| Post date: 2024/11/5 |
The formal aspect of scholarly communication, specifically the publication of an article in a peer-reviewed journal, serves multiple functions beyond mere information exchange. It acts as a foundational element in creating a coherent and esteemed knowledge network. It provides clear evidence of the quality and impact of the authors' research and, by extension, the institutions backing them. Furthermore, it exemplifies and supports the scientific method. For these reasons and others, it is crucial to establish standards for expected ethical behavior among all parties involved in the publishing process: authors, journal editors, peer reviewers, publishers, and societies associated with journals. This includes treating one another with respect and dignity, free from discrimination, harassment, bullying, or retaliation.
These guidelines are tailored primarily for primary research journals but may also apply to review articles and other professional publications. Individual journals often have more detailed or specific ethical procedures outlined in their Author Guidelines. Many journals are also founding members of discipline-specific standards or standard-setting organizations, such as the International Council of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) and the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT).
Publisher Responsibilities
Custodianship of the Scholarly Record
These guidelines have been developed with these considerations in mind, particularly acknowledging the publisher's important role in supporting the significant efforts of journal editors and the often-unrecognized volunteer work of peer reviewers in upholding the integrity of the scholarly record. While ethical codes tend to focus on infractions that may arise, it is commendable that scholarly practices function effectively, with issues being relatively uncommon. The publisher plays a supportive, investing, and nurturing role in the scholarly communication process while ultimately being responsible for ensuring adherence to best practices in its publications.
These guidelines are tailored primarily for primary research journals but may also apply to review articles and other professional publications. Individual journals often have more detailed or specific ethical procedures outlined in their Author Guidelines. Many journals are also founding members of discipline-specific standards or standard-setting organizations, such as the International Council of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) and the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT).
Publisher Responsibilities
Custodianship of the Scholarly Record
These guidelines have been developed with these considerations in mind, particularly acknowledging the publisher's important role in supporting the significant efforts of journal editors and the often-unrecognized volunteer work of peer reviewers in upholding the integrity of the scholarly record. While ethical codes tend to focus on infractions that may arise, it is commendable that scholarly practices function effectively, with issues being relatively uncommon. The publisher plays a supportive, investing, and nurturing role in the scholarly communication process while ultimately being responsible for ensuring adherence to best practices in its publications.
As the leading journal publisher globally, Elsevier takes its responsibility to safeguard the scholarly record very seriously. Our journals document "the minutes of science," and we acknowledge our duty as custodians of those "minutes" through all our policies, including the ethical guidelines presented here. Elsevier is committed to implementing these policies and procedures to assist editors, reviewers, and authors in fulfilling their ethical responsibilities. We collaborate with other publishers and industry associations to establish standards for best practices concerning ethical issues, errors, and retractions.
Protecting Editorial Independence
We are dedicated to ensuring that advertising, reprints, or other commercial income do not affect editorial choices.
Collaborating to Establish Industry Standards
We encourage best practices by offering editors membership in the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and supplying Crossref Similarity Check reports for all submissions to our editorial systems.
Providing Support for Editors
We assist editors in their communications with other journals or publishers when beneficial, and we are ready to offer specialized legal review and counsel if needed.
Educating Researchers on Publishing Ethics
We offer extensive education and guidance on publishing ethics standards, especially aimed at early-career researchers.
Responsibilities of Editors
Publication Decisions
The editor of a scholarly journal is solely responsible for determining which submitted articles should be published, often in collaboration with the relevant society for society-owned or sponsored journals. The validation of the work and its significance to researchers and readers must always underpin these decisions. The editor may be guided by the journal's editorial board policies and must adhere to legal requirements concerning issues like libel, copyright infringement, and plagiarism. The editor may consult with other editors, reviewers, or society officers when making these decisions.
Peer Review
We are dedicated to ensuring that advertising, reprints, or other commercial income do not affect editorial choices.
Collaborating to Establish Industry Standards
We encourage best practices by offering editors membership in the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and supplying Crossref Similarity Check reports for all submissions to our editorial systems.
Providing Support for Editors
We assist editors in their communications with other journals or publishers when beneficial, and we are ready to offer specialized legal review and counsel if needed.
