Publication ethics and malpractice statement
- Last Updated: Tuesday, 02 February 2021 17:49
- Published: Monday, 30 March 2020 15:59
- Hits: 1877
Publication ethics and malpractice statement
Yearbook Japan is committed to the values of research reputation and high standards of publication activities. The editorial staff takes into account the best international and Russian publishing practices. The Editorial Board of the Yearbook in its activities is guided by generally accepted in the international scientific community standards of editorial and publishing ethics, peer review and authorship of scientific publications, which are enshrined in the Declaration of the Association of scientific editors and publishers (ASEP), and in recommendations of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and Publishing Ethics Resource Kit for editors https://www.elsevier.com/editors/perk (PERK) developed by Elsevier publisher.
The Yearbook takes as a premise that authors and peer reviewers are familiar with the authors’ ethical principles and peer review ethical principles reflected in the abovementioned documents and the recommendations of the Committee.
By submitting a manuscript the author confirms that he/she possesses author’s rights for it, as well as agrees to comply with the Criteria of Authorship and Authors’ Ethical Principles.
The authors should ensure that they have written entirely original works. If the authors have used the work or a part of works of other authors, this has been appropriately cited or quoted.
The Yearbook denounces all forms of publication malpractice, including plagiarism, duplicate submission, misappropriation of research results and fraud. Plagiarism in all its forms, from ‘passing off’ another’s paper as the author’s own paper, to copying or paraphrasing substantial parts of another’s paper (without attribution), constitutes unethical publishing behaviour and is unacceptable. The Yearbook ensures the integrity and transparency of each published article. In cases of alleged or proven scientific misconduct, fraudulent publication, or plagiarism the publisher will take all appropriate measures, including the prompt publication of a correction statement or, in the most severe cases, the retraction of the affected work.
As part of its ethical code the Editorial Board of the Yearbook is bound by the principle of confidentiality regarding individual articles under review or in the process of publication, as well as their Authors and Reviewers.
The Yearbook does not accept payments for publication. Any attempt by authors or other interested parties to offer such payment could result in rejection of the submitted manuscript.
Published articles may not represent the point of view of the Founders, Editorial Council or Editorial Board.
The Yearbook Authors should ensure that their works are entirely original works, and if the work and/or words of others have been used, this has been appropriately acknowledged. Authors may be asked to provide the raw data in connection with a paper for editorial review, and should be prepared to provide public access to such data, if practicable, and should in any event be prepared to retain such data for a reasonable time after publication.
Authors are obliged to participate in the peer review process. They 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. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behavior and are unacceptable. Plagiarism in all its forms is unacceptable. Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal concurrently constitutes unethical publishing behaviour and is unacceptable.
Authors should cite publications that have been influential in determining the nature of the reported work. Information obtained by private communication, correspondence or discussions with third parties should not be used without the express written consent of the correspondent source. 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. Proper acknowledgment of the work of others should always be given. 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. 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 Editor or Publisher and cooperate with the Editor to retract or correct the paper.
The Yearbook Editors should evaluate manuscripts for their intellectual content without regard to race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy of the authors.
Any manuscripts received for review are treated as confidential documents. They must not be shown to or discussed with others than the corresponding Author, Reviewers, potential Reviewers, other editorial advisers, and the Publisher, as appropriate.
As a supervisor of the double-blind peer review process, Editors are obliged to provide for conditions excluding any conflict of interests between the sides resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers. Author or co-author of the reviewed work cannot act as Reviewer, as well as scientific supervisor of scientific degree candidates. Editors should require all contributors to disclose relevant competing interests and publish corrections if conflicts of interest are revealed after publication. In case a conflict of interest is discovered, even years after publication, a corresponding correction must be applied.
Editors should take reasonably responsive measures when ethical complaints have been presented concerning a submitted manuscript or published paper, in conjunction with the publisher. Every reported act of unethical publishing behaviour should be looked. If the complaint is upheld, the publication of a correction, retraction, expression of concern, apology or other note, may be relevant.
Reviewers are obliged to give objective and impassionate decisions; to ensure confidentiality in his work with manuscripts and not to show or discuss them with others, except as authorized by the editor; not to use the information obtained in the course of expertize for self-profit; to excuse himself from the review process if the Reviewer expert feels lack of qualification to review the manuscript; to express opinions or draw conclusions basing on factual information and prove decisions adopted; to help the author improve the paper suggestions; to attract the Editor’s attention to significant or fractional similarity of the manuscript with any other paper, as well as the absence of references to ideas, conclusions and arguments in the papers already published by the author seeking submission or by other authors.
Yearbook Japan publisher in cooperation with the Association of Japanologists and Institute of Oriental Studies of the Russian Academy of Sciences is committed to work with Editors to define clearly the respective roles of publisher, of partner institutions and of editors. The Publisher pursues the aim of ensuring the autonomy of editorial decisions, without influence from advertisers or other commercial partners. Yearbook Japan Publisher ensures the integrity and transparency of each published article with respect to: conflicts of interest, publication and research funding, publication and research ethics, cases of publication and research misconduct, confidentiality, authorship, article corrections, clarifications and retractions, and timely publication of content. 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 a correction statement or erratum or, in the most severe cases, the retraction of the affected work.