These Best Practice Guidelines on Publication Ethics have been written to offer authors a framework for developing and implementing their own publication ethics policies and systems. Editors from WPOM-Working Papers on Operations Management trust peer reviewers to provide fair assessments, authors trust editors to select appropriate peer reviewers, and readers put their trust in the peer-review process.
Editors from WPOM believe good decisions and strong editorial processes designed to manage these interests will foster a sustainable and efficient publishing system, which will benefit academic societies, journal editors, authors, research funders, readers, and publishers. Good publication practices do not develop by chance, and will become established only if they are actively promoted.
Readers have a right to know who funded a research project or the publication of a document. Research funders should be listed on all research papers. Funding for any type of publication, for example, by a commercial company, charity or government department, should be stated within the publication. Other sources of support for publications should be clearly identified in the manuscript, usually in an acknowledgment. (Authors Guidelines)
Authors of the papers
All published work should be attributed to one or more authors. All authors that are reflected in the work must have actively contributed to it and if possible, reflect the part made at the end of each summary. If no make explicit the contribution is considered that all authors have an equivalent contribution in the article. WPOM instructions for authors explain the concepts of academic authorship, setting out which contributions do and do not qualify for authorship.
The editors of WPOM ask for a declaration that all authors meet the journal's criteria for authorship and that nobody who meets these criteria has been omitted from the list (Submission Preparation Checklist, item 6). If an authorship dispute emerges after publication (for example, somebody contacts the editor claiming they should have been an author of a published paper, or requesting that their name be withdrawn from a paper), the editors of WPOM contact the corresponding author and, where possible, the other authors to establish the veracity of the case.
Publication of papers that have not been published before
WPOM considers only work that has not been published elsewhere, except papers presented at conferences that should be extended (at least 30% new content) to be admitted; this submission have to have a footnote, in the first page, with the complete reference about conference where was presented the preliminary version of the work.
One reason for this is that the scientific literature can be skewed by redundant publication, with important consequences, for example, if results are inadvertently included more than once into meta-analyses. WPOM asks authors for a declaration that the submitted work and its essential substance have not previously been published and are not being considered for publication elsewhere (Authors Guidelines).
Promoting research integrity
If the editors of WPOM suspect research misconduct (for example, data fabrication, falsification or plagiarism), they should attempt to ensure that this is properly investigated by the appropriate authorities. Peer review sometimes reveals suspicion of misconduct. If peer reviewers raise concerns of serious misconduct (for example, data fabrication, falsification, inappropriate image manipulation, or plagiarism), these should be taken seriously. However, authors have a right to respond to such allegations and for investigations to be carried out with appropriate speed and due diligence.
Protecting the rights of research participants/subjects
Editors of WPOM create publication policies that promote ethical and responsible research practices. If the research has worked with data identifying individuals or organizations, the resulting work must be accompanied by a statement of consent from them. The Editors reserve the right to refuse work if there are doubts about whether proper procedures were followed.
Respecting cultures and heritage
Editors of WPOM exercise sensitivity when publishing images of objects that might have cultural significance or cause offence.
Informing readers about research and publication misconduct
Editors inform readers if ethical breaches have occurred. WPOM publishes corrections (errata) when errors could affect the interpretation of data or information, whatever the cause of the error (i.e. arising from author errors or from editorial mishaps). Likewise, WPOM publishes ‘retractions’ if work is proven to be fraudulent, or ‘expressions of concern’ if editors have well-founded suspicions of misconduct. The title of the erratum, retraction, or expression of concern includes the words ‘Erratum’, ‘Retraction’, or ‘Expression of concern’. It is published on a numbered page (print and electronic) and should be listed in the journal's table of contents. It enables the reader to identify and understand the correction in context with the errors made, or explains why the article is being retracted, or explains the editor's concerns about the contents of the article. It is linked electronically with the original electronic publication.
Editors of WPOM have a responsibility for ensuring the peer-review process is fair and should aim to minimize bias. Our system is a double blind peer review process. The material that has not been peer reviewed is clearly identified.
If discussions between an author, editor, and peer reviewer have taken place in confidence, they remain in confidence unless explicit consent has been given by all parties or there are exceptional circumstances.