Educating Researchers on Publishing Ethics
We offer extensive education and guidance on publishing ethics standards, especially aimed at early-career researchers.
Responsibilities of Editors
Publication Decisions
The editor of a scholarly journal is solely responsible for determining which submitted articles should be published, often in collaboration with the relevant society for society-owned or sponsored journals. The validation of the work and its significance to researchers and readers must always underpin these decisions. The editor may be guided by the journal's editorial board policies and must adhere to legal requirements concerning issues like libel, copyright infringement, and plagiarism. The editor may consult with other editors, reviewers, or society officers when making these decisions.
Peer Review
The editor must ensure that the peer review process is fair, impartial, and timely. Typically, research articles should be reviewed by at least two independent external reviewers, and the editor may seek additional opinions if necessary. The editor will select reviewers with appropriate expertise in the relevant field while considering the need for diverse representation. Best practices should be followed to avoid selecting fraudulent peer reviewers. Additionally, the editor will examine all disclosures of potential conflicts of interest and self-citation suggestions from reviewers to assess any potential bias.
Fair Play
Editors should assess manuscripts based solely on their intellectual merit, without consideration of the authors' race, gender, sexual orientation, religious beliefs, ethnicity, citizenship, or political views. When selecting potential members for the editorial board, editors must prioritize inclusive and diverse representation. The journal's editorial policies should promote transparency and honest reporting, ensuring that both peer reviewers and authors clearly understand their responsibilities. All communications related to the journal should be conducted through the standard electronic submission system.
Editors, in collaboration with the publisher, should create a clear process for appealing editorial decisions.
Journal Metrics
Editors must not manipulate the journal's ranking by artificially inflating any metrics. Specifically, they should not mandate the inclusion of references to their own or any other journal's articles unless there are valid scholarly reasons. Authors should not be pressured to cite the editor's work or any products and services in which the editor has a vested interest.
Confidentiality
Editors are responsible for maintaining the confidentiality of all submitted materials and communications with reviewers, unless agreed otherwise with the respective authors and reviewers. In rare cases, and after consulting with the publisher, limited information may be shared with other journal editors, institutions, or organizations investigating research misconduct when necessary to address potential ethical violations.
Editors should assess manuscripts based solely on their intellectual merit, without consideration of the authors' race, gender, sexual orientation, religious beliefs, ethnicity, citizenship, or political views. When selecting potential members for the editorial board, editors must prioritize inclusive and diverse representation. The journal's editorial policies should promote transparency and honest reporting, ensuring that both peer reviewers and authors clearly understand their responsibilities. All communications related to the journal should be conducted through the standard electronic submission system.
Editors, in collaboration with the publisher, should create a clear process for appealing editorial decisions.
Journal Metrics
Editors must not manipulate the journal's ranking by artificially inflating any metrics. Specifically, they should not mandate the inclusion of references to their own or any other journal's articles unless there are valid scholarly reasons. Authors should not be pressured to cite the editor's work or any products and services in which the editor has a vested interest.
Confidentiality
Editors are responsible for maintaining the confidentiality of all submitted materials and communications with reviewers, unless agreed otherwise with the respective authors and reviewers. In rare cases, and after consulting with the publisher, limited information may be shared with other journal editors, institutions, or organizations investigating research misconduct when necessary to address potential ethical violations.
If the journal does not follow an open peer-review model and reviewers have not consented to disclose their identities, editors must safeguard their anonymity. Additionally, unpublished information from submitted manuscripts cannot be used in the editor's own research without written permission from the author. Any privileged information or ideas gained during peer review must remain confidential and not be exploited for personal benefit.
Use of Generative AI and AI-Assisted Technologies in the Editorial Process
For information on our policies regarding generative AI for editors, please refer to the generative AI policies for journals page.
Declaration of Conflicts of Interest
Editors must disclose any potential conflicts of interest to the publisher in writing before their appointment and update these declarations as new conflicts arise. The publisher may choose to publish these disclosures in the journal.
Editors should refrain from participating in decisions regarding manuscripts they have authored, those written by family members or colleagues, or those related to products or services in which they have a vested interest. Such submissions must follow the journal's standard procedures, with peer review conducted independently from the involved author/editor and their research teams. A clear statement regarding this process should accompany any published paper.
