Publication Ethics & Malpractice Statements
Publication Ethics and Publication Malpractice Statements
The following responsibilities outlined for editors, authors, reviewers, and the publisher are based on the Code of Conduct and Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors (COPE 2011).
Confidentiality: The Bladder editorial team will not disclose any information about a submitted manuscript to anyone other than the corresponding author, reviewers, potential reviewers, editorial board members, and the publisher. The identities of the peer reviewers must be kept confidential.
Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest: Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript shall not be used by an editor or an editorial board member for their own work without written consent of the author. Editors must refrain themselves from considering manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships with any of the authors, companies or institutions associated with the manuscripts.
Fair Review: Bladder editors evaluate submitted manuscripts according to their intellectual content (impact, originality, 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 of the author(s).
Involvement and Cooperation in Investigations: Bladder editors will take responsive measures to assess all allegations or suspicions of research, publication, or other academic misconduct raised by readers, reviewers, or other editors. Such misconduct may include but is not limited to plagiarism, duplicate or redundant publication, and unethical publishing behavior. Bladder editors follow the COPE recommendations when dealing with cases of suspected misconduct.
Publication Decisions: Bladder editors ensure that all submitted manuscripts undergo initial review by in-house editors and peer-review by at least two external reviewers who are expert in the field before they are accepted for publication. The Editor-in-Chief is responsible for deciding which manuscripts submitted to the journal will be published, based on the validation of the work in question, its importance to researchers and readers, and the reviewers' comments. The Editor-in-Chief may consult with other editors or reviewers in making the editorial decision. Based on the reports provided by peer reviewers, the editors can accept, reject, or request revision to the manuscript.
Acknowledgement of Sources: Authors should acknowledge the work of others and properly cite publications that have been influential in research work.
Authorship of the Paper: Authorship should be given to those who have made a signification contribution to conception, design, execution, or interpretation and writing of the reported study. For individuals who have participated in other aspects of the reported study, they should be acknowledged or listed as contributors in the “Acknowledgments” section of the manuscript. The corresponding author should ensure that all co-authors have seen and approved the final version of the manuscript prior to submission.
Data Access and Retention: Authors should be prepared to provide raw data related to their manuscript if requested for editorial review and should be prepared to make the data publicly available and ensure accessibility of such data for at least 10 years after publication, provided that the legal rights concerning proprietary data do not preclude their release.
Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest: Authors should disclose any conflicts of interest (COI) that might influence the results or their interpretation in the manuscript. Examples of COI 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, and non-financial ones such as personal or professional relationships, affiliations, knowledge or beliefs in the subject matter or materials discussed in the manuscript.
Disclosure of Financial Support: Any sources of financial support or funding for research and writing must be clearly disclosed including the grant number or other reference number, if any.
Fundamental Errors in Published Works: Authors have the obligations to report to the editor immediately to retract or correct the article at any time if the authors(s) discovers a significant error in submitted manuscript.
Multiple, Redundant, or Concurrent Publications: Authors must confirm that the manuscript is not currently being considered for publication elsewhere. Submitting manuscripts describing the same research to more than one journals constitutes unethical publishing behavior.
Originality: Authors must ensure that their work is original. Plagiarism in all its forms constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable.
Protection of Human and Animal subjects: If the work involves the use of animals or human subjects, the authors should ensure that all procedures were performed in compliance with relevant regulations and institutional guidelines and approved by the appropriate institutional committee(s). Authors should also state in the manuscript that formed consent was obtained for experimentation with human participants.
Reporting Standards: Authors should accurately present their original research as well as an objective discussion of its significance. Authors must follow the submission guidelines.
Acknowledgement of Sources: Manuscript reviewers must ensure that authors have acknowledged all sources of data used in the research. Any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other manuscript (published or unpublished) of which they have personal knowledge must be immediately brought to the editors’ notice.
Confidentiality: Reviewers must keep all manuscripts received confidential.
Conflict of Interest: Reviewers should not review manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest with any of the authors, companies, or institutions associated with the manuscripts. Any conflicts of interest that might compromise the integrity of the peer review process, the reviewer must inform the editor of this situation and decline the invitation to serve as a reviewer.
Contribution to Editorial Decisions: Reviewers are expected to assist the editors in making editorial decisions and assist the author in improving the manuscripts.
Promptness: Any invited reviewer who feels it is impossible for him/her to complete review of manuscript within assigned time should notify the editor so that alternative reviewers can be contacted.
Standards of Objectivity: Reviews must be done objectively, and the reviewers should express their views clearly with supporting arguments so that the authors can use them for improving the manuscript.
Access to Journal Content: The publisher is committed to the permanent availability and preservation of scholarly research and ensures accessibility by partnering with organizations and maintaining our own digital archive. For details on Bladder's archiving policy, please visit http://www.polscientific.com/bladder/bladder/about/editorialPolicies#archiving.
Handling of Unethical Publishing Behavior: In cases of alleged or proven scientific misconduct, fraudulent publication or plagiarism, the publisher, in close collaboration with the JBM editors, will take all appropriate measures to clarify the situation and to amend the article in question including the publication of an erratum, clarification or the retraction of the affected work.