Publication Ethics and Publication Malpractice Statement
Universa Medicina publishes peer-reviewed articles and is committed to ensuring ethics in publication and the quality of articles. Integrity in research publication has become a major issue of debate over the past years. To assure the highest standards for published articles, all parties involved in the publishing process (the author, the journal editor(s), the peer reviewer and the publisher) agree to meet the responsibility of standard publications ethics. The ethics statements for our journal are based on the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors.
Duties of the Editors-in-Chief and Editors
The Editor-in-Chief and any other editors have to take responsibility for everything they publish and should have procedures and policies in place to ensure the quality of the material they publish and maintain the integrity of the published record. The Editor-in-chief will decide upon the publication or rejection of submitted manuscripts based only on their originality, significance and relevance to the domains of the journal, and will respect the confidentiality of any information pertaining to the submitted manuscripts. The editors treat the submitted manuscript and all communication with authors and referees as confidential. The editors will take reasonable responsive measures when ethical complaints have been presented concerning a submitted manuscript or published paper. Editors have a responsibility for ensuring the peer review process is fair and should aim to minimize bias.The editors will ensure that the comments and recommendations of the reviewers are sent to the author(s) in due time and that the manuscripts are returned to the editors, who will take the final decision to publish them or not. Editors should not give any indication of a paper’s status with the journal to anyone other than the authors. In general, editors should not share submitted papers with editors of other journals, unless with the authors’ agreement or in cases of alleged misconduct. The Editor-in-Chief is in a powerful position by making decisions on publications, which makes it very important that this process is as fair and unbiased as possible, and is in accordance with the journal vision. Editors should not be involved in decisions about papers in which they have a conflict of interest, for example if they work or have worked in the same institution and collaborated with the authors, or if they have a personal relationship with the authors.
Duties of authors
Universa Medicina do not require all authors of a research paper to sign the letter of submission. Submission to a Universa Medicina is taken by the journal to mean that all the listed authors have agreed all of the contents, including the author list and author contributions statements. Authors are required to include a statement of responsibility in the manuscript that specifies the contribution of every author. Authors should ensure that their work is entirely original and that data sources are appropriately acknowledged. Plagiarism in all its forms, including self-plagiarism, is unacceptable. Authors are welcome to suggest suitable independent reviewers when they submit their manuscripts, but these suggestions may not be followed by the journal. Authors should make certain that the manuscript meets the terms of the Manuscript Submission Guideline.
The corresponding author is responsible for having ensured that this agreement has been reached, that all authors have agreed to be so listed and approved the manuscript submission to the journal, and for managing all communication between the journal and all co-authors, before and after publication. Any changes to the author list after submission, such as a change in the order of the authors, or the deletion or addition of authors, needs to be approved by every author. The corresponding author is solely responsible for communicating with the journal. The corresponding author also must clearly identify at submission any material within the manuscript that has previously been published elsewhere by other authors (for example, figures) and provide written permission from those authors and/or publishers, as appropriate, for the re-use of such material. After acceptance, the proof is sent to the corresponding author, who circulates it to all coauthors and deals with the journal on their behalf; the journal will not necessarily correct errors after publication if they result from errors that were present on a proof that was not shown to coauthors before publication. The corresponding author is responsible for the accuracy of all content in the proof, in particular that names of coauthors are present and correctly spelled, and that addresses and affiliations are current.
Duties of peer reviewers
The reviewers will treat any submitted manuscripts as confidential documents. Reviews should be conducted objectively and any observations should be supported by clear arguments, for use by the authors in improving their manuscript. Any selected referee who feels unqualified to review the manuscript or cannot provide a prompt review, should in due time send a notification of withdrawal from the review process to the editors. Reviews will be expected to be professional, honest, courteous, prompt, and constructive. Reviewer should informed editor about redundant publication and suspected plagiarism. Reviewers should not consider manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest connected to the papers. Reviewers are welcome to recommend a particular course of action, but they should bear in mind that the other reviewers of a particular paper may have different technical expertise and/or views, and the editors may have to make a decision based on conflicting advice. The reviewer should comment accurately and constructively upon the quality of the author's interpretation of the data, including acknowledgment of its limitations. The reviewer has to comments on any ethical concerns raised by the study, or any possible evidence of low standards of scientific conduct. Confidential comments to the editor are welcome, but it is helpful if the main points are stated in the comments for transmission to the authors. The reviewers should provide the editor the proper context and perspective to make a decision on acceptance (and/or revision) of the manuscript.
In cases of alleged or proven scientific misconduct, fraudulent publication or plagiarism the publisher, in close collaboration with the Editors-in-Chief, will take all appropriate measures
to clarify the situation and to amend the article in question. This includes the prompt publication of an erratum or, in the most severe cases, the complete retraction of the affected work.
The Publisher and the Journal do not discriminate on the basis of age, color, religion, creed, disability, marital status, veteran status, national origin, race, gender, genetic predisposition or carrier status, or sexual orientation in its publishing programs, services and activities.