Home
Aims and Scope
Abstracting and Indexing
Editorial Board
Publication Ethics
Publication Requirements
On-line First
Latest Issue
Archive
Reviewing Methods
Contact
Design, maintenance and update by:
Grigore HERMAN
grigoreherman@yahoo.com
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Design, maintenance and update by:
Grigore HERMAN
grigoreherman@yahoo.com
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
The Publishing Ethics Resource Kit is an online resource to support journal editors in handling publishing ethics allegations.
Article retraction: It is a general principle of scholarly communication that the editor of a learned journal is solely and independently responsible for deciding which articles submitted to the journal shall be published. In making this decision the editor is guided by policies of the journal's editorial board and constrained by such legal requirements in force regarding libel, copyright infringement and plagiarism. An outcome of this principle is the importance of the scholarly archive as a permanent, historic record of the transactions of scholarship. Articles that have been published shall remain extant, exact and unaltered as far as is possible. However, very occasionally circumstances may arise where an article is published that must later be retracted or even removed. Such actions must not be undertaken lightly and can only occur under exceptional circumstances.
Patient consent Appropriate consents, permissions and releases must be obtained where authors wish to include case details or other personal information or images of patients and any other individuals in The Annals of the University of Oradea, Series Geography publication in order to comply with all applicable laws and regulations concerning the privacy and/or security of personal information, including, but not limited to, the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 ("HIPAA") and other U.S. federal and state laws relating to privacy and security of personally identifiable information, the European Union Directive 95/46/EC and member state implementing directives, Canada's Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act, India's Information Technology Act and related Privacy Rules, (together "Data Protection and Privacy Laws").
It is the responsibility of the author to ensure that:
Special considerations
Non-identifiable images
Research data Data sharing enables others to reuse the results of experiments and supports the creation of new science that is built on previous findings, making the research process more efficient. Data sharing also supports transparency and reproducibility, building trust in science. The Annals of the University of Oradea, Series Geography is playing a key role in supporting researchers who want to store, share, discover and reuse data and we are committed to working with other stakeholders to address challenges in making data more effective. The precise notion of what constitutes research data will differ from field to field but broadly speaking it refers to the result of observations or experimentations that validate research findings and which are not already published as part of a journal article. Research data can include but are not limited to: raw data, processed data, software, algorithms, protocols, methods, materials.
Principles The following principles underpin The Annals of the University of Oradea, Series Geography research data policy:
Journal editors should consider issuing a Corrigendum / Editorial Note (if the authors do not agree with the text) if:
Changes/Additions to accepted articles All content of published articles are subject to the editorial review process, organized by and under the auspices of the Editor. Should the authors wish to add to their article after acceptance, they must submit a request the Editor and the new content will be reviewed.
Erratum An erratum refers to a correction of errors introduced to the article by the publisher. All publisher-introduced changes are highlighted to the author at the proof stage and any errors are ideally identified by the author and corrected by the publisher before final publication. Authors who notice an error should contact the Journal Manager or Annals of the University of Oradea, Series Geography team
Corrigendum A corrigendum refers to a change to their article that the author wishes to publish at any time after acceptance.Authors should contact the Editor of the journal, who will determine the impact of the change and decide on the appropriate course of action. The Journal Manager or Annals of the University of Oradea, Series Geography will only instigate a corrigendum to a published article after receiving approval and instructions from the Editor.
Journal editors should consider issuing an Expression of Concern if:
Journal editors should consider retracting a publication if:
Notices of retraction should:
Under the following circumstances, removing an article may be considered:
Information related to the code of conduct and best practice guidelines for journal editors is available on: https://publicationethics.org/.
Introduction The responsibilities of the editor of a journal include the vetting and reviewing of articles submitted by authors. In most cases this process will be straightforward. However, in some cases, ethical issues may emerge either during the vetting and reviewing process or after publication when a complaint is made. The ethical problems you may encounter include:
Plagiarism Plagiarism is committed when one author uses another work (typically the work of another author) without permission, credit, or acknowledgment. Plagiarism takes different forms, from literal copying to paraphrasing the work of another. In judging whether an author has plagiarized, the following definitions may be instructive:
Literal copying Reproducing a work word for word, in whole or in part, without permission and acknowledgment of the original source. Literal copying is obvious plagiarism and is easy to detect by comparing the papers in question.
Substantial copying Reproducing a substantial part of a work, without permission and acknowledgment of the original source. In determining what is “substantial,” both the quantity and the quality of the copied content are relevant. Quality refers to the relative value of the copied text in proportion to the work as a whole. Where the essence of a work has been reproduced, even if only a small part of the original work, plagiarism may have occurred. For example, a relatively short extract from a piece of music may be instantly recognizable and may constitute a substantial part. In addition to judging the quantity and quality of the copied content, you should consider the following question: Has the author benefited from the skill and judgment of the original author? The degree to which the answer to this question is “yes” will indicate whether substantial copying has taken place.
