Publication Ethics Statement
This journal (from now on SA-IJAS) follows the ethical rules of COPE, Code of Conduct and Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors and the Code of Conduct for Journal Publishers. What follows contains excerpts from the websites of the journal Asia-Pacific Journal of Sports, Medicine, Arthroscopy, Rehabilitation and Technology, and of its publisher, Elsevier.
Duties of Editors and Editorial Board Members
Join as an Editorial Board Member
Join as Editor-in-Chief
Duties of Reviewers
Become a Reviewer
Duties of Authors
Fair play and editorial independence
Editors evaluate submitted manuscripts exclusively on the basis of their academic merit (importance, originality, study’s validity, clarity) and its relevance to the journal’s scope, without regard to the authors’ race, gender, sexual orientation, ethnic origin, citizenship, religious belief, political philosophy or institutional affiliation. Decisions to edit and publish are not determined by the policies of governments or any other agencies outside of the journal itself. The Editor-in-Chief has full authority over the entire editorial content of the journal and the timing of publication of that content.
Confidentiality
Editors and editorial staff will 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. Disclosure and conflicts of interest Editors and editorial board members will not use unpublished information disclosed in a submitted manuscript for their own research purposes without the authors’ explicit written consent. Privileged information or ideas obtained by editors as a result of handling the manuscript will be kept confidential and not used for their personal advantage. Editors will recuse themselves from considering manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships/connections with any of the authors, companies or institutions connected to the papers; instead, they will ask another member of the editorial board to handle the manuscript.
Publication decisions
The editors ensure that all submitted manuscripts being considered for publication undergo peer-review by at least two reviewers who are expert in the field. The Editor-in-Chief is responsible for deciding which of the manuscripts submitted to the journal will be published, based on the validation of the work in question, its importance to researchers and readers, the reviewers’ comments, and such legal requirements as are currently in force regarding libel, copyright infringement and plagiarism. The Editor-in-Chief may confer with other editors or reviewers in making this decision.
Involvement and cooperation in investigations
Editors (in conjunction with the publisher and/or society) will take responsive measures when ethical concerns are raised with regard to a submitted manuscript or published paper. Every reported act of unethical publishing behaviour will be looked into, even if it is discovered years after publication. If, on investigation, the ethical concern is well-founded, a correction, retraction, expression of concern or other note as may be relevant, will be published in the journal.
Join as an Editorial Board Member
We invite you to become a member of the Editorial Board of our journal. Our editorial board members should be key figures in their professions to have some experience of publishing articles. The applicant:
• is requested to possess at least 4-year research or working experience in the areas of the journal.
• should have no less than 5 publications in the same topic area of the applied journal.
• with professor title or above will be given priority.
• with relevant working experience will be preferred.
You will be entitled the following benefits while working with us as an editorial board member of the journal.
● You are enforced to read carefully various manuscripts in your area of importance and interest. This is the way you are routinely forced to keep yourself up-to-date.
● This work helps to add in and provides a better way to create your identity as a well-known expert in your field and may lead to increased invitations to speak at conferences or demand for invited research of your specialized area.
● Your ideas and subject inputs may help in arranging special issues as per topics of your interest and choice.
● You will come across the latest research before everyone else and gives you a position of leadership in your research community.
Agreement
The acceptance of following terms and conditions confirms your appointment as a member on editorial board or reviewer of journals of ASA.
● Your appointment is initially for four years.
● You are expected to observe carefully general policies, code of ethics and practices of the ASA publications which may change from time to time based on expansion plans for the improvement in quality of the journal system.
● You agree to display your name and photograph on the website and possibly on the journal cover.
It is expected that you will complete the term as stated. This agreement may be terminated at any time based on following conditions.
● Lack of mutual understanding on common aspects as per the policies of ASA.
● Repetitive unsatisfactory performance of the assigned work.
If you’d like to be an editorial member, please apply for it through the following email address: sa-ijas@stat.unipd.it
The Editor-in-Chief should:
• organize a review team to do the review work if there are manuscripts submitted to the journal;
• post new hot topics about his/her proposed journal and invite authors to submit manuscripts;
• make decisions on the acceptance or rejection of manuscripts;
• cross-check the manuscripts and ensure their quality.
For this, the Editor-in-Chief could:
• get the latest information of SA-IJAS;
• cooperate with a group of experienced researchers from all over the world;
• have his/her name and personal webpage displayed on the journal website.
The applicant:
1. is requested to possess at least 5-year research or working experience in the related areas of the applied journal.
2. should have no less than 10 publications in the same topic area of the applied journal.
3. with professor title or above will be given priority.
4. with relevant working experience is preferred.