Peer reviewer selection and performance
Editors of WPOM have a responsibility to ensure a high standard of objective, unbiased, and timely peer review. Editors monitor the performance of peer reviewers and record the quality and timeliness of their reviews. Peer reviewers who repeatedly produce poor quality, tardy, abusive or unconstructive reviews are not used again. Editors of WPOM encourage peer reviewers to identify if they have a conflict of interest with the material they are being asked to review, and editors ask that peer reviewers decline invitations requesting peer review where any circumstances might prevent them producing fair peer review.
Timing of publication
Editors of WPOM aim to ensure peer review be an agile process and it can ensure a short time to publish accepted papers, especially when, as judged by the journal's editorial staff, may have important implications.
Authors have the right to appeal editorial decisions, manifesting to Editors through the channel of communication established in Polipapers platform.
All reports and documents submitted to prevent academic misconduct will be archived in the Polipapers platform (OJS) associated with the publication.
Conflicts of interest
Editors, authors, and peer reviewers have a responsibility to disclose interests that might appear to affect their ability to present or review data objectively.
The editors of WPOM require reviewers a statement about conflicts of interest they may have in reviewing assignments.
Editorial independence is respected. Journal publishers do not interfere with editorial decisions. The relationship between the editor and the journal publisher is set out in a formal contract and an appeal mechanism for disputes is established. Editorial Universidad Politécnica de Valencia, as the publisher of WPOM, works with the journal editors to set journal policies appropriately and aim to meet those policies, particularly with respect to: editorial independence; research ethics(including confidentiality, consent, and the special requirements for research in social sciences); authorship; transparency and integrity (conflicts of interest, research funding, reporting standards); peer review (for further information concerning responsibilities in relation to peer review process.
The editors of WPOM have a responsibility to ensure the accuracy of the material they publish. WPOM encourages authors and readers to inform them if they discover errors in published work. We publish corrections if errors are discovered that could affect the interpretation of data or information presented in an article. Corrections arising from errors within an article (by authors or journals) are distinguishable from retractions and statements of concern relating to misconduct.
WPOM encourages academic debate. WPOM encourages correspondence commenting on published items and should always invite authors to respond to any correspondence before publication. However, authors do not have a right to veto unfavorable comments about their work and they may choose not to respond to criticisms.
Responsible publication practices
Editors attend the recommendations of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), the Council of Science Editors (CSE), or other competent authority, if more advice is needed.
Editors of WPOM pursue cases of suspected misconduct that become apparent during the peer-review and publication processes. In instances of confirmed misconduct, editors may consider imposing sanctions on the authors at fault for a period of time. Sanctions must be applied consistently. Before imposing sanctions, editors formally define the conditions in which they will apply (and remove) sanctions, and the processes they will use to do this.
Plagiarism and copyright
WPOM editors and readers have a right to expect that submitted work is the author's own, that it has not been plagiarized (i.e. taken from other authors without permission, if permission is required) and that copyright has not been breached (for example, if figures or tables are reproduced). We ask authors to declare that the work reported is their own and that they are the copyright owner. To support the review of the reviewers before a possible plagiarism, Similarity Check or similar platform will be used and all the papers presented will be checked.
In case of plagiarism, editors will contact to authors work's to clarify the circumstances. Authors could state the situation through the e-mail: email@example.com.
Protecting intellectual property
WPOM authors have a right to protect and conserve their intellectual property and they grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons.
Peer reviewer conduct and intellectual property
Authors are entitled to expect that peer reviewers or other individuals privy to the work an author submits to WPOM will not steal their research ideas or plagiarize their work. WPOM explains to peer reviewers that material is in confidence until it has not been published. Editors of WPOM protect peer reviewers from authors and, even if peer reviewer identities are revealed, should discourage authors from contacting peer reviewers directly, especially if misconduct is suspected.
Greatly reduce emphasis on the journal impact factor as a promotional tool, ideally by ceasing to promote the impact factor or by presenting the metric in the context of a variety of journal-based metrics (e.g., 5-year impact factor, EigenFactor, SCImago, h-index, editorial and publication times, etc.) that provide a richer view of journal performance.
Make available a range of article-level metrics to encourage a shift toward assessment based on the scientific content of an article rather than publication metrics of the journal in which it was published.
Encourage responsible authorship practices and the provision of information about the specific contributions of each author.
Whether a journal is open-access or subscription-based, remove all reuse limitations on reference lists in research articles and make them available under the Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication.
Remove or reduce the constraints on the number of references in research articles, and, where appropriate, mandate the citation of primary literature in favor of reviews in order to give credit to the group(s) who first reported a finding.