The policies and guidelines provided on this page are put in place to protect the quality and integrity of all forms of scholarly practice and research, as well as the reputations of the publications produced by Biemdas Academic Publishers.
Biemdas publishes peer-reviewed papers. It is very important to agree upon standards of expected ethical behavior for all parties involved in the act of publishing: the author, the journal editor, the peer reviewer and the publisher. Each has a vital role to play, and this includes a responsibility to uphold expected ethical standards throughout the whole process of journal publication. Biemdas is committed to setting and upholding high standards of ethical behavior and to this end we support the standards and best practices set out by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).
Biemdas recommends the COPE Code of Conduct as well as our own procedure documents available here.
COPE also provides an excellent set of flow charts to aid editors and reviewers when instances of suspected violation of publishing ethics occur. Advice on offer includes what to do when:
• Suspected duplicate/redundant submission occurs
• Suspected plagiarism occurs
• Suspected fabrication of data occurs
• Changes in authorship occur
• A reviewer suspects undisclosed conflict of interests
• A reader suspects undisclosed conflict of interests
• An ethical problem with a manuscript arises
• An editor suspects that a reviewer has appropriated an author’s ideas or data
For a full list please visit the COPE website.
These guidelines, which are based on Elsevier recommendations and COPE’s Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors, are a summary of the ethical standards we expect authors, editors and peer reviewers to meet.
Biemdas appreciates the essential role of the reviewer in the publishing and dissemination of scholarly research. We therefore request that reviewers read our Publishing Ethics prior to conducting a review for our journals, as an aid to carrying out their duties and to ensure they act in full awareness of our policies and practices.
It is the responsibility of all reviewers to deal with requests from editors to review papers, and make those reviews, in a timely manner, with care, consideration and above all objectivity, exercising confidentiality at every stage. It is appreciated by authors when reviewers explain and support their judgments so that comments may be fully understood. Reviewers should not retain copies of any article that they review.
Acknowledgement of sources
Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors. Any statement that an observation, derivation, or 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.
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.
Contribution to editorial decisions
Peer review assists the editor in making editorial decisions and through the editorial communications with the author may also assist the author in improving the paper. Peer review is an essential component of formal scholarly communication, and lies at the heart of the scientific method. Biemdas shares the view of many that all scholars who wish to contribute to publications have an obligation to do a fair share of reviewing.
Disclosure and conflict of interest
Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in a reviewer’s own research without the express written consent of the author. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage. 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.
Any selected referee who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should notify the editor and excuse himself from the review process.
Standards of objectivity
Reviews should be conducted objectively. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate. Referees should express their views clearly with supporting arguments.
We are committed to ensuring that advertising, reprint or other commercial revenue has no impact or influence on editorial decisions. In addition, Biemdas will assist in communications with other journals and/or publishers where this is useful to editors.
Editors are central to the journal publishing process. They serve the research community in the publication and dissemination of scholarly research. We therefore request that all members of the editorial team read our Publishing Ethics as soon as they are appointed, as an aid to carrying out their duties and to ensure they act in full awareness of our policies and practices.
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, other editorial advisers, and the publisher, as appropriate.
Disclosure and conflicts of interest
Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in an editor’s own research without the express written consent of the author. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage. Editors should rescue themselves 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 institutions connected to the papers. Editors should require all contributors to disclose relevant competing interests and publish corrections if competing interests are revealed after publication. If needed, other appropriate action should be taken, such as the publication of a retraction or expression of concern. It should be ensured that the peer review process for sponsored supplements is the same as that used for the main journal. Items in sponsored supplements should be accepted solely on the basis of academic merit and interest to readers and not be influenced by commercial considerations. Non-peer reviewed sections of their journal should be clearly identified.
An editor should evaluate manuscripts for their intellectual content without regard to race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy of the authors.
