Publication ethics and malpractice

This document is based (among others) on the COPE Guidelines on Good Publication Practice (1999), COPE Code of Ethics (2003), COPE Best Practice Guidelines(2007), COPE Code of Conduct and Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors (2011), Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing (2014), Recommendations on Publication Ethics by the World Association of Medical Editors (WAME), Financial Theory and Practice, Ethical Guidelines for Publishing Journals, Libri & Liberi, Ethical Conduct and Guidelines for Editing for Publishing Journals; Code of Ethics of the Board for Ethics in Science and Higher Education of the Republic of Croatia, and the Code of Ethics of the University of Zadar.

Ethical guidelines

This Code affirms general ethical guidelines whose purpose is to protect, direct and promote responsible and ethically-based conduct and action by all participants in the publishing activities of the University of Zagreb, in accordance with basic ethical principles and the highest ethical standards in scientific and expert work.

Author's responsibilities and obligations

Reporting scientific research results

  • Authors are obliged to present their work in the proper manner, in accordance with the customs of scientific and academic communication, and in the context of previous research, providing an objective discussion of its significance and importance.
  • Authors are also obliged to describe the methods applied and present their results in a clear, unambiguous manner.
  • Their works should include sufficient details and references so that others can check their work.
  • Deceitfully or deliberately presented false statements amount to non-ethical conduct and are unacceptable.
  • The way in which borrowed parts of text or illustrations are cited or mentioned must be in accordance with the rules of the profession or journal.
  • Plagiarism in all forms is non-ethical, unacceptable conduct.

Using coyprighted materials

  • Authors are obliged to produce permission from the bearer of authorial rights to publish graphic additions (illustrations, photographs, tables, charts, diagrams and similar material protected by laws regarding authorial rights).
  • Material protected by authorial rights may only be reproduced with the appropriate permission.

Multiple submissions of the same manuscript

  • Submitting the same manuscript or partially overlapping contents simultaneously to several journals or primary publications is non-ethical, unacceptable conduct in publishing.
  • An author should not submit for consideration an article which has already been published elsewhere.
  • Publishing some types of articles (for example, translation) in one or more journals is occasionally justified, assuming that primary publication is referenced in the repeat publication.
  • The authors and editors of the journal Archaeologia Adriatica must give their consent to secondary publication which may be based on the same data and interpretation as in the primary document.

Citing and referencing sources

  • It is always essential to mention the work of others properly, and authors must cite sources which have an essential influence on the contents of their research and manuscript.
  • Information obtained privately, for example in conversation, correspondence or discussion with a third party, may not be used or conveyed without the express written consent of the source, that is, authorisation.
  • Information obtained during the performance of confidential services, such as reviewing a manuscript or submitting a project for financing, may not be used without the express written approval of the author of the work which is the subject of such services.

Co-authorship

  • Authorship should be restricted to persons who have made significant contributions to the conception, planning, execution or interpretation of the research; all those who have made significant contributions should be listed as co-authors.
  • If others have participated in essential aspects of the research project, they should be acknowledged or listed for their contributions.
  • The author who submits the work should ensure that all the actual co-authors are acknowledged, and that others who had no part in the actual writing of the work are excluded; all co-authors should have seen and authorised the final version of the work and agreed to presenting it for publication.

Effective communication with editors and reviewers

  • Authors are expected to react professionally and promptly to editors’ and reviewers’ comments.
  • If an author decides to withdraw a manuscript which has already been sent for review, or is unwilling to accept the reviewers’ suggestions, the editorial board and publisher must be informed immediately.

Declaring conflict of interest

  • In their manuscripts, authors should declare any financial or other conflict of interest which may affect the results or interpretation of their works.
  • All the organisations which have supported the research should be clearly listed, along with all sources of financing and their potential role in the conduct of the research and processing and publishing of its results.
  • Examples of potential conflicts of interest which must be declared include employment, consultations, share-holding, honoraria, paid expert opinions, submitting and registering patents, deeds of gift, and other sources of financing.

Corrections or rectraction

  • If an author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in the published work, he is obliged without delay to inform the editorial board or publisher and cooperate with them to recall or correct the work.
  • If the editorial board is informed by a third party of a significant error in the published work, the author must without delay recall or correct the work, or provide the editorial board with proof of the accuracy of the original work.

Editorial responsibilities and duties

  • Editors are responsible for the overall content of the publication, which means they must try to meet the needs of readers and authors, follow well-defined editorial procedures to ensure the quality of the published material, and promote freedom of expression.
  • Editors should refrain from considering a manuscript when there is conflict of interest due to competition, collusion, or a relationship with or connection to any other author, commercial association or institution regarding the manuscript.
  • Editors must ensure the integrity of academic documents and publish corrections, explanations, retractions or apologies as necessary.
  • The editorial board must actively seek the opinions of authors, readers, reviewers and members of the editorial board on ways of improving the publication.
  • Editors must assess systematically the effects of their instructions to authors and reviewers and revise them as necessary, stimulating responsible behaviour and discouraging dishonourable conduct.