Editors are required to adhere to Elsevier’s policy on disclosing potential conflicts of interest for authors and reviewers, following guidelines such as those provided by ICMJE.
Maintaining the Integrity of the Published Record
Editors are responsible for protecting the integrity of published work by investigating reported or suspected misconduct (related to research, publication, reviewers, and editorial practices) in collaboration with the publisher (or society). This typically involves contacting the manuscript's author to address any complaints or claims but may also require communication with relevant institutions and research organizations. Editors should effectively utilize the publisher’s systems for detecting misconduct, including plagiarism.
If an editor receives credible evidence of misconduct, they should work with the publisher (and/or society) to ensure timely publication of a correction, retraction, expression of concern, or other necessary amendments to the record.
Responsibilities of Reviewers
Contribution to Editorial Decisions
Peer review is crucial for aiding editors in making informed decisions and can also help authors enhance their manuscripts through feedback. It is a fundamental aspect of scholarly communication and underpins the scientific method. Reviewers are encouraged to treat authors and their work as they would wish to be treated themselves and to practice good reviewing etiquette.
Any reviewer who feels unqualified to assess a manuscript or realizes that they cannot provide a timely review should inform the editor and decline to participate in the process.
For information on our policies regarding generative AI for editors, please refer to the generative AI policies for journals page.
Declaration of Conflicts of Interest
Editors must disclose any potential conflicts of interest to the publisher in writing before their appointment and update these declarations as new conflicts arise. The publisher may choose to publish these disclosures in the journal.
Editors should refrain from participating in decisions regarding manuscripts they have authored, those written by family members or colleagues, or those related to products or services in which they have a vested interest. Such submissions must follow the journal's standard procedures, with peer review conducted independently from the involved author/editor and their research teams. A clear statement regarding this process should accompany any published paper.
Editors are required to adhere to Elsevier’s policy on disclosing potential conflicts of interest for authors and reviewers, following guidelines such as those provided by ICMJE.
Maintaining the Integrity of the Published Record
Editors are responsible for protecting the integrity of published work by investigating reported or suspected misconduct (related to research, publication, reviewers, and editorial practices) in collaboration with the publisher (or society). This typically involves contacting the manuscript's author to address any complaints or claims but may also require communication with relevant institutions and research organizations. Editors should effectively utilize the publisher’s systems for detecting misconduct, including plagiarism.
If an editor receives credible evidence of misconduct, they should work with the publisher (and/or society) to ensure timely publication of a correction, retraction, expression of concern, or other necessary amendments to the record.
Responsibilities of Reviewers
Contribution to Editorial Decisions
Peer review is crucial for aiding editors in making informed decisions and can also help authors enhance their manuscripts through feedback. It is a fundamental aspect of scholarly communication and underpins the scientific method. Reviewers are encouraged to treat authors and their work as they would wish to be treated themselves and to practice good reviewing etiquette.
Any reviewer who feels unqualified to assess a manuscript or realizes that they cannot provide a timely review should inform the editor and decline to participate in the process.
Confidentiality
All manuscripts submitted for review must be regarded as confidential. Reviewers are prohibited from disclosing the review or any details about the manuscript to others, or from contacting the authors directly without the editor's permission. While some editors may encourage discussions with colleagues or collaborative reviews, reviewers should first consult with the editor to maintain confidentiality and ensure that all participants receive appropriate acknowledgment.
Reviewers must not utilize any unpublished information from a submitted manuscript in their own research without obtaining explicit written consent from the author. Any privileged insights or ideas acquired during the peer review process must remain confidential and should not be exploited for personal gain.
Use of Generative AI and AI-Assisted Technologies in the Peer Review Process
For details on our generative AI policy for reviewers, please refer to the generative AI policies for journals page.
Awareness of Ethical Issues
Reviewers should be vigilant regarding potential ethical concerns within the manuscript and must report these to the editor. This includes noting any significant similarities or overlaps with other published works that the reviewer is aware of. Any claim that a particular observation, derivation, or argument has been previously published should be supported by an appropriate citation.