Involvement and cooperation in investigations
An editor should take reasonably responsive measures when ethical complaints have been presented concerning a submitted manuscript or published paper, in conjunction with the publisher. Such measures will generally include contacting the author of the manuscript or paper and giving due consideration of the respective complaint or claims made, but may also include further communications to the relevant institutions and research bodies, and if the complaint is upheld, the publication of a correction, retraction, expression of concern, or other note, as may be relevant. Every reported act of unethical publishing behavior must be looked into, even if it is discovered years after publication. For editors who require details on recommended actions for particular types of ethics complaints, please contact us.
The editor of a peer-reviewed journal is responsible for deciding which of the articles submitted to the journal should be published. The validation of the work in question and its importance to researchers and readers must always drive such decisions. The editor may be guided by the policies of the journal’s editorial board and constrained by such legal requirements as shall then be in force regarding libel, copyright infringement and plagiarism. The editor may confer with other editors or reviewers (or society officers) in making this decision.
Acknowledgement of sources
Proper acknowledgment of the work of others must always be given. Authors should cite publications that have been influential in determining the nature of the reported work. Information obtained privately, as in conversation, correspondence, or discussion with third parties, must not be used or reported without explicit, written permission from the source. Information obtained in the course of confidential services, such as refereeing manuscripts or grant applications, must not be used without the explicit written permission of the author of the work involved in these services.
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 there are others who have participated in certain substantive aspects of the research project, they should be acknowledged or listed as contributors. The corresponding author should ensure that all co-authors have seen and approved the final version of the paper and have agreed to its submission for publication.
Data access and retention
Authors may be asked to provide the raw data in connection with a paper for editorial review, and should in any event be prepared to retain such data for a reasonable time after publication.
Disclosure and conflicts of interest
All authors should disclose in their manuscripts any financial or other substantive conflict 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. Examples of potential conflicts of interest which should be disclosed include employment, consultancies, stock ownership, honoraria, paid expert testimony, patent applications/registrations, and grants or other funding. Potential conflicts of interest should be disclosed at the earliest stage possible.
Fundamental errors in published works
When an author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in his/her own published work, it is the author’s obligation to promptly notify the journal editor or publisher and cooperate with the editor to retract or correct the paper. If the editor or the publisher learns from a third party that a published work contains a significant error, it is the obligation of the author to promptly retract or correct the paper or provide evidence to the editor of the correctness of the original paper.
Hazards and human or animal subjects
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. If the work involves the use of animal or human subjects, the author should ensure that the manuscript contains a statement that all procedures were performed in compliance with relevant laws and institutional guidelines and that the appropriate institutional committee(s) has approved them. Authors should include a statement in the manuscript that informed consent was obtained for experimentation with human subjects. The privacy rights of human subjects must always be observed.
Originality and plagiarism
Only original works and articles, which have not been published anywhere else yet, nor have they been sent for publication to any other journal, are accepted for publication. If the author uses a work or words of any other author, this must be properly cited. If a picture documentation published anywhere else is re-printed, the original source must be cited and a written consent of the owner of the exclusive rights must be properly presented. Any form of plagiarism represents unethical publication behavior and will not be acceptable.
Authors of reports of original research should present an accurate account of the work performed as well as an objective discussion of its significance. Underlying data should 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. Review and professional publication articles should also be accurate and objective, and editorial ‘opinion’ works should be clearly identified as such.
Multiple, 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. Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal concurrently constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable. In general, an author should not submit for consideration in another journal a previously published paper.
In the event that there are documented violations of any of the above mentioned policies in any journal, regardless of whether or not the violations occurred in a journal published by Biemdas, the following sanctions will be applied:
Immediate rejection of the infringing manuscript.
Immediate rejection of every other manuscript submitted to any journal published by Biemdas by any of the authors of the infringing manuscript.
Prohibition against all of the authors for any new submissions to any journal published by Biemdas, either individually or in combination with other authors of the infringing manuscript, as well as in combination with any other authors. This prohibition will be imposed for a minimum of 36 months.
We will inform supported organization for proved plagiarism or self-plagiarism.
Prohibition against all of the authors from serving on the Editorial Board of any journal published by Biemdas.
In cases where the violations of the above policies are found to be particularly egregious, the publisher reserves the right to impose additional sanctions beyond those described above.