Assiut Scientific Nursing Journal

Publication Ethics

Publishing aspect and Ethics

The publication of an article in a peer-reviewed journal is an essential building block in the development of a coherent and respected network of knowledge. It is a direct reflection of the quality of the work of the authors and the institutions that support them. Peer-reviewed articles support and embody the scientific method. It is important to declare:

That your manuscript is not published elsewhere
Any conflicts of interest
The appropriate acknowledgements made in the manuscript
The appropriate funding statements in the manuscript
Show informed consent and provide assurances that participants’ rights are protected
The editors take reasonable steps to identify and prevent the publication of papers where research misconduct has occurred
In the event that Assiut Scientific Nursing Journal and its editors are made aware of any allegation of research misconduct the publisher or editor shall deal with allegations appropriately.
The Assiut scientific nursing journal has guidelines for retracting or correcting articles.

Editors should consider retracting a publication if:

They have clear evidence that the findings are unreliable, either as a result of major error (eg, miscalculation or experimental error), or as a result of fabrication (eg, of data) or falsification (eg, image manipulation)
It constitutes plagiarism
The findings have previously been published elsewhere without proper attribution to previous sources or disclosure to the editor, permission to republish, or justification (ie, cases of redundant publication)
It contains material or data without authorisation for use
Copyright has been infringed or there is some other serious legal issue (eg, libel, privacy)
It reports unethical research
It has been published solely on the basis of a compromised or manipulated peer review process
The author(s) failed to disclose a major competing interest (a.k.a. conflict of interest) that, in the view of the editor, would have unduly affected interpretations of the work or recommendations by editors and peer reviewers.

Notices of retraction should:

Be linked to the retracted article wherever possible (ie, in all online versions)
Clearly identify the retracted article (eg, by including the title and authors in the retraction heading or citing the retracted article)
Be clearly identified as a retraction (ie, distinct from other types of correction or comment)
Be published promptly to minimise harmful effects
Be freely available to all readers (ie, not behind access barriers or available only to subscribers)
State who is retracting the article
State the reason(s) for retraction
Be objective, factual and avoid inflammatory language

Authors' relationships

Editors should take all possible steps to ensure that the content they publish is of high quality, keeping in mind that different journals and sections within journals will have varied goals and requirements.
Editors' judgments on whether or not to accept or reject an article for publication should be based only on the significance, originality, and quality of the paper, and clarity, and the study’s relevance to the remit of the journal.
Editors should be prepared to justify any significant variation from the described peer review processes, which should be published.
Authors should be able to appeal Editorial decisions through a clearly stated method in journals.
Editors should provide authors with detailed instructions on what is expected of them. This advice should be updated on a regular basis, and it should refer to or link to other resources.
Editors should not change acceptance decisions until major flaws in the material are discovered.
Unless substantial flaws are uncovered, new Editors should not override previous Editors' decisions to publish submissions.

Reviewer relationships

Editors should provide reviewers with detailed instructions on everything that is required of them. This advice should be followed on a regular basis..
Editors should have systems to ensure that peer reviewers’ identities are protected — unless they have an open review system that is declared to authors and reviewers.

The peer-review process

Editors should have systems to ensure that material submitted to their journal remains confidential while under review.

Complaints

Editors should follow the procedure set out in the COPE flowchart.
Editors should respond promptly to complaints and should ensure there is a way for dissatisfied complainants to take complaints further. This mechanism should be made clear in the journal and should include information on how to refer unresolved matters to COPE.

Encouraging debate

Cogent criticisms of published work should be published unless Editors have convincing reasons why they cannot be.
Authors of criticized material should be given the opportunity to respond.
Studies that challenge previous work published in the journal should be given an especially sympathetic hearing.
Studies reporting negative results should not be excluded.