Standards of Objectivity Conflicts of Interest
Reviews should be conducted impartially. Reviewers must recognize any personal biases they may have and consider these when assessing a manuscript. Personal attacks on the author are unacceptable; reviewers should articulate their opinions clearly and provide supporting rationale.
Before agreeing to review a manuscript, reviewers should consult the editor if they have any potential conflicts of interest due to competitive, collaborative, or other relationships with the authors, companies, or institutions associated with the work.
All manuscripts submitted for review must be regarded as confidential. Reviewers are prohibited from disclosing the review or any details about the manuscript to others, or from contacting the authors directly without the editor's permission. While some editors may encourage discussions with colleagues or collaborative reviews, reviewers should first consult with the editor to maintain confidentiality and ensure that all participants receive appropriate acknowledgment.
Reviewers must not utilize any unpublished information from a submitted manuscript in their own research without obtaining explicit written consent from the author. Any privileged insights or ideas acquired during the peer review process must remain confidential and should not be exploited for personal gain.
Use of Generative AI and AI-Assisted Technologies in the Peer Review Process
For details on our generative AI policy for reviewers, please refer to the generative AI policies for journals page.
Awareness of Ethical Issues
Reviewers should be vigilant regarding potential ethical concerns within the manuscript and must report these to the editor. This includes noting any significant similarities or overlaps with other published works that the reviewer is aware of. Any claim that a particular observation, derivation, or argument has been previously published should be supported by an appropriate citation.
Standards of Objectivity Conflicts of Interest
Reviews should be conducted impartially. Reviewers must recognize any personal biases they may have and consider these when assessing a manuscript. Personal attacks on the author are unacceptable; reviewers should articulate their opinions clearly and provide supporting rationale.
Before agreeing to review a manuscript, reviewers should consult the editor if they have any potential conflicts of interest due to competitive, collaborative, or other relationships with the authors, companies, or institutions associated with the work.
If a reviewer recommends that an author cite their own work (or that of their associates), this should be based solely on valid scientific reasons and not aimed at increasing the reviewer's citation metrics or enhancing the visibility of their own or their associates' publications.
Responsibilities of Reviewers
Contribution to Editorial Decisions
Peer review plays a vital role in aiding editors with their decisions and can also help authors enhance their manuscripts through communication. It is a fundamental aspect of scholarly discourse and underpins the scientific method. Reviewers are encouraged to treat authors and their work with the same respect they would wish for themselves, adhering to proper reviewing etiquette.
If a reviewer feels unqualified to assess a manuscript or recognizes that they cannot provide a timely review, they should inform the editor and decline the review.
Confidentiality
All manuscripts under review must be regarded as confidential. Reviewers are prohibited from sharing their evaluations or any details about the paper with others or from contacting the authors directly without the editor's consent. While some editors may permit discussions with colleagues or joint reviews, reviewers should first consult the editor to ensure confidentiality is maintained and that all contributors receive appropriate acknowledgment.
Unpublished information from a submitted manuscript must not be utilized in a reviewer's own research without explicit written permission from the author. Any privileged insights gained during the peer review process must remain confidential and not be exploited for personal gain.
Awareness of Ethical Issues
Reviewers should remain vigilant for potential ethical concerns within the manuscript and report these to the editor. This includes noting any significant similarities or overlaps with other published works that the reviewer is aware of. Any claims that an observation, derivation, or argument has been previously reported should include appropriate citations.
Standards of Objectivity Conflicts of Interest
Reviews should be conducted impartially. Reviewers must recognize any personal biases they may have and consider these when evaluating a manuscript. Personal attacks on authors are unacceptable; reviewers should clearly articulate their opinions with supporting rationale.
Before agreeing to review a manuscript, reviewers should consult the editor if they have any potential conflicts of interest due to competitive, collaborative, or other relationships with the authors, companies, or institutions involved.
Contribution to Editorial Decisions
Peer review plays a vital role in aiding editors with their decisions and can also help authors enhance their manuscripts through communication. It is a fundamental aspect of scholarly discourse and underpins the scientific method. Reviewers are encouraged to treat authors and their work with the same respect they would wish for themselves, adhering to proper reviewing etiquette.
