Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement (PEMS)

Our PEMS policy supports the combined work of authors, editors, review boards, and reviewers to produce responsible research publications (Articles, Monographs, Conference Proceedings, Books, and other forms of content).

 

River Publishers are committed to upholding the highest standards of publication ethics, and as a publisher, we take every possible measure against publication malpractice. Authors who submit articles to any of our journals or proposals to one of our book series must attest that their work is original and unpublished and is not under consideration for publication elsewhere.

 

In addition, authors confirm that their journal article or book proposal is their own, that it is not a work of plagiarism, and that they have disclosed actual or potential conflicts of interest or partial benefits associated with the work. We fairly and aggressively police this policy.

DUTIES OF EDITORS

Publishing Ethics Oversight

• Publishing ethics is an essential aspect of River Publishers' editorial and peer-review process; therefore, the responsibility of ensuring a high ethical standard lies with each publication's Editor-in-Chief or Series Editor.

Final Decision on the Publication of Articles or Books

• The Editor (s) in Chief of journals published by River Publisher, and the Series Editors of book series published by River Publishers, are responsible for deciding which of the articles submitted to the journal shall be published or which book proposals are accepted for publication. In the case of journals, the Editor in Chief may be guided by the views of the journal's editorial board. The Editor in Chief may also confer with other editors or reviewers in making publication decisions.

Review of Journal Articles

• The Editors in Chief of a journal also ensure that each manuscript undergoes at least a 'blind' peer review by a minimum of two reviewers. Note: We are working towards double-blind for some of our Journals. Also, before considering the paper, we use an industry tool to check for plagiarism and immediately reject any paper with a more than 20% similarity score. Individual Journals may set lower similarity scores if they wish.

Review of a book proposal and Journal special issue proposals

• Book series editors are the initial quality control for book proposals - but the proposals also must be reviewed by at least one other reviewer. Further, we conduct random checks on the other listed editors or authors on such submissions to ensure that authors/editors are aware that they have been included in proposals.

Disclosure and conflicts of interest

• Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used by anyone who has a view of the manuscript in his or her own research without the express written consent of the author. We refresh and update our reviewer's database and undertake periodic spot checks to ensure that all referees act with integrity.

Fair play

• Manuscripts shall be evaluated solely on their intellectual merit without regard to the author's race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy. Our move towards double-blind reviewing is aimed to help ensure this.

Confidentiality

• The Editor in Chief/Editors and our editorial staff must not disclose any information about a submitted manuscript to anyone other than the corresponding author, reviewers, potential reviewers, other editorial advisers, and the publisher.

DUTIES OF REVIEWERS

Confidentiality

• Information regarding manuscripts submitted by authors must be kept confidential and treated as privileged information.

Standards of Objectivity

• Reviews will be conducted objectively. There shall be no personal criticism of the author. Reviewers should express their views clearly with supporting arguments. We aim to move all Journals to a double-blind reviewing system in 2022. At the moment, all are blind reviews, and some are double-blind.

Acknowledgment of Sources

• Reviewers should identify relevant published work that the authors have not cited. The relevant citation should accompany any statement that had been previously reported elsewhere. A reviewer should also call to the Editors in Chief's attention any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published paper they have personal knowledge of.

Conflict of Interest

• Reviewers should not review manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers.

DUTIES OF AUTHORS

Reporting standards

• Authors of reports of original research should present an accurate account of the work performed and an objective discussion of its significance. All underlying data must be represented accurately in the paper. A paper should contain sufficient detail and references to permit others to replicate the work. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behavior and are unacceptable.

Data Sharing, Access, and Retention

• 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, if practicable, and should, in any event, be ready to retain such data for a reasonable time post-publication.

Originality and Plagiarism

• Authors must ensure that they have written entirely original works, and if the authors have used the work and/or words of others, this must be appropriately cited or quoted.

Multiple Publications, Redundant or Concurrent Publication

• An author should not, in general, publish manuscripts describing essentially the same research in more than one journal or primary publication. Concurrently submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable.

Acknowledgment of Sources

• Acknowledging the work of others must always be properly cited. Authors should cite publications that have been influential in determining the nature of the reported work.

Authorship of the Paper

• Authorship should be limited to those who have made a significant contribution to the conception, design, execution, or interpretation of the reported study. All those who have made significant contributions should be listed as co-authors. Where others have participated in certain substantive aspects of the research project, they should be acknowledged or listed as contributors.

Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest

• All authors should disclose in their manuscript any financial or other substantive conflicts of interest that might be construed to influence the results or interpretation of their manuscript. All sources of financial support for the project should be disclosed.

Requested Changes

• All authors are obliged to make requested changes and correct mistakes in a timely manner.

Fundamental Errors in Published Works

• Should an author discover a significant error or inaccuracy in their published work, it is the author's obligation to promptly notify us and cooperate with us to retract or correct the article.

DUTIES OF PUBLISHERS

Complaints and Appeals Process
As publishers, we aim to be completely transparent and fair in dealings with all authors and editors. Should an author, reviewer, Editor, or representative need to file a complaint, appeal a decision, or share other information, please send an email detailing the appropriate information (title, author, dataset, etc.) to:  pubethics@riverpublishers.com

River Publishers treats all such communications seriously, confidentially, and will reply promptly.

Intellectual Property
Conference organizers must comply with the ethical practices set up by OAPEN (http://www.oapen.org), Directory of Open Access Books (DOAB: http://www.doabooks.org), and IEEE ethical practices.

River Publishers, Alsbjergvej 10, 9260 Gistrup, Denmark