Encouraging academic integrity

Editors should ensure that research material they publish conforms to internationally accepted ethical guidelines.
Editors should seek assurances that all research has been approved by an appropriate body (e.g. research ethics committee, institutional review board). However, Editors should recognize that such approval does not guarantee that the research is ethical.

Protecting individual data

Editors should protect the confidentiality of individual information (e.g. that obtained through the doctor–patient relationship). It is therefore almost always necessary to obtain written informed consent from patients described in case reports and for photographs of patients. It may be possible to publish without explicit consent if the report is important to public health (or is in some other way important); consent would be unusually burdensome to obtain; and a reasonable individual would be unlikely to object to publication (all three conditions must be met).

Pursuing misconduct

Editors have a duty to act if they suspect misconduct. This duty extends to both published and unpublished papers.
Editors should not simply reject papers that raise concerns about possible misconduct. They are ethically obliged to pursue alleged cases.
Editors should first seek a response from those accused. If they are not satisfied with the response, they should ask the relevant employers or some appropriate body (perhaps a regulatory body) to investigate.
Editors should follow the COPE flowcharts where applicable (link to flowcharts).
Editors should make all reasonable efforts to ensure that a proper investigation is conducted; if this does not happen,
Editors should make all reasonable attempts to persist in obtaining a resolution to the problem. This is an onerous but important duty.

Ensuring the integrity of the academic record

Whenever it is recognized that a significant inaccuracy, misleading statement or distorted report has been published, it must be corrected promptly and with due prominence.
If, after an appropriate investigation, an item proves to be fraudulent, it should be retracted. The retraction should be clearly identifiable to readers and indexing systems.

Peer-review

- Peer-review is defined as obtaining advice on individual manuscripts from reviewers’ expert in the field

Peer-review is critical because it

Improves the quality of the published paper
Ensures previous work is acknowledged
Determines the importance of findings
Detects plagiarism and fraud
Plays a central role in academic career development

The principles of peer review

Judgments should be objective
Reviewers should have no conflict of interest
Reviewed articles should be treated confidentially prior to their publication
It is a well understood concept
Without it there is no control in scientific communication
Journal editors evaluate and reject certain articles prior to external peer review: a good reviewer?
Provides a thorough and comprehensive report
Submits the report on time
Provides well-founded comments for authors
Gives constructive criticism
Demonstrates objectivity
Provides a clear recommendation to the editor

Types of peer review


Single blind	Author doesn't know the identity of the reviewer.
Double blind	Reviewer doesn't know the identity of the author, and vice-versa.
Open Peer review	The identity of the author and the reviewer is known by all participants, during or after the review process.
Transparent Peer review	Review report is posted with the published article. Reviewer can choose if they want to share their identity.
Collaborative	Two or more reviewers work together to submit a unified report. OR Author revises manuscript under the supervision of one or more reviewers.
Post publication	Review solicited or unsolicited, of a published paper. Does not exclude other forms of peer review.

Single blind review

In this type of peer review the author does not know who the reviewers are. This is the most common form of peer review among science journals.

Pros

The anonymity allows the reviewer to be honest without fear of criticism from an author
Knowing who the author is (and their affiliation) allows the reviewer to use their knowledge of the author's previous research

Cons

Knowledge of the author may overshadow the quality of the work - potentially leading to a lack of scrutiny, especially if it's the work of an author with a dazzling track record
There is the potential for discrimination based on gender or nationality. Discrimination based on non-scientific criteria is clearly unacceptable, but in the case of perceived discrimination on the basis of nationality it is often conflated with discrimination on the basis of bad English. A reviewer might receive too many manuscripts written in bad English from a particular country and might subconsciously develop a particular negative sensitivity to anything from that country. For individual researchers, the best way to rule out this kind of discrimination is to make sure that your article is written in the best possible English, thereby demonstrating sensitivity for the time and effort that a reviewer will expend on assessing it.

Double blind review

In this type of peer review the reviewers don't know the identity of authors, and vice versa. This is the most common form of peer review amongst social science and humanities journals.

