Ethical Responsibilities and Duties

Publishers’ Ethical Responsibilities and Duties

(https://publicationethics.org/core-practices)

1. Rovedar is committed to ensuring that the final decision on a manuscript always rests with the Editor-in-Chief (EiC).
2. Rovedar promises to ensure that the decision on manuscript submissions is only made based on professional judgment and will not be affected by any commercial interests.
3. Rovedar is committed to maintaining the integrity of academic and research records.
4. Rovedar monitors the ethics of the EiC, editor/co-editors, editorial board members, reviewers, authors, and readers.
5. Rovedar always checks the plagiarism and fraudulent data issues involved in the submitted manuscript.
6. Rovedar is always willing to publish corrections, clarifications, and retractions involving its publications as and when needed.

Editors’ Ethical Responsibilities and Duties

(http://publicationethics.org/files/Code_of_conduct_for_journal_editors_Mar11.pdf )

1. The Editors of the journal should have the authority to reject/accept a manuscript.
2. The Editors of the journal should maintain the confidentiality of submitted manuscripts under review or until they are published.
3. The Editor-in-Chief should make the final decision on submitted manuscripts, whether to be published or not with other editors and reviewers.
4. The Editors of the journal should preserve the anonymity of reviewers.
5. The Editors of the journal should disclose and try to avoid any conflicts of interest.
6. The Editors of the journal should maintain academic integrity and strive to meet the needs of readers and authors.
7. The Editors of the journal should be willing to investigate plagiarism and fraudulent data issues and to publish corrections, clarifications, retractions, and apologies when needed.
8. The Editors of the journal should limit themselves only to the intellectual content.
9. The Editor is responsible for safeguarding the confidentiality of all content sent to the journal and any interactions with reviewers, unless there is a prior agreement with the respective authors and reviewers
10. Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted paper will not be used by the editor or the members of the editorial board for their own research purposes without the author’s explicit written consent.

***The use of AI and AI-assisted technologies in the editorial process

A manuscript submitted for review must be handled confidentially. Editors must refrain from uploading the manuscript or any portion of it to generative AI tools, as doing so could infringe upon the authors’ confidentiality and proprietary rights. Additionally, if the paper includes identifiable personal information, it may violate data privacy rights. This confidentiality obligation also applies to all correspondence related to the manuscript, including notifications or decision letters, as they might contain sensitive information about the manuscript or the authors. Consequently, editors should avoid using AI tools, even for the purpose of enhancing language and readability, by uploading their letters.

Reviewers’ Ethical Responsibilities and Duties

(http://publicationethics.org/files/u7140/Peer%20review%20guidelines.pdf)

1. Reviewers contribute to editorial decisions by validating a newly submitted author’s research to confirm its suitability for publication.
2. Reviewers should generally treat authors and their work as they would like to be treated themselves and observe good reviewing etiquette.
3. Reviewers should provide comments in time that will help editors make a decision on whether the submitted manuscript is to be published or not.
4. Reviewers’ comments on each submitted manuscript should be technical, professional, and objective. They should express their views clearly with supporting arguments.
5. Reviewers who feel unqualified to review the submitted manuscript or are unable to do a prompt review should notify the editor.
6. Reviewers should maintain the confidentiality of manuscripts, which they are invited to review. They must not share the review or any information about the paper with anyone or contact the authors directly without permission from the editor.
7. If there is a need to discuss with colleagues or co-reviewing exercises, the reviewer should first notify the editor in order to ensure that confidentiality is observed or it is allowed.
8. Reviewers are not allowed to use unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript unless written consent is obtained from the author.
9. Reviewers must keep ideas and novel information obtained through peer review confidential and not used for personal advantage.
10. Reviewer should notify the editor by the relevant comments, if there were any ethical issues in the paper, including any substantial overlap with other published papers.
11. Reviewers should be unbiased experts and not criticize the author personally which is inappropriate.
12. Reviewers should not review the manuscripts in which they have found conflicts of interest with any of the authors, companies, or institutions.
13. Reviewers should not accept to review a manuscript if a conflict of interest exists. In case of an undisclosed conflict of interest by the authors, resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers, the action will be taken according to COPE’s regulations.
14. Any suggestion by a reviewer in the manuscript to cite his/her published work is allowed only for genuine scientific reasons and not to increase the reviewer’s citation index.

