respective complaint or claims made, but
may also include further communications to the relevant institutions and
research bodies, and if the complaint is upheld, the publication of a
correction, retraction, expression of concern, or other note, as may be
relevant. Every reported act of unethical publishing behavior must be
looked into, even if it is discovered years after publication. For editors
who require details on recommended actions for particular types of ethics
complaints, carefully review the Publishing Ethics Resource Kit (PERK),
http://www.elsevier.com/editors/perk.
3. Duties of Reviewers
3.1.
Contribution to Editorial Decisions
Peer review assists the editor in making editorial decisions and through
the editorial communications with the author may also assist the author in
improving the paper. Peer review is an essential component of formal
scholarly communication, and lies at the heart of the scientific method.
The KODISA Journals shares the view of many that all scholars who wish to
contribute to publications have an obligation to do a fair share of
reviewing.
3.2.
Promptness
Any selected referee who feels unqualified to review the research reported
in a manuscript or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should
notify the editor and excuse himself from the review process.
3.3.
Confidentiality
Any manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential
documents. They must not be shown to or discussed with others except as
authorized by the editor.
3.4.
Standards of Objectivity
Reviews should be conducted objectively. Personal criticism of the author
is inappropriate. Referees should express their views clearly with
supporting arguments.
3.5.
Acknowledgement of Sources
Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited
by the authors. Any statement that an observation, derivation, or argument
had been previously reported should be accompanied by the relevant
citation. A reviewer should also call to the editor's attention any
substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under
consideration and any other published paper of which they have personal
knowledge.
3.6.
Disclosure and Conflict of Interest
Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used
in a reviewer's own research without the express written consent of the
author. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must
be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage. Reviewers should
not consider manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting
from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with
any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers.
For Publisher:
1.
Any direct marketing activities that the publisher engages in shall be
appropriate and unobtrusive;
2.
The authors' information shown in the Journal of Information Management Website
demonstrates that care has been taken to ensure high standards of
presentation;
3.
Information about the management of Journal of Information Management journal
shall be clearly indicated on the Website;
4.
Publishers shall not use organizational names that would mislead potential
authors and editors about the nature of the journal's owner.
|