Agreement
The acceptance of following terms and conditions confirms the possible appointment as an Editor-in-Chief of an ASA journal:
• The appointment is initially for four years;
• He/she is expected to observe carefully general policies, code of ethics and practices of the ASA which may change from time to time based on expansion plans for the improvement in quality of the journal system;
• He/she agrees to display his/her name and photograph on the website of the site and journal cover.
It is expected that the Editor-in-Chief will complete the term as stated. This agreement may be terminated at any time based on following conditions.
1. Lack of mutual understanding on common aspects as per the policies of the ASA.
2. Repetitive unsatisfactory performance of the assigned work.
If you have any question about Editor-in-Chief, please contact: sa-ijas@stat.unipd.it.
Contribution to editorial decisions
Peer review assists editors in making editorial decisions and, through editorial communications with authors, may assist authors in improving their manuscripts. Peer review is an essential component of formal scholarly communication and lies at the heart of scientific endeavour.
Promptness
Any invited referee who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should immediately notify the editors and decline the invitation to review so that alternative reviewers can be contacted.
Confidentiality
Any manuscripts received for review are confidential documents and must be treated as such; they must not be shown to or discussed with others except if authorized by the Editor-in-Chief (who would only do so under exceptional and specific circumstances). This applies also to invited reviewers who decline the review invitation.
Standards of objectivity
Reviews should be conducted objectively and observations formulated clearly with supporting arguments so that authors can use them for improving the manuscript. Personal criticism of the authors is inappropriate.
Acknowledgement of sources
Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors. Any statement that is an observation, derivation or argument that has been reported in previous publications should be accompanied by the relevant citation. A reviewer should also notify the editors of any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other manuscript (published or unpublished) of which they have personal knowledge.
Disclosure and conflicts of interest
Any invited referee who has conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies or institutions connected to the manuscript and the work described therein should immediately notify the editors to declare their conflicts of interest and decline the invitation to review so that alternative reviewers can be contacted.
Unpublished material disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in a reviewer’s own research without the express written consent of the authors. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for the reviewer’s personal advantage. This applies also to invited reviewers who decline the review invitation.
We invite you to become a reviewer of our journal. Though, it is time consuming and often goes unobserved, there are some important rewards that make the reviewers worthwhile.
1. Being a reviewer will enhance your knowledge of professional standards; and quickly earn the respect of your peers. Being enforced to read carefully various manuscripts in your area of importance and interest and checking and suggesting the changes in manuscripts, you are routinely forced to keep yourself up-to-date. This work helps to add in and provides a better way to create your identity as a well-known expert in your field and may lead to increased invitations to speak at conferences or demand for invited research of your specialized area.
2. Your ideas and subject inputs may help in arranging special issues as per topics of your interest and choice.
3. Being a reviewer is that you will be preferred considered to be an editorial board member.
The applicant:
• is requested to possess at least 2-year research or working experience in the related areas of the applied journal.
• should have no less than 2 publications in the same topic area of the applied journal.
• with doctor degree or above will be given priority.
• with relevant working experience is preferred.
Responsibilities of Reviewers
We need our reviewers to be key figures in their professions to have some experience of publishing articles. A reviewer's comment decides the acceptance or rejection of an article so they play an important role in peer review process. All the reviewers are requested to test out the articles submitted to them without any bias to increase the quality of our journals. There is no hard and fast rule to analyse an article and it depends upon the worthiness, quality and originality. While verifying the article, you have to go through following points:
1. Detailed examination and relevance of the article as per author guidelines.
2. Careful examination of purposes and objectives of the work carried out.
3. Correctness of the conclusions and recommendations along with up-to-date references.
4. Copyediting and proofreading of the manuscripts in accordance with publishing standards especially with grammar, punctuation and spelling.
5. Coverage areas of the manuscript in relevance with the scopes of journals.
6. Plagiarism related issues if any.
7. You have to give some suggestions based on the structure of the manuscript. There is no limit for the maximum inputs.
Agreement
The acceptance of following terms and conditions confirms your appointment as a reviewer of journals of the ASA.
● Your appointment is initially for four years.
● You are expected to observe carefully general policies, code of ethics and practices of the ASA publications which may change from time to time based on expansion plans for the improvement in quality of the journal system.
● You agree to display your name and photograph on the website of the site and journal cover. This agreement may be terminated at any time based on following conditions.
● Lack of mutual understanding on common aspects as per the policies of the ASA.
● Repetitive unsatisfactory performance of the assigned work.
If you’d like to be a reviewer, please apply for it contacting: sa-ijas@stat.unipd.it
Reporting standards
Authors of original research should present an accurate account of the work performed and the results, followed by an objective discussion of the significance of the work. The manuscript should contain sufficient detail and references to permit others to replicate the work. Review articles should be accurate, objective and comprehensive, while editorial 'opinion' or perspective pieces should be clearly identified as such. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behaviour and are unacceptable.