Copying without literal or substantial copying: Paraphrasing Copying may take place without reproducing the exact words used in the original work. This type of copying is known as paraphrasing, and it can be the most difficult type of plagiarism to detect. To determine whether unacceptable paraphrasing has occurred, you should apply a test similar to that for substantial copying: Look at the quantity and quality of what has been taken and also at whether the second author has benefited from the skill and judgment of the first author. If it seems clear, on a balance of probabilities, that the second author has taken without permission or acknowledgment all or a substantial part of the original work and used it to create a second work, albeit expressed in different words, then such use amounts to plagiarism.
Research results not being original to purported author Authorship of research results is generally a verifiable question of fact. If there is any question as to whether research results reported in a submitted article are original to the purported author or authors, you should make inquiries of the authors and/or their institutions. You, as the editor, are well positioned to know what research is being carried out at any particular time, at any particular place, and by whom. This knowledge should assist you in directing inquiries to the appropriate individuals and institutions to verify whether a research claim is genuine. In addition, you may want to seek guidance from other specialists in the field of research.
Allegations about authorship of contributions It is important that every author of a contribution be credited as such. It is equally as important that a person not be named as an author when he or she is not. Authorship is not a clearly defined concept. To be an “author” one must have responsibility for a particular aspect (that is not minimal) of the research or preparation of the work, that is, must have made a significant contribution to the conception, design, execution, or interpretation of the reported study, and must have approved the final form of the work. Fundamentally, an author must be prepared and have the ability and responsibility to publicly defend the work. You may wish to use the following standard as a test for authorship: All Authors of a paper have the ability and responsibility to publicly defend that paper. A trivial contribution would not be sufficient to confer the status of author. Lesser contributions to a work can be recognized by clearly crediting such person as a “contributor,” rather than an “author.” An author submitting an article is required to identify all co-authors and any other contributors (and to obtain consent from them for the publication of the article). Where necessary, you should seek clarification from authors and contributors to establish exactly who has done what in relation to the article and the research. You should require that all those who satisfy the test of authorship outlined above are in fact credited as co-authors.
Double submission Articles submitted for publication must be original and must not have been submitted to any other publication. Except in very unusual circumstances (and then only with the agreement of the editor), authors are expected to submit articles that are original and have not been submitted to any other publication. Occasionally, authors may disregard this requirement, submitting the same paper to multiple journals or submitting multiple papers based on the same research. As with plagiarism, duplicate submission may take several forms: literal duplication, partial but substantial duplication, or even duplication by paraphrasing. Some journals have editorial policies that prohibit or discourage the publication of numerous papers based on the same research. Cases of literal or substantial literal duplication should be reasonably easy to detect and remedy. Cases closer to paraphrasing or involving the same research are much more difficult to detect or analyze. This is particularly so when an author writes about his or her own research in two or more articles from different angles or on different aspects of the research. In such cases, an objective judgment of whether duplicate submission has taken place based on your knowledge of the area of research must be made. In difficult cases, you may need to seek guidance from other specialists in that field of research. An author may publish a paper in a language other than English in a journal of local circulation and may then submit an English-language version to an to the Annals of the University of Oradea, Series Geography. You may decline to publish a paper of this kind. If it is the journal’s policy to publish some papers of this kind, and you feel it is appropriate to do so, you may agree to publish the paper provided that the proper procedure has been followed:
Recommended action Elsevier's preference is for authors to resolve such matters amongst themselves, although that is not always possible. The complainant must be made aware that the matter cannot be investigated unless the journal editor informs the corresponding author or author about whom a complaint has been made (as a matter of “due process”) and possibly the institution or company at which the research took place (the complainant may not wish to make the complaint at such a formal level). In that communication (see Form letter A1), the editor should indicate that the matter may be referred to the institution or company where the research took place or any other relevant institution or agency (for example a funding agency) unless the author provides a reasonable explanation (accepted as reasonable by the editor). NOTE: some agencies such as the NIH’s Office of Research Integrity, will not consider disputes that are solely about authorship. It may be advisable for the editor in this fact-finding process to request the views and comments of third parties who may be expected to have knowledge of the facts alleged by the complainant.
Plagiarism is committed when one author uses another work (typically the work of another author) without permission, credit, or acknowledgment. Plagiarism takes different forms, from literal copying to paraphrasing the work of another.
Recommended action The complainant must be made aware that the matter cannot be investigated unless at some point the journal editor informs the corresponding (or complained-about) author (due process). The first stage must be a simple comparison of the relevant (two) texts. A simple side-by-side comparison by the editor for the simpler forms of plagiarism - a more thoughtful analysis by the editor if paraphrasing or types of ‘self-plagiarism’ are alleged.
Articles submitted for publication must be original and must not have been submitted to any other publication. Except in very unusual circumstances (and then only with the agreement of the editor), authors are expected to submit articles that are original and have not been submitted to any other publication. Occasionally, authors may disregard this requirement, submitting the same paper to multiple journals or submitting multiple papers based on the same research.
Recommended action The complainant must be made aware that the matter cannot be investigated unless at some point the journal editor informs the corresponding (or complained-about) author (due process) and likely the other journal.
