The Vitality, Medicine & Engineering Journal follow ICMJE recommendations about Overlapping Publications as described in the following link http://www.icmje.org/recommendations/browse/publishing-and-editorial-issues/overlapping-publications.html).
The Vitality, Medicine & Engineering Journal will devote special attention to detect any plagia using adapted software when appropriate.
It is necessary to agree upon standards of expected ethical behavior for all parties involved in the act of publishing: the Authors, the Editor-in-Chief, the Peer-Reviewers and the Publisher.
The following ethic statements are based on COPE’s Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors and on the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (« Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts Submitted to Biomedical Journals », February 2006).
The Editor-in-Chief of the Vitality, Medicine & Engineering Journal is responsible for deciding which of the articles submitted to the journal should be published. The Editor-in-Chief may be guided by the policies of the journal’s editorial board and constrained by such legal requirements as shall then be in force regarding libel, copyright infringement and plagiarism. The Editor-in-Chief may confer with other editors or reviewers in making this decision. They evaluate manuscripts for their intellectual content without regard to race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy of the authors. The editorial staff must not disclose any information about a submitted manuscript to anyone other than the corresponding author, reviewers, other editorial advisers, and the publisher, as appropriate. Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in an Editor’s own research without the express written consent of the Author.
Duties of Reviewers
Peer review assists the Editor-in-Chief in making editorial decisions and through the editorial communications with the author may also assist the author in improving the paper. If any selected Editor or Referee feels unqualified to review the research and the manuscript article should notify the Editor-in-Chief and excuse himself from the review process.
Manuscripts received for review are treated as confidential documents and are reviewed by anonymous Editorial Office. They will not be shown to or discussed with others without the Editor-in-Chief´s authorisation.
Peer-reviews should be conducted objectively. Personal criticism of the Author is inappropriate. Referees should express their views clearly with supporting arguments.
Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review is to be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage.
Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the Authors. Any statement, an observation, derivation, or argument that had been reported should be accompanied by the relevant citation. A Reviewer should also call to the Editor-in-Chief’s attention any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published paper of which they have personal knowledge.
Authors of contributions and studies 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 paper. 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.
Authors are asked to provide the raw data in connection with a paper for editorial review. 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.
Authors should not submit manuscripts describing essentially the same research in more than one journal or primary publication, or previously published elsewhere (whether in print or online). Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal concurrently constitutes unethical publishing behaviour and is unacceptable.
Proper acknowledgment of the work of others must always be given. Authors should cite publications that have been influential in determining the nature of the reported work.
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 acknowledged or listed as contributors.
The corresponding author should ensure that all appropriate co-authors and no inappropriate co-authors are included on the paper, and that all co-authors have seen and approved the final version of the paper and have agreed to its submission for publication.
All authors should disclose in their manuscript any financial or other substantive conflict of interest that might be construed to influence the results or interpretation of their manuscript. All sources of financial support for the project should be disclosed. top quality medications.
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 editor or publisher and cooperate with the editor to retract or correct the paper.
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). These relationships vary from those with negligible potential to those with great potential to influence judgment, and not all relationships represent true conflict of interest. The potential for conflict of interest can exist whether or not an individual believes that the relationship affects his or her scientific judgment. Financial relationships (such as employment, consultancies, stock ownership, honoraria, paid expert testimony) are the most easily identifiable conflicts of interest and the most likely to undermine the credibility of the journal, the authors, and of science itself. However, conflicts can occur for other reasons, such as personal relationships, academic competition, and intellectual passion.
Patients have a right to privacy that should not be infringed without informed consent. Identifying information, including patients’ names, initials, or hospital numbers, should not be published in written descriptions, photographs, and pedigrees unless the information is essential for scientific purposes and the patient (or parent or guardian) gives written informed consent for publication. Informed consent for this purpose requires that a patient who is identifiable be shown the manuscript to be published. Authors should identify Individuals who provide writing assistance and disclose the funding source for this assistance. Identifying details should be omitted if they are not essential. Complete anonymity is difficult to achieve, however, and informed consent should be obtained if there is any doubt. For example, masking the eye region in photographs of patients is inadequate protection of anonymity. If identifying characteristics are altered to protect anonymity, such as in genetic pedigrees, authors should provide assurance that alterations do not distort scientific meaning and editors should so note. The requirement for informed consent should be included in the journal’s instructions for authors. When informed consent has been obtained it should be indicated in the published article.
When reporting experiments on human subjects, authors should indicate whether the procedures followed were in accordance with the ethical standards of the responsible committee on human experimentation (institutional and national) and with the Helsinki Declaration of 1975, as revised in 2000 (5). If doubt exists whether the research was conducted in accordance with the Helsinki Declaration, the authors must explain the rationale for their approach, and demonstrate that the institutional review body explicitly approved the doubtful aspects of the study. When reporting experiments on animals, authors should be asked to indicate whether the institutional and national guide for the care and use of laboratory animals was followed.