Publication Ethics and Publication Malpractice Statement For
all parties involved in the act of publishing (the author, the journal
editor(s), the peer reviewer and the publisher) it is necessary to agree
upon standards of expected ethical behavior. The ethics statements for
the Production Engineering Archives are based on the Committee on
Publication Ethics (COPE) Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors. Editor Responsibilities Accountability The
editor of a peer-reviewed journal is responsible for deciding which
articles submitted to the journal should be published, and, moreover, is
accountable for everything published in the journal. In making these
decisions, the editor may be guided by the policies of the journal’s
editorial board as well as by legal requirements regarding libel,
copyright infringement and plagiarism. The editor may confer with other
editors or reviewers when making publication decisions. The editor
should maintain the integrity of the academic record, preclude business
needs from compromising intellectual and ethical standards, and always
be willing to publish corrections, clarifications, retractions and
apologies when needed. Fairness The
editor should evaluate manuscripts for intellectual content without
regard to race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic
origin, citizenship, or political philosophy of the author(s). The
editor will not disclose any information about a manuscript under
consideration to anyone other than the author(s), reviewers and
potential reviewers, and in some instances the editorial board members,
as appropriate. Confidentiality The
editor and any editorial staff must 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, conflicts of interest, and other issues The
editor will be guided by COPE’s Guidelines for Retracting Articles when
considering retracting, issuing expressions of concern about, and
issuing corrections pertaining to articles that have been published in
the Production Engineering Archives. Unpublished
materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in an
editor’s own research without the express written consent of the author.
Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be
kept confidential and not used for personal advantage. The
editor is committed to ensuring that advertising, reprint or other
commercial revenue has no impact or influence on editorial decisions. The
editor should seek to ensure a fair and appropriate peer review
process. Editors should recuse themselves (i.e. should ask a co-editor,
associate editor or other member of the editorial board instead to
review and consider) from considering manuscripts in which they have
conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or
other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies,
or (possibly) institutions connected to the papers. Editors should
require all contributors to disclose relevant competing interests and
publish corrections if competing interests are revealed after
publication. If needed, other appropriate action should be taken, such
as the publication of a retraction or expression of concern. Involvement and cooperation in investigations Editors
should guard the integrity of the published record by issuing
corrections and retractions when needed and pursuing suspected or
alleged research and publication misconduct. Editors should pursue
reviewer and editorial misconduct. An editor should take reasonably
responsive measures when ethical complaints have been presented
concerning a submitted manuscript or published paper. Reviewer Responsibilities Contribution to editorial decisions Peer
review assists the editor in making editorial decisions and, through
the editorial communication with the author, may also assist the author
in improving the manuscript. Promptness Any
invited referee who feels unqualified to review the research reported
in a manuscript or knows that its timely review will be impossible
should immediately notify the editor so that alternative reviewers can
be contacted. Confidentiality Any
manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential
documents. They must not be shown to or discussed with others except if
authorized by the editor. Standards of objectivity Reviews
should be conducted objectively. Personal criticism of the author is
unacceptable. Referees should express their views clearly with
appropriate supporting arguments. Acknowledgement of sources Reviewers
should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the
authors. Any statement that an observation, derivation, or argument had
been previously reported should be accompanied by the relevant citation.
A reviewer should also call to the editor's attention any substantial
similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any
other published data of which they have personal knowledge. Disclosure and conflict of interest Privileged
information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept
confidential and not used for personal advantage. Reviewers should not
consider evaluating manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest
resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or
connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions
connected to the submission. Author Responsibilities Reporting standards Authors
reporting results of original research should present an accurate
account of the work performed as well as an objective discussion of its
significance. Underlying data should be represented accurately in the
manuscript. A paper should contain sufficient detail and references to
permit others to replicate the work. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate
statements constitute unethical behavior and are unacceptable. Originality and Plagiarism 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. Multiple, redundant or concurrent publication An
author should not in general publish manuscripts describing essentially
the same research in more than one journal or primary publication.
Parallel submission of the same manuscript to more than one journal
constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable. Acknowledgement of sources Proper
acknowledgment of the work of others must always be given. Authors
should also cite publications that have been influential in determining
the nature of the reported work. Authorship of a manuscript Authorship
should be limited to those who have made a significant contribution to
the conception, design, execution, or interpretation of the reported
study. All those who have made significant contributions should be
listed as co-authors. Where there are others who have participated in
certain substantive aspects of the research project, they should be
named in an Acknowledgement section. 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 of the manuscript, and that all co-authors
have seen and approved the final version of the paper and have agreed to
its submission for publication. 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. Disclosure and conflicts of interest All
authors should disclose in their manuscript any financial or other
substantive conflict of interest that might be construed to influence
the results or their interpretation in the manuscript. All sources of
financial support for the project should be disclosed. Fundamental errors in published works When
an author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in his/her own
published work, it is the author’s obligation to promptly notify the
journal’s editor or publisher and cooperate with them to either retract
the paper or to publish an appropriate erratum. Publisher’s Confirmation In
cases of alleged or proven scientific misconduct, fraudulent
publication or plagiarism the publisher, in close collaboration with the
editors, will take all appropriate measures to clarify the situation
and to amend the article in question. This includes the prompt
publication of an erratum or, in the most severe cases, the complete
retraction of the affected work. |