Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement

Anuac has aligned with the ethos and guidelines developed by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) for dealing with ethical issues in journal publishing. The Editor-in-Chief, the Managing Editor and the Executive Board have adopted the COPE-guidelines in order to take all possible measures against malpractice and ensure best practices in publication ethics. Publication ethics and best practices to prevent malpractices are implemented with the regard to the editorial team, authors and peer-reviewers.

1.) Duties of the editorial team

Ethical processes of decision-making

The Editor-in-Chief of ANUAC is responsible for deciding which of the articles submitted to the journal should be published. The Editor-in-Chief is guided in reaching his decision referees’ reports and may confer with other editors or reviewers in making this decision. He is also guided by the journal’s policies and constrained by such legal requirements as shall then be in force regarding libel, copyright infringement and plagiarism. The Editor-in-Chief and the Editorial Team ensure that manuscripts are evaluated for their intellectual content only without regard to race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, citizenship, ethnic origin, or political philosophy of the authors.

Confidentiality

All manuscripts submitted for peer-review are kept strictly confidential. The Editor-in-Chief, any member of the Editorial Team or any external reviewer must not disclose any information about a submitted manuscript to anyone other than the corresponding author, reviewers, potential reviewers, other editorial advisers, as appropriate. At no time will editors or reviewers utilize submitted materials without the consent of the authors.

Dealing with fundamental errors

When a substantial error or inaccuracy has been discovered in a published work (with or without the author notifying it), the Editorial Team will cooperate with the author to withdraw or correct the paper accordingly. If appropriate, the editors will correct the published material and include a dated erratum.

2.) Duties of authors

Multiple submissions

Authors are asked to guarantee that submitted manuscripts have not been published elsewhere, are not currently under review elsewhere, and have been submitted with the full knowledge of their institutional home.

Plagiarism, originality and acknowledgement of sources

The authors must ensure that they have written entirely original works, and if the authors have used the work and/or words of others that this has been appropriately cited or quoted. 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. Any manuscripts that do not meet originality requirements will be rejected promptly.

Authorship and fundamental errors in published works

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. The corresponding author should ensure that all appropriate co-authors are included on the paper, and that all co-authors have seen and approved the final version of the paper and have agreed to its submission for publication. When a significant error or inaccuracy is discovered in a published work, the Editorial Team will cooperate with the editor to retract or correct the paper, as appropriate.

Copyright

Authors are asked to agree the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International Copyright Notice, if the submission is published by this journal.

3.) Duties of reviewers

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 editors.

Standards of objectivity and 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. Reviews should be conducted objectively. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate. Referees should express their views clearly with supporting arguments.

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.

Disclosure and conflict of interest

Privileged information 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.