If a reviewer feels unqualified to assess a manuscript or recognizes that they cannot provide a timely review, they should inform the editor and decline the review.
Confidentiality
All manuscripts under review must be regarded as confidential. Reviewers are prohibited from sharing their evaluations or any details about the paper with others or from contacting the authors directly without the editor's consent. While some editors may permit discussions with colleagues or joint reviews, reviewers should first consult the editor to ensure confidentiality is maintained and that all contributors receive appropriate acknowledgment.
Unpublished information from a submitted manuscript must not be utilized in a reviewer's own research without explicit written permission from the author. Any privileged insights gained during the peer review process must remain confidential and not be exploited for personal gain.
Awareness of Ethical Issues
Reviewers should remain vigilant for potential ethical concerns within the manuscript and report these to the editor. This includes noting any significant similarities or overlaps with other published works that the reviewer is aware of. Any claims that an observation, derivation, or argument has been previously reported should include appropriate citations.
Standards of Objectivity Conflicts of Interest
Reviews should be conducted impartially. Reviewers must recognize any personal biases they may have and consider these when evaluating a manuscript. Personal attacks on authors are unacceptable; reviewers should clearly articulate their opinions with supporting rationale.
Before agreeing to review a manuscript, reviewers should consult the editor if they have any potential conflicts of interest due to competitive, collaborative, or other relationships with the authors, companies, or institutions involved.
If a reviewer recommends that an author cite their own work (or that of their associates), this should be based solely on valid scientific reasons rather than an attempt to boost their citation metrics or visibility.
Multiple, Redundant, or Concurrent Publication
Generally, authors should refrain from publishing manuscripts that present essentially the same research in more than one primary journal. Submitting the same manuscript to multiple journals at the same time is considered unethical and unacceptable behavior.
Typically, an author should not submit a paper that has already been published elsewhere for consideration in another journal, unless it is in the form of an abstract, part of a published lecture, an academic thesis, or an electronic preprint.
In certain cases, such as clinical guidelines or translations, it may be permissible to publish articles in more than one journal, provided specific conditions are met. This includes obtaining agreement from both the authors and editors of the involved journals, ensuring that the secondary publication reflects the same data and interpretation as the primary document, and citing the primary reference in the secondary publication. For more information on acceptable forms of secondary publication, authors can refer to the ICMJE guidelines.
Confidentiality
Authors must not use information obtained through confidential services, such as manuscript or grant application reviews, without the explicit written consent of the original author involved.
Authorship of the Paper
Authorship should be restricted to those who have made significant contributions to the conception, design, execution, or interpretation of the study reported. All individuals who have made substantial contributions should be acknowledged as co-authors.
Individuals who have contributed to specific aspects of the paper (such as language editing or medical writing) should be recognized in the acknowledgments section. The corresponding author is responsible for ensuring that all appropriate co-authors are included in the paper and that no inappropriate co-authors are listed. Additionally, all co-authors must review and approve the final version of the manuscript and consent to its submission for publication.
Authors are expected to carefully consider their list and order of authorship before submitting their manuscript and provide a definitive list at the time of submission. Only under exceptional circumstances will an Editor consider requests for adding, removing, or rearranging authors after submission, and such requests must be clearly indicated. All authors must agree to any changes made.
Generally, authors should refrain from publishing manuscripts that present essentially the same research in more than one primary journal. Submitting the same manuscript to multiple journals at the same time is considered unethical and unacceptable behavior.
Typically, an author should not submit a paper that has already been published elsewhere for consideration in another journal, unless it is in the form of an abstract, part of a published lecture, an academic thesis, or an electronic preprint.
In certain cases, such as clinical guidelines or translations, it may be permissible to publish articles in more than one journal, provided specific conditions are met. This includes obtaining agreement from both the authors and editors of the involved journals, ensuring that the secondary publication reflects the same data and interpretation as the primary document, and citing the primary reference in the secondary publication. For more information on acceptable forms of secondary publication, authors can refer to the ICMJE guidelines.
Confidentiality
Authors must not use information obtained through confidential services, such as manuscript or grant application reviews, without the explicit written consent of the original author involved.
Authorship of the Paper
Authorship should be restricted to those who have made significant contributions to the conception, design, execution, or interpretation of the study reported. All individuals who have made substantial contributions should be acknowledged as co-authors.
