Publication Ethics Guidelines

Authors submitting works to us warrant the following:

• Their article/chapter is original and free of copyrights;
• The work has not been submitted elsewhere, and is not under consideration with any other journal or publication;
• The work does not include libellous, defamatory or unlawful statements;
• Proof of consent has been obtained for any named individuals or organisations;
• Authorship has been agreed prior to submission and that no one has been ‘gifted’ authorship or denied credit as an author (“ghost authorship”).

All submissions are first reviewed by the Editor-in-Chief, and if judged suitable for this publication, they are then blind-reviewed anonymously and separately by at least two external, expert reviewers. The Journal has a double, blind review policy.

Authors submitting works to us do so on the understanding if it is discovered that these basic principles have not been adhered to, action will be taken following the COPE guidelines and may result in one of the following Correction notices:

Erratum: This generally refers to a production error, which has been introduced during the publication process. If an erratum is issued, it will appear on the abstract of the online version of the paper to ensure full visibility. The erratum will also appear in the hard copy of the next volume or issue of the publication.

Corrigendum: This generally refers to an author error or oversight, prior to the paper’s submission to the publication. If a corrigendum is issued, it will appear on the abstract of the online version of the paper to ensure full visibility. The erratum will also appear in the hard copy of the next volume or issue of the publication.

Retraction notice: A retraction notice will be issued in serious cases of ethical misconduct or where the research is seriously flawed and misleading. In normal circumstances, the paper will remain in the online version of the journal or book. A retraction notice will appear on the online version of the paper. The retraction notice will also appear in the hard copy of the next volume or issue of the publication.

Note of clarification: A note of clarification will be used when a point needs to be emphasized or clarified in the text but it does not constitute a correction. Please note that any correction has to be highlighted as a stated erratum, corrigendum or note of clarification and the text cannot be amended. This is to make sure that the reader is aware of any changes to the text which they might have cited or referred to in their subsequent research or practice.

Expression of concern: In cases where a conclusion is unclear or where we are unable to make a fair decision due to conflicts of interest or lack of information, we will publish an expression of concern regarding the paper. An expression of concern will appear on the online version of the paper at the abstract level in order to ensure visibility for all readers, including non-subscribers.

Please note that for legal reasons or when an article or chapter forms evidence in an independent hearing, we may not be able to take action until all matters have been fully resolved.

Please also note that we reserve the right to not proceed with a case if the complainant presents a false name or affiliation or acts in an inappropriate or threatening manner towards our staff.

We require that all research submitted to the journals or books is original and the author agrees to these terms upon assignment and acceptance. Please refer to our Editorial Guidelines and COPE flowcharts for the processes that we follow in cases of alleged plagiarism in submitted or published articles.

Authors are expected to submit original, previously unpublished content to us. It is unacceptable academic practice to submit to more than one journal at the same time – authors are expected to wait until receiving a decision from one journal before submitting to the next. We will follow the Committee on Publication Ethics’ flowcharts in cases of alleged redundant publication in submitted or published articles.

All conflicts of interest should be declared by the author, editor or reviewer. Examples include:

• A financial or personal interest in the outcomes of the research;
• Undisclosed financial support for the research by an interested third party;
• A financial or personal interest in the suppression of the research;

A note to highlight the background to financial support for the research from third parties or any other possible conflict of interest must be added to the paper prior to review. If a conflict of interest is suspected, then this should be reported to the editor. A concern regarding an editor should be raised with the journal publisher or book commissioning editor. We will follow the flowcharts presented by COPE in cases of a suspected conflict of interest. In all cases, we will:

1. Act professionally and efficiently
2. Be fair and objective
3. Always approach the accused party to establish their position before making a decision or committing to a course of action.
4. Ensure that we provide sufficient time for all parties to respond
5. Keep all parties informed of decisions, including the copyright owners, editors and authors
6. Follow the processes highlighted in the flowcharts presented by COPE
7. It is our responsibility to protect authors’ moral rights (to be acknowledged as the author and not to be misrepresented) and to ensure the correct record of the literature.

