INSS Press INSS Press

Publishing Ethics

INSS Press journals are committed to the highest standards of publication ethics and take all possible measures against publication malpractice. This statement is based on the COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics) Core Practices and is enforced across all journals under INSS Press.

1. Duties of the Publisher

INSS Press provides a robust infrastructure to support the ethical conduct of research.

  • Integrity of the Record: We ensure the permanent availability and preservation of published content through CLOCKSS and LOCKSS.
  • Ethical Oversight: We work closely with Editors-in-Chief to monitor ethics and handle allegations of misconduct.
  • Non-Commercialism: We ensure that advertising, reprint, or other commercial revenue has no impact or influence on editorial decisions.

2. Research Involving Human and Animal Subjects

  • Human Subjects: All research must comply with the Declaration of Helsinki. Manuscripts must explicitly state the name of the Institutional Review Board (IRB) or Ethics Committee and provide the Approval Reference Number.
  • Informed Consent: A statement must be included confirming that informed consent was obtained for all participants. For case reports or images that could identify a person, written "Consent to Publish" is mandatory.
  • Animal Welfare: Studies must adhere to the 3Rs principles (Replacement, Reduction, and Refinement) and the ARRIVE guidelines. Approval from an IACUC or equivalent body must be cited with a reference number.

3. Standards for Authors

Authorship is a matter of accountability.

  • Originality and Plagiarism: All manuscripts are screened using iThenticate/Crossref Similarity Check. Authors must ensure that they have written entirely original works. Any confirmed data falsification, fabrication, or plagiarism will result in the immediate notification of the author's institution.
  • Data Access and Retention: Authors may be asked to provide raw data in connection with a paper for editorial review and must be prepared to provide public access to such data (consistent with the ALPSP-STM statement on Data and Databases).
  • Fundamental Errors: When an author discovers a significant error in their own published work, it is the author’s obligation to promptly notify the journal editor and cooperate to retract or correct the paper.

4. Conflict of Interest and Funding Transparency

  • Disclosure: All authors must disclose any financial or personal relationships that could be viewed as biasing their work.
  • Funding: Authors must list all funding sources in a dedicated "Funding" section. If the funder had no involvement in the study design or data analysis, this must be explicitly stated.
  • Reviewer/Editor COI: Any reviewer or editor with a conflict of interest (personal, professional, or financial) regarding a manuscript is mandated to recuse themselves from the process.

5. Peer Review and Editorial Responsibilities

Our peer review process is designed to be fair, objective, and confidential.

  • Confidentiality: Editors and reviewers must not disclose any information about a submitted manuscript to anyone other than the corresponding author and reviewers.
  • Objectivity: Reviews must be conducted objectively. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate. Reviewers should express their views clearly with supporting arguments.
  • Editorial Autonomy: The Editor-in-Chief has full authority over the entire editorial content and the timing of its publication.

6. Procedures for Handling Misconduct and Appeals

INSS Press follows the COPE Flowcharts when dealing with allegations of misconduct.

  • Investigations: We will investigate any allegation of misconduct, whether from a named or anonymous source. We will maintain confidentiality during the investigation.
  • Sanctions: In cases of proven misconduct, sanctions may include:
  • A formal letter to the author's institution or funding body.
  • A formal Retraction or Expression of Concern.
  • A permanent ban on future submissions to all INSS Press journals.
  • Appeals: Authors have the right to one appeal of a rejection. The appeal must be based on scientific evidence or a demonstration of bias, not on a desire for a different opinion.