Publication Ethical Statement
Recent Advances in Ophthalmology
In order to strengthen and enhance the construction of academic norms, scientific research integrity and academic ethics in the process of writing, reviewing and editing scientific papers, as well as cultivate excellent learning atmosphere and promote scientific spirit for resolutely resisting academic misconduct, it is important to establish and maintain a fair, just and open academic exchange environment. Therefore, the editorial board of Recent Advances in Ophthalmology (shorted in Rec Adv Ophthalmol) has formulated this publication ethical statement in conjunction with the reality of the publication, promising to not only strictly abide by and implement the relevant national academic ethics and editing and publishing policies and regulations to restrict the behaviors of authors, reviewers, journal editors and funders in the entire process of editing and publishing, but accept the supervision of academia and the whole society.
This Ethics Statement is based on the recommendations of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) (www.publicationethics.org) and the "Statement on Promoting the Integrity and Ethics of Academic Publishing Research" by the Chinese Society of Science and Technology Journal Editors (www.cessp. org.cn/info/73924.jspx).
1- Obligations of the authors
The authors must not only ensure that the paper does not involve state secrets and any infringement issues related to intellectual property rights, but that, in this paper, the following items must be disclosed in detail, including the academic research process, key research information which can promote scientific research transparency, and the materials with integrity for the publication of academic results.
Art. 1.1 Originality
Authors must ensure that they have written a completely original study (except for reviews), and does not contain any forgery, deception or plagiarism, and if they have used other people’s books or statements, they must be properly cited, which should be listed in the pattern of references.
Art. 1.2 Authorship
Authors should be limited to those have made a significant contribution to the work reported, whether that’s in the conception, study design, execution, acquisition of data, analysis and interpretation, or in all these areas. All those who have made significant contributions should be listed as co-authors. Where there are others who have participated in certain substantive aspects of the research project, they should be acknowledged. The corresponding author should ensure that all appropriate co-authors are included on the paper, and that all co-authors have seen and approved the final version of the paper and have agreed to its submission for publication. All co-author information must be indicated when submitting the manuscript. After the manuscript has been submitted, if any authorship information needs to be corrected, the editor's consent is required.
Art. 1.3 Research ethics
Authors should ensure that ethical issues must be actively considered for all research. If the work involves chemicals, procedures or equipment that have any unusual hazards inherent in their use, the author must clearly identify these in the manuscript. When reporting on research that involves human and/or animal subjects, authors must declare that the investigations are carried out following the rules of the Declaration of Helsinki(https://www.wma.net/what-we-do/medical-ethics/declaration-of-helsinki/).
Art. 1.4 Information disclosure
Authors need to disclose all financial information and conflicts of interest information that may affect the results and related interpretations. Information on all sources of funding for research projects should also be indicated.
Art. 1.5 Data access
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, of which the purpose is to promote the repeatability and usability of the basic data set. The author should agree that after the submitted manuscript is published, the license and exclusive agency rights of the copyright shall be transferred to the editorial board of Rec Adv Ophthalmol.
Art. 1.6 Duplicate submissions and multiple publications
The author should not in general submit manuscripts describing essentially the same research in more than one journal or primary publication. Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal concurrently constitutes unethical publishing behaviour and is unacceptable. In general, authors should not submit for consideration in another journal before the reject decision is given from the editorial board. If an author want to publish the paper in different formats (including publications in different languages), explanatory information should be given when submitting the paper. In addition, publishing the same manuscript in more than one journal is unethical and unacceptable.
Art. 1.7 Errors in publishing
If the author discovers an important error or an inaccuracy in its publication, its obligation is to quickly inform the editor and to consider the withdrawal of the article or issue the correction statement of the error.
2- Obligations of reviewers
Reviewers should ensure that manuscripts are reviewed scientifically and accurately with an objective and fair attitude, and keep the text content confidential. The opinion of the reviewer must be clear, well-argued and respectful of the author. Reviewers should withdraw if the manuscript involves conflicts of interest.