Pros

Research is judged fairly, keeping bias out of the equation
Author and reviewer benefit from some level of protection against criticism

Cons

Anonymity isn't guaranteed, as it could be fairly straightforward to discover the identity of the author (either because of the area of research, the references or the writing style)
Some argue that knowledge of the author's identity helps the reviewer come to a more informed judgement - and that without this the review suffers

Open peer review

The identity of the author and the reviewers are known by all participants. There is a growing minority of journals using this form of peer review but popularity among reviewers is yet to be proven. Some journals may also publish the reviews together with final articles, and so readers see both the identity of the reviewers and their comments. This is only the case, however, with accepted articles.

Pros

The transparency of open peer review encourages accountability and civility, generally improving the overall quality of the review and article
Reviewers are more motivated to do a thorough job since their names and sometimes comments appear as part of the accepted, published article

Cons

Some reviewers might refuse to review for a journal using an open system, due to concerns about being identified as the source of a negative review
Reviewers could be reluctant to criticize the work of more senior researchers - especially if their career depends on them. In smaller research communities and in some regions of the world this could be a significant problem

Transparent peer review

With transparent peer review, peer reviewers’ reports, authors’ responses, and editors’ decision letters are published alongside the accepted articles. This process is still fully compatible with journals using single- or double- blind review during the review process. Authors are given the option to opt-out of transparent peer review during submission.

Collaborative review

This covers a broad variety of approaches in which a team of people work together to undertake the review. One format is to have two or more reviewers work together to review the paper, discuss their opinions and submit a unified report. Another approach is to have one or more reviewers collaborate with the author to improve the paper, until it reaches a publishable standard.

Pros

It can feel more constructive and less restrictive than more traditional approaches to peer review, as it removes the barriers that silo authors and reviewers

Cons

There is a risk of losing the benefit of having two, or more, independent evaluations
Collaboration between authors and reviewers also creates the risk of blurring the distinction between authoring and appraisal

Post publication review

With this type of peer review, the option for appraisal and revision of a paper continues - or occurs - after publication. This may take the form of a comments page or discussion forum alongside the published paper. Crucially, post publication peer review does not exclude other forms of peer review and is usually in addition to, rather than instead of, pre-publication review.

Pros

This approach reflects the evolving nature of knowledge
It gives the opportunity for papers to be corrected or improved

Cons

Revising papers after publication is incompatible with the notion of the version of record, which seems integral to the current model of contextualizing new research through citation of previous literature
Shortcomings and errors within published material have traditionally been addressed through corrections and errata, and through published discussion (e.g. letters to the editor).

Duties of Editors

The editor of the journal is responsible for:

Providing guidelines to authors for preparing and submitting manuscripts
Providing a clear statement of the Journal’s policies on authorship criteria
Establishing and defining policies on conflicts of interest for all involved in the publication process, including editors, authors, and reviewers
Protecting the confidentiality of every author’s work
Establishing a system for effective and rapid peer review.
Describing, implementing, and regularly reviewing policies for handling ethical issues and allegations or findings of misconduct by authors and anyone involved in the peer review process.
Developing mechanisms to ensure timely publication of accepted manuscripts
Clearly communicating all other editorial policies and standards
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.
Reviewers must not share the review or information about the paper with anyone or contact the authors directly without permission from the editor.
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.
A reviewer should be alert to potential ethical issues in the paper and should bring these to the attention of the editor, including any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published paper of which the reviewer has personal knowledge.
uphold the integrity of the journal by identifying invalid research, and helping to maintain the quality of the journal.
Providing written, unbiased, constructive feedback in a timely manner on the scholarly merits and the scientific value of the work, together with the documented basis for the reviewer’s opinion
The authors should 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 and permission has been obtained where necessary.
Proper acknowledgment of the work of others must always be given.
Authorship should be limited to those who have made a significant contribution any part of the study.
The corresponding author should ensure that all appropriate co-authors and no inappropriate 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.
Authors take collective responsibility for the work. Each individual author is accountable for ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved.
All authors should disclose in their manuscript any financial and personal relationships with other people or organizations that could be viewed as inappropriately influencing (bias) their work.

