Publication Ethics

Ethical standards are crucial to guarantee high quality of scientific distributions, credibility of scientific findings, and the respective authors duly receive credit for their work. Scholix Scholarly Open Access has several policies set up to assurance high ethical standards. These guidelines could be seen in the General Terms, the General Obligations for Editors, the General Obligations for Authors and the General Obligations for Reviewers.

In addition to these rules, Scholix Scholarly Open Access prescribes the Code of Conduct and Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors and the Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers developed by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) as best practice.

In addition to different obligations, editors need to guarantee that all manuscripts appropriated by their journal are reviewed for their scientific content without regard to sex, gender, race, religion, citizenship, etc. of the authors. Besides, the editor’s requirement to ensure that any data with respect to manuscripts put together by the authors is kept confidential.

The reviews of submitted manuscripts must be carried out unbiased, and the reviewers ought to express their perspectives plainly with supporting arguments. Moreover, reviewers to be mindful that any data regarding the manuscripts they are reviewing ought to be dealt with as privileged information.

Scholix Scholarly Open Access itself aims to follow the Code of Conduct for Journal Publishers of COPE by

Guaranteeing article autonomy
Respect privacy of almost all stakeholders in the research and publications process.
Ensuring author's copyright and a liberal dissemination license.

Implementation

Keeping in mind the end goal to show PubMed that the journal complies with this policy, the instructions to authors should obviously oblige compliance from the authors. Also, the journal homepage on Scholix ought to list the requirement in an area that can easily be found by readers, not simply by authors. PubMed demands us making the consistence prerequisites evident to readers also, not simply to authors.

In order to consent with the ethical requirements, the following sentences ought to be incorporated in a separate segment of each one article simply before the citation rundown. The segment might be called “Consistence with Ethics Guidelines”. This must be of importance in the guidelines to authors. In order to apply for review by PubMed, you ought to have no less than two issues that follow these necessities.

General Terms

While Scholix Scholarly Open Access welcomes any original scientific work for distribution, we do expect that:

The work submitted for publication has not been distributed in the recent past, with the exception in the form of an abstract or proceedings-type publication (including electronic preprints and talk papers), or as a major aspect of a published thesis or lecture, and it is not under consideration for peer-reviewed publication elsewhere;
Its publication has been affirmed by all author(s) and, implicitly or explicitly, by the responsible authorities and/or the institutes where the work has been completed;
If and when the manuscript is accepted for peer-reviewed distribution, it may be re-utilized under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License but not yet submitted for peer-reviewed publication elsewhere;
The authors have obtained the right to reproduce any material in his/her/their work that has as of recently been published elsewhere;
The authors concur and obeyed with the License and Copyright Agreement;
The authors concur with the Article Processing Charges legitimate on the date of manuscript submission;
The authors agree and have complied with the General Obligations for Authors;
The authors are aware that discussion papers remain always archived, citable and accessible;
With respect to the assessment of manuscripts, the editors and the referees will follow their guidelines as compressed in the Guidelines for Editors and in the Guidelines for Reviewers;
The publication board reserves the right to remove referee reports and whatever viable remarks assuming that they hold individual abuse;
The utilization of general descriptive names, trademarks, trade names, and so forth, in the articles of this journal, regardless of the fact that not particularly recognized, does not imply that these names are not secured by the applicable laws and regulations;
While the advice and data in this journal is accepted to be accurate and precise at the date each one article is distributed, none of these, the authors, the editors, nor Scholix Scholarly Open Access can accept any legal legitimate obligation regarding any failures or exclusions that may be made. Scholix makes no guarantee, expressed or implied, as for the material held.

A guide for Editors-in-Chief, Associate Editors and Managing Editors

Scholix Scholarly Open Access provides handy direction to Journal Editors; Society & Publishing Partners which aides deal with the repercussions possibly emerging from distributed work which could be in breach with the codes of conduct. Researchers ought to direct their research from research proposal to publication in accordance with best practices and sets of accepted rules of professional bodies and/or national and international regulatory bodies. In uncommon cases, it is conceivable that ethical issues or misconduct could be experienced in your journal when research is submitted for publication.

Developing a Distributing Ethics Policy for your Journal

Practically every venture in the publishing methodology includes important ethical principles. Having clear proclamations on these issues can energize dependable publication practices. COPE has composed rules that might be used to review your journal keeping in mind the end goal to characterize which of the courses of action and practices oblige consideration; An acceptable portrayal of ethical principles will help oversee author expectations and will help oversee circumstances that may emerge if these statements have not been adhered to by authors.

Clear guidelines on compliance of the work:

That the work has not been published before (with the exception of in the form of an abstract or as a feature of a published lecture, thesis or review).
That the work is not under survey somewhere else.
That copyright has not been breached in looking for its publication.
That the publication has been approved by all co-authors and capable powers at the institute or association where the work has been carried out.

What type of content is or is not adequate for publication:

Translations of formerly distributed articles are not adequate
Extended versions of conference proceedings are adequate

Guidelines on what constitutes authorship and how proposed changes to authorship are took care of in spite of the fact that there is no general meaning of what constitutes authorship it is by and large accepted that authors ought to be distinguished by the research group as having contributed sufficiently to the logical work, who are responsible as far as concerns them of the work, and who basically surveyed and affirmed the last composition. Criteria: Drafting, Reviewing, Authoring and Approving. Description of the peer review process: Peer review is essential in guaranteeing the integrity of the scientific publication process and can hail potential offense at an early stage. Ethical issues and what to do when you are experiencing conceivable misconduct? It ought to be noted that there are two notable circumstances: genuine experimental misrepresentation or errors. Errors could be due to negligence (for example statistical errors) or fair failures which are part of the ordinary course of doing research. It is subsequently critical to treat potential cases with care as academic careers could be at risk.

Ethical Issues

Six fundamental ethical issues have been characterized, and techniques for responding to misconduct have been outlined. It would be ideal if you note that these rules are not expected to give or substitute lawful counsel. Each ethical issue is emulated by recommended actions as exhorted by COPE for Journal Editors and when accessible, extra reading has been included. For follow-up actions by Scholix Scholarly Open Access on the best way to the literature upon discovery of misconduct or changes to articles that influence the interpretation and conclusion of the article, yet do not fully invalidate the article after publication

Editor Responsibilities

Publication decision
Fair play
Confidentiality
Disclosure and Conflicts of interest
Involvement and collaboration in investigations

Reviewers Responsibilities

Contribution to Editorial Decision
Promptness
Confidentiality
Standards of Objectivity
Acknowledgement of Source
Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest

Authors Responsibilities

Reporting standards
Data Access and Retention
Originality and Plagiarism
Multiple, Redundant or Concurrent Publication
Acknowledgement of Sources
Authorship of the Paper
Hazards and Human or Animal Subjects
Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest
Fundamental errors in published works

Publisher Responsibilities

We are focused on guaranteeing that reprint, advertising or other commercial revenue has no effect or impact on editorial decisions. In addition, Scholix will support in interchanges with other journals where this is useful to editors. Finally, we are working nearly with different publishers and industry associations to set benchmarks for best practices on ethical matters, errors lapses and withdrawals and are prepared to provide particular legal review and advice if important.