Finding reviewers

Finding new reviewers is always a challenge for each journal editor. Rovedar has here some tools and tips to help:

Tools

• In order to save authors’ time, Rovedar journals offer a facile open-access submission system operating based on Open Journal Systems. When authors submit a manuscript, they are requested to upload a file suggesting unbiased expert reviewers. All the expert reviewers suggested by the authors are saved in the system for future needs to identify reviewers. The suggested reviewers provided by authors during the submission process will be utilized for other articles and will not be taken into account for their own manuscript. Editors may also determine the suitability of a reviewer using their publication and citation record, as well as details of co-authors.
• Co-editors prepare a digitally signed reviewer certificate for each reviewer after a peer-review process is successfully completed.

Tips

• Select reviewers conducting research in a similar area; they will be best placed to spot any shortcomings of the paper. Their interest in the topic may also mean they review the paper quickly.
• Ask editorial board members to review, if there was no suitable expert reviewer.
• Ask recently published authors, young researchers, post-doctorates, or professors; they may be more likely to review. As much as possible, no reviewers have not published in the last five years.
• Those who have not published in the journal, may not review but could refer papers to another reviewer.
• Only invite as many reviewers as each editor requires.
• Actively contributing reviewers of Rovedar journals are granted the right to publish one article, free of fees, during the calendar year they serve on the board. This offer expires at the end of the year and cannot be accumulated or transferred to another person.

***The use of AI and AI-assisted technologies in the peer-review process

Although some journals use generative AI to identify potential peer reviewers for manuscripts, editors should be responsible for choosing reviewers and actively supervise this process. While AI can aid in suggesting reviewers and streamlining the process, entirely replacing human editorial judgment with AI is not allowed. Many editors already use software to suggest reviewers and check for conflicts of interest, but having a human editor behind decisions is valuable, providing a sense of responsibility for the journal’s content.

Editors and reviewers should not exclusively rely on generative AI to review the submitted papers. If AI tools are used, transparency with authors is essential, and AI-generated content should not be the sole basis for reviewer recommendations or editorial decisions. This caution is vital to preserve the role of editors in fostering meaningful scholarly discussions. While generative AI can aid in various aspects of paper evaluation, the complete substitution of humans in the review process should not occur, as retaining human evaluation is crucial to maintaining the integrity of the review process.

Authors’ Ethical Responsibilities and Duties

(http://publicationethics.org/files/International%20standards_authors_for%20website_11_Nov_2011.pdf)

1. Manuscripts must be submitted with the understanding that they have not been published elsewhere (except in the form of an abstract or as part of a published lecture, review, or thesis) and are not currently under consideration by another journal or any other publisher.
2. Manuscripts must be submitted only in English and should be written according to sound grammar and proper terminology.
3. The submitting corresponding author is responsible for ensuring that the manuscript article’s publication has been approved by all the other coauthors.
4. In order to sustain the peer review system, authors have an obligation to participate in the peer-review process to evaluate manuscripts from others.
5. It is also the author’s responsibility to ensure that the manuscripts emanating from a particular institution are submitted with the necessary approval of the institution.
6. It is a condition for submission of a manuscript that the authors permit editing of the paper for readability.
7. Authors are requested to clearly identify who provided financial support for the conduct of research and/or preparation of the manuscript and briefly describe the role of the founder/ sponsor in any part of the work.
8. A copyright release form must be signed by the corresponding author in case of multiple authorship, prior to the acceptance of the manuscript, by all authors, for publication to be legally responsible for the journal’s ethics and privacy policy.
9. Under an open-access license, authors retain ownership of the copyright for their content but allow anyone to download, reuse, reprint, modify, distribute, and/or copy the content as long as the original authors and source are cited properly.
10. All authors have agreed to allow the corresponding author to serve as the correspondent with the editorial office, to review the edited manuscript and proof.
11. When an author(s) discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in his/her own published work, the author should promptly notify the journal editor or publisher to retract or correct the manuscript. All authors must know that the submitted manuscripts under review or published in Rovedar journals are subject to screening using Plagiarism Prevention Software. Plagiarism is a serious violation of publication ethics.
12. All authors must know that the submitted manuscripts under review or published in Rovedar journals are subjected to screening using Plagiarism Prevention Software. Plagiarism is a serious violation of publication ethics.
13. All authors must ensure that they have read the submission final checklist before being submitted. For more details kindly see the instructions for the authors of each journal.
14. For more information about Authors’ Ethical Responsibilities please visit Authorship and Authors’ Responsibilities.