Individuals who have contributed to specific aspects of the paper (such as language editing or medical writing) should be recognized in the acknowledgments section. The corresponding author is responsible for ensuring that all appropriate co-authors are included in the paper and that no inappropriate co-authors are listed. Additionally, all co-authors must review and approve the final version of the manuscript and consent to its submission for publication.
Authors are expected to carefully consider their list and order of authorship before submitting their manuscript and provide a definitive list at the time of submission. Only under exceptional circumstances will an Editor consider requests for adding, removing, or rearranging authors after submission, and such requests must be clearly indicated. All authors must agree to any changes made.
Authors share collective responsibility for the work and each individual is accountable for addressing any issues related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the manuscript. Individual journals may have specific definitions of authorship (e.g., medical journals may adhere to ICMJE definitions), so authors should ensure compliance with the relevant journal's policies.
Use of Generative AI and AI-Assisted Technologies in Scientific Writing, Figures, Images, and Artwork
For information on our policies regarding generative AI for authors, please refer to the generative AI policies for journals page.
Jurisdictional Claims
Elsevier acknowledges the choices made by authors regarding how they designate their territories and affiliations in published works. The company maintains a neutral stance on territorial disputes and jurisdictional claims, including maps and institutional affiliations. For journals published on behalf of third-party owners, those owners may establish their own policies on these matters.
• Maps: Readers should be able to identify any study areas depicted in maps using common mapping tools. Maps should only illustrate the specific area studied, and authors should avoid including broader location maps that exceed the study area’s boundaries. A note should be included stating, "map lines delineate study areas and do not necessarily depict accepted national boundaries." Elsevier editors may request modifications to maps that do not adhere to these guidelines during the review process.
• Institutional Affiliations: Authors must use either the complete, standard title of their institution or its standard abbreviation, ensuring that the institutional name can be independently verified for research integrity.
▎Hazards and Human or Animal Subjects
If the research involves chemicals, procedures, or equipment with unusual hazards, authors must clearly identify these in the manuscript.
For studies involving animal or human subjects, authors should confirm that all procedures comply with relevant laws and institutional guidelines, and that appropriate institutional approvals have been obtained. A statement indicating that informed consent was acquired for experimentation with human subjects must be included. The privacy rights of human subjects must always be respected.
For human subjects, authors should ensure compliance with The Code of Ethics of the World Medical Association (Declaration of Helsinki) for experiments involving humans. All animal research must adhere to the ARRIVE guidelines and comply with the U.K. Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986, EU Directive 2010/63/EU on animal protection in scientific research, or the U.S. Public Health Service Policy on Humane Care and Use of Laboratory Animals, including the Animal Welfare Act where applicable.
For information on our policies regarding generative AI for authors, please refer to the generative AI policies for journals page.
Jurisdictional Claims
Elsevier acknowledges the choices made by authors regarding how they designate their territories and affiliations in published works. The company maintains a neutral stance on territorial disputes and jurisdictional claims, including maps and institutional affiliations. For journals published on behalf of third-party owners, those owners may establish their own policies on these matters.
• Maps: Readers should be able to identify any study areas depicted in maps using common mapping tools. Maps should only illustrate the specific area studied, and authors should avoid including broader location maps that exceed the study area’s boundaries. A note should be included stating, "map lines delineate study areas and do not necessarily depict accepted national boundaries." Elsevier editors may request modifications to maps that do not adhere to these guidelines during the review process.
• Institutional Affiliations: Authors must use either the complete, standard title of their institution or its standard abbreviation, ensuring that the institutional name can be independently verified for research integrity.
▎Hazards and Human or Animal Subjects
If the research involves chemicals, procedures, or equipment with unusual hazards, authors must clearly identify these in the manuscript.
For studies involving animal or human subjects, authors should confirm that all procedures comply with relevant laws and institutional guidelines, and that appropriate institutional approvals have been obtained. A statement indicating that informed consent was acquired for experimentation with human subjects must be included. The privacy rights of human subjects must always be respected.