Comparison of relevant texts The first stage must be a simple comparison of the relevant texts. A simple side-by-side comparison by the editor for the simpler forms of duplicate publication or a more thoughtful analysis by the editor if the same research or a single research project is being inappropriately written up as separate articles. Note that an identical or similar version of an article may have been published by one journal (often in a national or local edition, usually in a local language) and legitimately republished in another more international journal. The ethical implications of such republication will depend on the editorial policies of the journal - and agreement by the editors of the two journals involved. Republication may be appropriate provided the prior publication and any relevant facts concerning such publication are disclosed to and agreed by the editor. A brief explanation of these circumstances and full citation details for the previous article should be published along with the newly published version, preferably as a footnote to the title.
Authorship of research results is generally a verifiable question of fact. If there is any question as to whether research results reported in a submitted article are original to the purported author or authors, you should make inquiries of the authors and/or their institutions. You, as the editor, are well positioned to know what research is being carried out at any particular time, at any particular place, and by whom. This knowledge should assist you in directing inquiries to the appropriate individuals and institutions to verify whether a research claim is genuine. In addition, you may want to seek guidance from other specialists in the field of research.
Recommended action Note that the procedures below are similar to those for authorship complaints, although in essence this type of complaint is a complaint of plagiarism. The complainant must be made aware that the matter cannot be investigated unless the journal editor informs the corresponding (or complained-about) author (due process) and possibly the institution or company at which the research took place. In the communication to the corresponding/complained-about author (see Form Letter A1), the editor should indicate that the matter may be referred to the institution or company where the research took place or any other relevant institution or agency (for example a funding agency) unless the author provides a reasonable explanation (accepted as reasonable by the editor).
Where referees or readers come to the publisher or editor saying that: certain laboratories do not have the facilities to conduct the research they published; the gel images look manipulated; the data from the control experiments is too perfect etc, then the possibility of fraud needs to be considered. Fraud is publishing data or conclusions that were not generated by experiments or observations, but by data manipulation or invention. Changing the data measurements to conveniently fit the desired end result is fraud, but excluding inconvenient results is deliberate research error, which, in effect, is the same end result – fraud.
Recommended action Note that the procedures below are similar to those for research results misappropriation. The complainant must be made aware that the matter cannot be investigated unless the journal editor informs the corresponding (or complained-about) author (due process) and the institution or company at which the research took place (especially if fraud is alleged). In the communication to the corresponding author (see Form Letter A1), the editor should indicate that the matter will likely be referred to the institution or company where the research took place or any other relevant institution or agency (for example a funding agency) unless the author provides a reasonable explanation (accepted as reasonable by the editor).
Research standards violations normally come to light when a referee sees that there was no informed consent on human subjects, or that the animal protection protocols were not being followed.
Recommended action Note the procedures below are similar to those for research fraud. The complainant must be made aware that the matter cannot be investigated unless the journal editor informs the corresponding (or complained-about) author (due process) and possibly the institution or company at which the research took place. In the communication to the corresponding author (see Form Letter A1), the editor should indicate that the matter is likely to be referred to the institution or company where the research took place, the standard-setting body (if relevant), the institution or company which provided undisclosed financial support (if relevant), or any other relevant institution or agency (for example a funding agency) unless the author provides a reasonable explanation (accepted as reasonable by the editor).
Public trust in the peer review process and the credibility of published articles depend in part on how well conflict of interest is handled during writing, peer review, and editorial decision making. Conflict of interest exists when an author (or the author’s institution), reviewer, or editor has financial or personal relationships that inappropriately influence (bias) his or her actions (such relationships are also known as dual commitments, competing interests, or competing loyalties).
Recommended action Note the procedures below are similar to those for research standards violations. The complainant must be made aware that the matter cannot be investigated unless the journal editor informs the corresponding (or complained-about) author (due process) and possibly the institution or company at which the research took place. In the communication to the corresponding/complained-about author (see Form Letter A1), the editor should indicate that the matter is likely to be referred to the institution or company where the research took place, the standard-setting body (if relevant), the institution or company which provided undisclosed financial support (if relevant), or any other relevant institution or agency (for example a funding agency) unless the author provides a reasonable explanation (accepted as reasonable by the editor).
Editors should avoid selecting external peer reviewers with obvious potential conflicts of interest, for example, those who work in the same department or institution as any of the authors. Authors often provide editors with the names of persons they feel should not be asked to review a manuscript because of potential conflicts of interest, usually professional. When possible, authors should be asked to explain or justify their concerns; that information is important to editors in deciding whether to honour such requests.
Recommended action Note the procedures below are similar to those for research misappropriation by one author of another author’s work. The complainant must be made aware that the matter cannot be investigated unless the journal editor informs the reviewer (due process obligation to reviewer, similar to that owed to authors) and possibly the institution or company at which the reviewer is employed. In the communication to the reviewer (see Form Letter F), the editor should indicate that the matter may be referred to the reviewer’s institution or company if the reviewer does not or is unable to provide a reasonable explanation (accepted as reasonable by the editor).