Publication Ethics and Publication Malpractice Statement
Scientific research starts with scientific observation, followed, depending of the type of research or stage of development of the technique, by theoretical (fundamental) and experimental (applied) research, which is naturally followed by the dissemination of results in various forms (articles, patents, projects, technologies, products, programs, databases, etc.). Research results are all the more valuable if, in addition to the intrinsic quality of those reported, they comply with the most important levers governing their veracity and ethics in publication.
Ethics in publication starts with respect and fair behavior between all the parts involved in the publishing process.
Authors must show respect for themselves by publishing only their own results, methods and interpretations without any plagiarism traces and without vitiating or counterfeiting the authenticity of the results.
Journal editors and peer reviewers must act with a high sense of truth combined with experience in the fields of publication.
This journal, first entitled "Progress of Cryogenics and Isotope Separation", which is a difficult but enjoyable task, has been published twice a year since 1998. The fact that we renamed the magazine "Smart Energy and Sustainable Environment" at the beginning of 2020, not knowing that this year will be the year we go through a pandemic, gives us hope that this journal will be among the good things that are only born in hard times. Therefore, one of the most important goals of the journal is to have only ethical contributions in its "files".
Based on the COPE Guidelines (https://publicationethics.org/guidance/Guidelines) we have to take care that the following important rules for authors are respected, rules that should become criteria for reviewers' analyses and in this way avoid the possibility that non-compliance with these rules/criteria could turn into problems for the editors:
- Has research been published before?
- Is there any evidence of plagiarism from another publication?
- Is the research ethical and has it obtained the appropriate approvals/consent?
- Is there any indication that data has been fabricated or improperly manipulated?
- Have the authors declared all relevant competing interests?
Editors of “Smart Energy and Sustainable Environment” journal are responsible for the decision of the articles that must be enlisted in the peer-review process and finally published in the journal. Acceptance or rejection of articles submitted for publication is based on objective requirements: the article is not in line with the journal's theme, the article is not a research article, review or short paper, the article is not written in English.
In making these decisions, the editor may be guided by the policies of the journal’s editorial board as well as by legal requirements regarding libel, copyright infringement and plagiarism. The editor may consult with other editors or reviewers when making publication decisions. The editor should maintain the integrity of the academic record, prevent business needs from compromising intellectual and ethical standards, and always be willing to publish corrections, clarifications, retractions and apologies when necessary.
Publishers should protect the integrity of published documents by publishing corrections and retractions when necessary, and by following up suspected or alleged cases of improper research and publication.
Editors should pursue misconduct by reviewers and publishers. An editor should take reasonable steps to respond when ethical complaints have been made about a submitted manuscript or published work.
The journal editor is responsible for deciding which articles submitted to the journal will be published.
The editor must evaluate manuscripts on the basis of intellectual content, without regard to the race, gender, sexual orientation, religious beliefs, ethnic origin, nationality or political philosophy of the author(s).
The editor and editorial staff must not disclose any information about the corresponding author, reviewers, potential reviewers, other editorial advisors and the publisher, as appropriate.
The Editor will be guided by the COPE Guidelines in retracting articles when appropriate, when concerns need to be expressed about the quality or validity of articles, and when corrections need to be made to articles that have been published in our journal.
Unpublished material disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in the publisher's own research without the written consent of the author.
Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal gain.
The Editor undertakes to ensure that advertising, reprinting or other commercial revenue has no impact or influence on editorial decisions.
The editor will seek to ensure a fair and appropriate peer review process. Editors should recuse themselves (e.g.: should ask a co-editor, associate editor or other member of the editorial board instead to review and consider) from considering manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or (possibly) institutions connected to the papers.
Editors require all contributors to disclose relevant competing interests and publish corrections if competing interests are revealed after publication. If needed, other appropriate action will be taken, such as the publication of a retraction or expression of concern.
Editors will handle with honesty and precautions all the allegations however they are brought to the journals or publisher’s attention. Editors will take seriously allegations of misconduct pre-publication and post-publication. Policies will be in line with COPE's core practices (https://cope.onl/core-5), and the journal will allow post-publication discussion on its website, via letters to the editor or on a moderated external site, from whistleblowers.
In cases of alleged or proven scientific misconduct, fraudulent publication or plagiarism, the editor, in close collaboration with the publishers, will take all appropriate steps to clarify the situation and to amend the article in question. This includes the prompt publication of an erratum or, in the most serious cases, the complete withdrawal of the affected work.
Duties of Reviewers
Peer review helps the editor make editorial decisions and, through editorial communication with the author, can help the author improve the work.
Invited reviewers who do not feel qualified to review the manuscript submitted for publication, or who know that it will be impossible for them to review it in a timely manner, should notify the editor immediately so that other reviewers can be contacted.
Any manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. They must not be shown to or discussed with others except as authorized by the editor.
Reviews should be conducted objectively. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate. Referees should express their views clearly with supporting arguments.
Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors. Any statement that an observation or an argument had been previously reported should be accompanied by the relevant citation. A reviewer should also call to the editor's attention any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published paper of which they have personal knowledge.
Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must remain confidential and not be used for personal gain. Reviewers should not consider reviewing manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest arising from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions associated with the submission.
Duties of Authors
Authors of original research articles should provide an accurate description of the work carried out as well as an objective discussion of its significance. A paper should contain sufficient detail and references to enable others to reproduce the work. Knowingly fraudulent or inaccurate statements constitute unethical behavior and are unacceptable.
Authors are requested to provide raw data in the case of an article, a paper, where in the editorial review process such data are needed in order to calculate, simulate, evaluate and verify the veracity of the results by any unanimously recognized method. Authors must also provide public access to these data (in accordance with the ALPSP-STM Statement on Data and Databases), if possible, and retain these data for a reasonable period of time after publication.
Authors must ensure that they have written and submitted entirely original work for publication. Where authors have used the work and/or words of others, they must ensure that they have been properly cited, as they must always acknowledge the work of others. Authors should also cite publications that were influential in determining the nature of the work reported.
An author should not publish manuscripts describing essentially the same research in multiple journals or primary publications. Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal constitutes unethical publication behavior and is unacceptable.
Authorship is limited to those who have made a significant contribution to the conception, design, execution or interpretation of reported data, analyses, calculations and studies. All those who made significant contributions should be listed as co-authors. If there are others who provided help and guidance in the preparation of the research and reporting of results in the manuscript submitted for publication, they should be acknowledged and listed as contributors. The lead and corresponding author must ensure that all appropriate co-authors are listed (as defined above) and that there are no inappropriate co-authors listed as authors of the manuscript. The lead author must ensure that all co-authors have seen and approved the final version of the paper and have agreed to its submission for publication.
All authors must disclose any possible financial or other conflicts of interest that might influence the results and their interpretation as presented in the manuscript. All sources of financial support for the project must be disclosed.
If an author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in his or her own published work, it is the author's obligation to immediately notify the publisher or editor of the journal and cooperate with them to either retract the work or publish an appropriate erratum.
If the work involves chemicals, procedures or equipment that present unusual hazards inherent in their use, both to users and to the environment, fauna or flora, authors must clearly identify them in the manuscript.