Quality assurance of published material

  • The editorial board must take all appropriate steps to ensure the quality of published material.
  • They must have access to systems for detecting false information (for example, inappropriate manipulation of graphics, or copying or paraphrasing texts without citing the original) and use them regularly, or in cases of doubt.
  • They must encourage the application of a standardised style of citing literature and other sources of information and other standards of reporting commonly accepted in the international community concerned with the relevant scientific field.
  • They should not demand that an author cite publications for which work has been proposed.

Data confidentiality and privacy protection

  • The editorial board is obliged to protect the confidentiality of information gathered during research or professional interaction
  • It is almost always necessary to obtain written consent for publication from persons who may recognise themselves, or be recognised by others in the work (for example, from case studies or photographs).
  • Publishing personal data without express consent is only allowed when public interest takes priority over potential damages, if it is impossible to obtain consent, or if it can be assumed that a reasonable person would not object to publication.
  • The policy for publishing personal data must be made public and explained to authors.
  • Consent to participation in research or treatment is not the same as consent to the publication of personal data, photographs or quotations.

Allegations of scientific misconduct

  • If they suspect authors or reviewers of dishonesty, or if this is proven to them, editors must act, regardless of whether the work has already been published.
  • They should not simply reject manuscripts which arouse concern or suspicion in terms of intellectual dishonesty. An ethical approach means investigating such cases, wherever possible, and regardless of the demands of the procedure and effort involved. It is recommended that the COPE diagrams (Committee on Publication Ethics) are followed (available on the Ministry of Science and Education website: https://mzo.hr/sites/default/files/migrated/eticki-postupnik-za-urednike.pdf).
  • Editors should first seek answers from those whose conduct is suspicious. If they are not satisfied, they should make enquiries with the relevant employer, institution or body, making every effort to investigate the alleged act of intellectual dishonesty as thoroughly as possible.

Retraction of published work

  • False, inaccurate or deceptive statements must be corrected immediately and duly emphasised.
  • Editors should follow international guidelines on retraction, for example, the COPE guidelines.
  • They must take all necessary steps to reduce the publication of works in which errors are repeated, or the presentation of unregistered clinical trials.

Open access

  • Editors should encourage open access publication of scientific research, for example, by storing publications in institutional, national and international repositories.

Safeguarding intellectual property rights"

  • Regarding matters of intellectual property, editors must cooperate with the publisher when considering potential violations of the laws and conventions on intellectual property rights.
  • In this, they may use tools to detect plagiarism in submitted manuscripts (software which detects similarities between texts) as part of the regular editorial process, whenever doubt arises.

Evaluating and addressing criticism of published work

  • The editorial board should encourage and be ready to consider well-argued criticism of the published work, and give the author of the criticised material the opportunity to respond.
  • They need not rule out the publication of works which report negative results. They should be open to research which questions the results of previously published works.

Conflict of interest

  • The editorial board must have developed systems for managing internal conflicts of interests and those concerning employees engaged in editing, writing, reviewing, etc.
  • There should be a declared procedure for handling manuscripts by the main editor, employees, or members of the editorial board, in order to ensure an unbiased approach to reviewing.
  • To this end, it is necessary to avoid all conflicts of interest (financial, academic, family-related, and others) in the editor-editorial board-reviewer-author chain.

Relations between authors and editors

  • The journal has its instructions to authors. These instructions from the editorial board clearly list and explain to authors what is expected of them, including the criteria for authorship and associate status, following the standards which are applied within the scientific field.
  • Authors should have access to the criteria, flowchart and description of the review procedure, and the editorial board should be ready to justify any departure from these.

Relations between editors and reviewers

  • The editorial board must select two or more persons who have the relevant expert competences to evaluate the manuscript, give them clear instructions on how to conduct the review procedure, and bear the responsibility for its objectivity and timely completion.
  • Instructions to reviewers should be revised regularly and contain links to the relevant documents (for example, the COPE recommendations, etc.).
  • Befor accepting the role, reviewers should declare any potential conflict of interest.
  • Privileged information or ideas acquired during the review procedure must be kept confidential and may not be used for personal gain.

Reviewer responsibilities and duties

  • The task of the reviewer is to assess a received manuscript critically but constructively, and to provide a list of detailed comments and suggestions, with explanations, regarding the research conducted and the way in which it is presented in the work.
  • The reviewer helps the editor make editorial decisions and, by communicating with the editor and author(s), helps improve the quality of the work.
  • If reviewers are selected, but feel they are not qualified, have other reasons for not wanting to review the manuscript, or know that they will not be able to complete the review on time, they should inform the editor and withdraw from the review procedure.
  • Each manuscript received for review, and the review itself, must be treated as confidential documents. They should not be shown to others, published, or discussed with others, without the permission of the editorial board.
  • Reviews must be objective. Personal criticism directed at the author is inappropriate.
  • Reviewers should clearly express their opinions stating their arguments.
  • Reviewers should be aware of important published works not cited by the author.
  • Reviewers should not agree to review a manuscript if it involves a potential conflict of interest
  • Reviewers should respect the deadline given for their review.