Duties of Reviewers

Duties of Authors

Advertising policy

All advertisements and commercially sponsored publications are independent from editorial decisions. Assiut Scientific Nursing Journal does not endorse any product or service marked as an advertisement or promoted by a sponsor in Assiut Scientific Nursing Journal publications. Editorial content is not compromised by commercial or financial interests, or by any specific arrangements with advertising clients or sponsors.
Assiut Scientific Nursing Journal reserves the right to decline any type of advertising that is inappropriate to the content held on the Assiut Scientific Nursing Journal network.
Assiut Scientific Nursing Journal will not accept advertising for products or services known to be harmful to health (e.g. tobacco and alcohol products).
Advertisements may not be deceptive or misleading, and must be verifiable. Advertisements should clearly identify the advertiser and the product or service being offered. Exaggerated or extravagantly worded copy will not be allowed. Advertisements will not be accepted if they appear to be indecent or offensive in either text or artwork, or if they relate to content of a personal, racial, ethnic, sexual orientation, or religious nature.
Once an advertisement has been deployed online, it will be withdrawn from the journal site at any time if the Editor(s)-in-Chief or Publisher requests its removal.
Advertisements and editorial content must be clearly distinguishable. Assiut Scientific Nursing Journal will not publish “advertorial” content, and sponsored supplements must be clearly indicated as such. If a supplement did not undergo peer review or underwent a peer review-process different from the rest of the journal that should be explicitly stated.
Editorial decisions will not be influenced by current or potential sponsors and advertisers, and will not be influenced by marketing decisions. Advertisers and sponsors have no control or influence over the results of searches a user may conduct on the website by keyword or search topic.

Advertising complaints policy

Please send any complaints about advertising to: asj@nursing.aun.edu.eg

Direct Marketing Policy

Consent and Privacy:

Assiut Scientific Nursing Journal will adhere to applicable data protection and privacy laws, ensuring that all direct marketing activities comply with the requirements for obtaining consent from individuals.
Recipients of direct marketing communications will have the option to unsubscribe or opt-out of receiving further marketing messages.

Transparency and Accuracy:

Direct marketing communications from Assiut Scientific Nursing Journal will clearly identify the sender and provide accurate information about the journal and its offerings.
Any claims or statements made in direct marketing materials will be based on accurate and up-to-date information.

Targeted and Relevant Marketing:

Assiut Scientific Nursing Journal will strive to ensure that direct marketing efforts are targeted and relevant to the recipients.
Marketing communications will be tailored to the interests and preferences of the recipients, taking into account their previous interactions with Assiut Scientific Nursing Journal .

Frequency and Timing:

Assiut Scientific Nursing Journal will manage the frequency and timing of direct marketing communications to avoid excessive or intrusive messaging.
Marketing messages will be sent at appropriate intervals, respecting the recipients' preferences and avoiding any form of harassment.

Compliance with Laws and Regulations:

Assiut Scientific Nursing Journal will comply with all applicable laws and regulations related to direct marketing, including anti-spam regulations and consumer protection laws.
Direct marketing activities will align with the guidelines provided by COPE and other relevant industry standards.

Review and Monitoring:

The direct marketing activities of Assiut Scientific Nursing Journal will be periodically reviewed and monitored to ensure compliance with this policy and relevant regulations.
Any concerns or complaints regarding direct marketing practices should be reported to the Assiut Scientific Nursing Journal editorial office for investigation.

Note: By implementing this Direct Marketing Policy, Assiut Scientific Nursing Journal aims to maintain ethical standards, respect the privacy of individuals, and provide valuable and relevant information to recipients while upholding the principles of COPE.