Data access and retention
Authors may be asked to provide the raw data of their study together with the manuscript for editorial review and should be prepared to make the data publicly available if practicable. In any event, authors should ensure accessibility of such data to other competent professionals for at least 10 years after publication (preferably via an institutional or subject-based data repository or other data centre), provided that the confidentiality of the participants can be protected and legal rights concerning proprietary data do not preclude their release.
Originality and plagiarism
Authors should ensure that they have written and submit only entirely original works, and if they have used the work and/or words of others, that this has been appropriately cited. Publications that have been influential in determining the nature of the work reported in the manuscript should also be cited. Plagiarism takes many forms, from "passing off" another's paper as the author's own, 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 behaviour and is unacceptable.
Multiple, duplicate, redundant or concurrent submission/publication
Papers describing essentially the same research should not be published in more than one journal or primary publication. Hence, authors should not submit for consideration a manuscript that has already been published in another journal. Submission of a manuscript concurrently to more than one journal is unethical publishing behaviour and unacceptable.
The publication of some kinds of articles (such as clinical guidelines, translations) in more than one journal is sometimes justifiable, provided that certain conditions are met. The authors and editors of the journals concerned must agree to the secondary publication, which must reflect the same data and interpretation of the primary document. The primary reference must be cited in the secondary publication.
Authorship of the manuscript
Only persons who meet these authorship criteria should be listed as authors in the manuscript as they must be able to take public responsibility for the content: (i) made significant contributions to the conception, design, execution, data acquisition, or analysis/interpretation of the study; and (ii) drafted the manuscript or revised it critically for important intellectual content; and (iii) have seen and approved the final version of the paper and agreed to its submission for publication. All persons who made substantial contributions to the work reported in the manuscript (such as technical help, writing and editing assistance, general support) but who do not meet the criteria for authorship must not be listed as an author, but should be acknowledged in the "Acknowledgements" section after their written permission to be named as been obtained. The corresponding author should ensure that all appropriate co-authors (according to the above definition) and no inappropriate co-authors are included in the author list and verify that all co-authors have seen and approved the final version of the manuscript and agreed to its submission for publication.
Disclosure and conflicts of interest
Authors should—at the earliest stage possible (generally by submitting a disclosure form at the time of submission and including a statement in the manuscript)—disclose any conflicts of interest that might be construed to influence the results or their interpretation in the manuscript. Examples of potential conflicts of interest that should be disclosed include financial ones such as honoraria, educational grants or other funding, participation in speakers’ bureaus, membership, employment, consultancies, stock ownership, or other equity interest, and paid expert testimony or patent-licensing arrangements, as well as non-financial ones such as personal or professional relationships, affiliations, knowledge or beliefs in the subject matter or materials discussed in the manuscript. All sources of financial support for the work should be disclosed (including the grant number or other reference number if any).
Acknowledgement of sources
Authors should ensure that they have properly acknowledged the work of others, and should also cite publications that have been influential in determining the nature of the reported work. Information obtained privately (from conversation, correspondence or discussion with third parties) must not be used or reported without explicit, written permission from the source. Authors should not use information obtained in the course of providing confidential services, such as refereeing manuscripts or grant applications, unless they have obtained the explicit written permission of the author(s) of the work involved in these services.
Hazards and human or animal subjects
If the work involves chemicals, procedures or equipment that have any unusual hazards inherent in their use, the authors must clearly identify these in the manuscript. If the work involves the use of animals or human participants, the authors should ensure that all procedures were performed in compliance with relevant laws and institutional guidelines and that the appropriate institutional committee(s) has approved them; the manuscript should contain a statement to this effect. Authors should also include a statement in the manuscript that informed consent was obtained for experimentation with human participants. The privacy rights of human participants must always be observed.
Peer review
Authors are obliged to participate in the peer review process and cooperate fully by responding promptly to editors’ requests for raw data, clarifications, and proof of ethics approval, patient consents and copyright permissions. In the case of a first decision of "revisions necessary", authors should respond to the reviewers’ comments systematically, point by point, and in a timely manner, revising and re-submitting their manuscript to the journal by the deadline given.
Fundamental errors in published works
When authors discover significant errors or inaccuracies in their own published work, it is their obligation to promptly notify the journal’s editors or publisher and cooperate with them to either correct the paper in the form of an erratum or to retract the paper. If the editors or publisher learns from a third party that a published work contains a significant error or inaccuracy, then it is the authors’ obligation to promptly correct or retract the paper or provide evidence to the journal editors of the correctness of the paper.
English
Italiano