For human subjects, authors should ensure compliance with The Code of Ethics of the World Medical Association (Declaration of Helsinki) for experiments involving humans. All animal research must adhere to the ARRIVE guidelines and comply with the U.K. Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986, EU Directive 2010/63/EU on animal protection in scientific research, or the U.S. Public Health Service Policy on Humane Care and Use of Laboratory Animals, including the Animal Welfare Act where applicable.
When including case details or personal information about patients or other individuals in an Elsevier publication, authors must obtain appropriate consents, permissions, and releases. Written consents should be retained by the author, and copies or proof of these consents must be provided to Elsevier upon request.
Declaration of Competing Interests
WAME defines a conflict of interest as a situation where an individual’s personal interests may interfere with their responsibilities in scientific and publishing activities, leading a reasonable observer to question whether their actions or judgments are influenced by these competing interests. Authors must disclose any financial or personal relationships with individuals or organizations that could be perceived as affecting their work inappropriately.
All financial support for the research and article preparation must be disclosed, including the role of any sponsors in study design, data collection, analysis, interpretation, writing, and publication decisions. If the funding sources did not participate in these aspects, this should also be stated.
Examples of potential conflicts of interest that must be disclosed include employment, consulting roles, stock ownership, honoraria, paid expert testimony, patent applications, and grants or other funding. It is essential to report any potential conflicts at the earliest opportunity.
Notification of Fundamental Errors
If an author identifies a significant error or inaccuracy in their published work, they are responsible for promptly informing the journal editor or publisher. The author must cooperate with the editor in retracting or correcting the paper if necessary. If the editor or publisher learns of an error from a third party, the author is also obliged to assist the editor, including providing requested evidence.
Image Integrity
Enhancing, obscuring, moving, removing, or adding elements within an image is not permitted. Adjustments to brightness, contrast, or color balance are acceptable as long as they do not obscure or remove any information from the original image. While improving clarity through image manipulation is allowed, any manipulation for other purposes may be considered a breach of scientific ethics and will be addressed accordingly.
Authors should adhere to any specific policies regarding graphical images set by the relevant journal, such as submitting original images as supplementary material or depositing them in an appropriate repository.
Clinical Trial Transparency
Elsevier advocates for transparency in clinical trials. Authors of relevant journals are expected to follow industry best practices for clinical trial registration and reporting, such as the CONSORT guidelines, as outlined in the policies of their respective journals
WAME defines a conflict of interest as a situation where an individual’s personal interests may interfere with their responsibilities in scientific and publishing activities, leading a reasonable observer to question whether their actions or judgments are influenced by these competing interests. Authors must disclose any financial or personal relationships with individuals or organizations that could be perceived as affecting their work inappropriately.
All financial support for the research and article preparation must be disclosed, including the role of any sponsors in study design, data collection, analysis, interpretation, writing, and publication decisions. If the funding sources did not participate in these aspects, this should also be stated.
Examples of potential conflicts of interest that must be disclosed include employment, consulting roles, stock ownership, honoraria, paid expert testimony, patent applications, and grants or other funding. It is essential to report any potential conflicts at the earliest opportunity.
Notification of Fundamental Errors
If an author identifies a significant error or inaccuracy in their published work, they are responsible for promptly informing the journal editor or publisher. The author must cooperate with the editor in retracting or correcting the paper if necessary. If the editor or publisher learns of an error from a third party, the author is also obliged to assist the editor, including providing requested evidence.
Image Integrity
Enhancing, obscuring, moving, removing, or adding elements within an image is not permitted. Adjustments to brightness, contrast, or color balance are acceptable as long as they do not obscure or remove any information from the original image. While improving clarity through image manipulation is allowed, any manipulation for other purposes may be considered a breach of scientific ethics and will be addressed accordingly.
Authors should adhere to any specific policies regarding graphical images set by the relevant journal, such as submitting original images as supplementary material or depositing them in an appropriate repository.
Clinical Trial Transparency
Elsevier advocates for transparency in clinical trials. Authors of relevant journals are expected to follow industry best practices for clinical trial registration and reporting, such as the CONSORT guidelines, as outlined in the policies of their respective journals
View: 63 Time(s) |
Print: 29 Time(s) |
Email: 0 Time(s) |
0 Comment(s)