Art. 2.1 Confidentiality
Any manuscript received by the reviewer must be regarded as a confidential document. Without the authorization of the editor, the manuscript cannot be displayed or discussed to others, and unpublished data contained in the submitted manuscript must not be used by reviewers in their own research without the explicit consent of the author.
Art. 2.2 Objectivity
Reports should be objective and fair without bias based on scientific facts. The reviewed manuscripts are only evaluated academically, and personal remarks and criticisms directed at the author or hurtful remarks directed at the text content are not eligible. The intellectual content of submitted manuscripts is evaluated regardless of race, gender, religion, belief, status, qualifications and authority of the contributors. Referees should express their views clearly with supporting arguments.
Art. 2.3 Professional evaluation
The innovation, scientificity, and practicability of the manuscript are reviewed with professional attitude. Reviewers should make fair evaluations on whether the research methods are appropriate, whether the scientific research design is reasonable, whether the results and conclusions are accurate, and whether there is any leakage of secrets for assisting the editorial staff in making decisions and may also assist the author to improve the quality of the manuscript.
Art. 2.4 Delays and deadlines
When a guest reviewer does not feel competent enough to evaluate the research presented in the manuscript, or if he finds himself unable to provide his report in time, he must inform the editor without delay in order to give him time to contact other reviewers.
Art. 2.5 Withdrawal principle
Reviewers should not consider manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers.
3- Obligations of the editor
Editor staff should strictly implement relevant national laws and regulations, and abide by academic publishing ethics and norms. All submissions should be dealt with in a timely and fair manner. Editors should respect the author's research results and the report of reviewers, and keep the information of authors and reviewers confidential. Finally, cheating in academics is avoided.
Art. 3.1 Duty of publication
Editors should be responsible for all editorial sessions of the manuscript, including continuously promoting the development of the journal and ensuring that the edited manuscripts are published on time with high quality. Editors should obey the relevant policies formulated by the journal's editorial committee, and at the same time comply with relevant laws and regulations involving defamation, infringement and plagiarism.
Art. 3.2 Confidentiality
It is obliged to keep the materials in each link of review and revision confidential. The editor and any editorial staff must not disclose any information about a submitted manuscript to anyone other than the corresponding author, reviewers, potential reviewers, and editorial committee, as appropriate.
Art. 3.3 Fair play
An editor should evaluate manuscripts for their intellectual content based on the principle of fairness, and acceptation or reject of papers must only rely on the basis of the originality, importance, clarity, and compliance of the journal's purpose and scope.
Art. 3.4 Conflicts of interest
Editors should ensure that the review of the paper is fair and reasonable. Editor must propose to replace the reviewer who have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers, and the editor-in-chief or other editorial committee members shall be responsible for the review of the paper.
Art. 3.5 Other items
• When the edited paper has major revisions, it should communicate with the author in time and obtain the author's consent.
• Encourage academic contention and have the obligation to answer the author’s different views on the reviewer’s report.
• Eliminate all business-oriented and interest exchanges that are detrimental to research ethics.
• Ensure that the information submitted by the author shall not be used for the editor’s personal research or for the research of others; ensure that the identity of reviewers and other relevant personnel are protected during the blind review process.
4- Obligations of funders
It is essential for funders to build a good climate of scientific integrity, so they should support research independence and comply with ethics and laws.
• Does not affect the author's research.
• Do not participate in or support guest authors and ghostwriters.
• Support authors' freedom of submission.
• Do not interfere with the peer review.
5- Academic misconduct
"Zero tolerance" should perform for academic misconduct. Once academic misconduct is disclosed before or after publication of the paper, the author will be strictly punished in accordance with relevant laws and regulations, and warning, self-criticism, reject, withdrawal, a notice of criticism and contact to the authors' institutions will be implemented according to the severity of the circumstances. A solid system of scientific research integrity with equal emphasis on self-discipline and heteronomy will be founded based on the attitude of “no tolerance, no concession and no connivance”.
