The publication ethics and publication malpractice statement of the UoS (JOS) is entirely based on the code of conduct and best-practice guidelines for journal editors published by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) in 2011 (details of this code can be found on: https://publicationethics.org
The Publication Unit at the University of Sharjah promotes the best practices and standards of publication ethics as set and elucidated by COPE and takes all the necessary actions against any kind of publication malpractice as it keeps a watchful eye on all phases and procedures involved in the publication process.
Preventing publication malpractice, such as plagiarism or unauthorized reprints, is therefore one of the imperative responsibilities of the editorial board.
The publication unit at the UOS does not tolerate any kind of unethical behavior and it is fully aware of its responsibilities and ethical commitments.
Following are the details of this statement:
A. Editors' Responsibilities
The editorial board of The UoS (JOS) consists of acknowledged experts in the field. The editor provides the names of the members, their affiliations and their contact information on the journal webpage. The duties and responsibilities of editors are listed as follows:
1. The UOSJHSS editor is responsible for deciding which of the papers submitted to the journal will be published.
2. The decision will be based on the paper's scientific value, originality and intelligibility, and on the validity of its topic as well as its relevance to the journal's scope.
3. The editor may check with other editors or expert reviewers in making decision about the submitted manuscript.
4. The editor shall consider the legal requirements regarding defamation, copyright infringement, and plagiarism.
1. The editor, the associate editor and the members of the editorial board 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.
2. Submitted articles shall be confidential while under review.
Peer Review Process
1. All articles submitted to the UoS (JOS) for publication are subjected to a double-blind, peer review process.
2. Articles are initially reviewed by editors. The editor may reject them either because they are irrelevant to the scope and subject matter of the journals or because they are visibly of a low quality so that they cannot be considered at all.
3. Articles that are deemed eligible for review are sent to at least two reviewers that are experts in the field of the submitted article. The reviewers of a paper shall be unknown to each other. They are required to decide whether the article is publishable immediately, publishable with minor changes, publishable with major changes, or not publishable at all.
4. The reviewers' reports are to be sent to the editor and their comments are forwarded to the author(s) for feedback.
5. Letters of apology shall be sent to authors whose papers have not been accepted for publication.
6. The review process is usually accomplished within two months and accepted articles are typically published within four months.
1. The UOS (JOS) editor shall evaluate manuscripts irrespective of the authors' race, gender, religious beliefs, ethnicity, citizenship, or intellectual attitude.
2. The editor´s decision to accept or reject a submitted manuscript needs to be based on the work´s importance, originality, lucidity, and pertinence to the aims and scope of journal.
3. The editor should consider giving authors the possibility of nominating peer reviewers or requesting that particular reviewers do not review their papers.
The editor of the UOS (JOS) shall ensure that all published material is electronically archived at the UOS central library
Disclosure and conflicts of interest
1. The editor or the members of the editorial board must not use unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted paper for their own research purposes without the written consent of the author.
2. Innovative ideas or data acquired in the peer-review process must strictly be kept confidential and must not be used for the editor's personal benefit.
3. The editor should ask reviewers to reveal any conflict(s) of interest when they accept to review a manuscript and also when they submit their reviews. The editor should also ask reviewers to decline the request for review where circumstances might not allow them to write an unbiased review.
4. Original research manuscripts authored or coauthored by a collaborator who has published with the editor within 3 years at the time of submission shall be handled by a Consulting or Guest Editor.
5. The editor should ask contributors to disclose any competing interests and rectify them in case they are discovered after publication.
Procedures for dealing with unethical behavior
1. Any kind of unethical behavior that is revealed in the review process or prior to it or after publication must be immediately communicated to the editor.
2. Anyone who informs the editor or publisher of unethical behavior has to provide sufficient evidence and details.
3. Following the disclosure of such conduct, the editor must start an investigation of the matter and take the allegations seriously until an evidence-based decision is taken.
4. Investigations about unethical behavior may be initiated even when revealed long after publication.
5. If violation of publication ethics is proved, the editor, in coordination with the publisher, must inform the author of the manuscript in writing and give him/her the chance to respond to the complaints or allegations.
6. If unethical conduct is minor, the editor may resolve the issue internally without the need to consult external parties.
7. If unethical conduct is serious, the editor may consult relevant institutions and research bodies for further investigation and evaluation of the seriousness of the misconduct.
8. Measures ensuing serious misconduct may include: (a) publishing an official notice of the unethical conduct and its details; (b) sending an official letter to the head of the author's or reviewer's department or sponsor; (c) withdrawal of the publication from the journal in addition to informing the head of the author's or reviewer's department; and (d) definitive elimination of the concerned author or reviewer from the list of contributors to the journals.
B. Authors' Responsibilities
Compliance with UOS Publication Standards
1. Authors should adhere to the standards and submission guidelines specified by the UoS (JSIS) and should be committed to the principles of ethical research and ethical publication norms.
2. Authors must confirm that they meet the UOS (JOS) criteria for authorship.
3. Authors of original research work should present an accurate account of the work and an appropriate discussion of its significance.
4. Authors should include sufficient details and references in the submitted manuscript so as to allow other researchers to cite the work.
Responsible Authorship Conduct
1. Authors must avoid all kinds of unethical behavior such as plagiarism, fabrication and falsification.
2. Authors must avoid the unethical behavior of submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal at the same time.
3. Authors may be asked to provide the raw data of their work together with the paper for editorial review and should be ready to make the data publicly available if need be.
4. Authors shall submit only fully original works, and shall properly cite the work of others. Research works that have been influential in determining the nature of the submitted manuscript should equally be cited.
5. Authors shall be asked to confirm that they have received a written authorization from all their co-authors who have significantly contributed to the work.
6. If an author discovers a serious error in his/her published work, it is his/her responsibility to notify the editor or publisher so as to withdraw or correct the error.
Copyright of Submitted Manuscript
Authors retain copyright of their work, and once the work has been accepted for publication, they are required to transfer copyright to the publisher. If the Journal wishes to reprint the article, prior permission must be obtained from the authors.
Disclosure and conflicts of interest
1. Authors must disclose their sources of funding and should disclose any financial or other conflicts of interest that may influence the evaluation of their manuscript.
2. If there are any potential conflicts of interest during or after the peer-review process, authors should disclose them to the editor or publisher immediately.
C. Reviewers' Responsibilities
Contribution to Editorial Decisions
(JOS) adopt the double-blinded peer review method. Reviewers assist the editor in making editorial decisions and may also serve the author in improving the paper through their comments.
Responsible Review Conduct
1. Reviewers are not supposed to examine submissions that fall out of the scope of the UOS
2. Any external reviewer who feels unqualified or not ready to review the submitted manuscript should notify the editor and withdraw from the review process.
3. Reviewers must not use any information or data obtained from the reviewed manuscript for their personal advantage.
4. Reviewers must not accept to review manuscripts where they have conflicts of interest as a result of competitive, collaborative, or other connections with the author(s).
5. Reviewers shall notify the editor of any considerable similarity or overlap between the reviewed manuscript and any other published work of which they have knowledge.
Confidentiality and Objectivity
1. All reviewers who carry out peer review on behalf of the UOS
(JOS) should understand and abide by the standards of confidentiality relating to the peer-review process.
2. Reviewers must treat manuscripts received for review as confidential documents. They must not disclose or discuss them with others except as authorized by the editor.
3. Reviewers should conduct the review process objectively and should not address any personal criticism to the author.
4. Reviewers should also express their views impartially and clearly with supporting arguments.
5. Reviewers' names and affiliations must be maintained in a secure database that is compliant with data protection standards.