We reserve the right to withdraw and rescind any acceptance should a case of ethical misconduct be discovered prior to publication. It will not be possible to please all parties in every case. Following a fair and considered process, the final decision in any disputed case will rest with the editor.

Authors are expected to submit original content to us. It is only acceptable for research to be repeated if it leads to different or new conclusions or for comparisons with new data. In all cases, it is important to reference the previously published work. If any element of the work has been published previously, you must ensure that this work is fully referenced and state it at the point of submission so that the Editor may make a fully-informed decision.

In multi-authored papers, it is important that all authors that have made a significant contribution to the paper are listed. Those who have provided support but have not contributed to the research should be acknowledged in an Acknowledgements section. Authorship issues fall into three main types:

1. The exclusion of a contributor from the list of authors
2. The inclusion of a named person who has not contributed to the paper or does not wish to be associated with the research
3. The order of the authors on the paper and the level of contribution that they have made to the paper.

We will endeavour to facilitate a resolution to an authorship dispute. However, as the research process is undertaken prior to the paper being submitted to IARS, it is not possible for IARS or the editors to comment on the level of contribution by each author. Please refer to the Committee on Publication Ethics’ flowcharts for the processes that IARS follows in cases of authorship disputes in submitted or published articles. If the matter cannot be resolved, we will refer the matter to the authors’ institutions. If all authors agree to a change to authorship on a paper, this will be presented as a corrigendum. A retraction notice will only be published when requested by all authors.

Coercive citation

During the peer review process, it is typical for authors to be directed by reviewers to papers which further develop and improve the author’s ideas. Whilst there may be legitimate occasions where it is necessary to reference other publications, we regard ‘coercive citation’ (i.e. where a reference is included as a condition of acceptance or without academic justification) as unethical and does not condone this kind of behaviour.

We are an advocate of both author freedom and editorial independence. We would urge any authors who feel they have been pressured to include a particular reference in their article, or Editors who are unclear on best ethical practice to contact the Editor in Chief.

We require that authors obtain written “proof of consent” for studies about named organizations or people.

If inaccurate, unsubstantiated or emotive statements are made about organizations or people in a submitted paper, IARS reserves the right to request changes to the text from the author or to reject the paper prior to publication. Critiques and reviews of products and services are acceptable but comments must be constructive and must not be made maliciously. If statements have been made in a paper that is published by IARS and found to be defamatory, a retraction notice will be published. In some cases, and when legally required, the paper will be withdrawn from the online version of the journal or book. An apology will be published in a forthcoming issue of the journal or volume of the book. We will advise all authors of case studies to inform the subject (person or organization) and to seek permission.

Please refer to the Committee on Publication Ethics’ flowcharts for the processes that RJ4All follows in cases of fabricated data in submitted or published articles. As the research is conducted prior to the paper being submitted to an RJ4All journal or book, it is not possible for IARS or the editors to adjudicate in all cases. We will endeavour to facilitate a resolution and will refer the matter to the authors’ institutions when appropriate.

An author must follow appropriate international and national procedures with respect to data protection, rights to privacy, child protection and medical testing on humans and animals. Authors must make available all consent forms and requisite forms from the appropriate regulatory bodies to the Editor. If research is found to contravene international or national procedures and this is confirmed with the appropriate regulatory body, we will publish a retraction notice.

The following Grievance Procedure outlines the process for addressing grievances by authors whose articles or other submissions are rejected for publication.

1. The grievance must be submitted in writing to the Editor of the journal within seven days following a submission being rejected for publication.
2. The grievance will be considered by the Editor and Editorial Advisory Board. The grievance will be resolved by taking a majority decision.
3. The grievance will be acknowledged with 10 days of receipt and aimed to be resolved within 30 days.
4. The decision will be in writing and will be final.

For further information on our ethics policies, please contact the Editor, Dr. Theo Gavrielides, or consult the COPE guidelines.