Ethics and Malpractice

The journal editor is responsible and accountable for everything in the journal. We are strived to meet the needs of readers and authors; constantly improve the journal; ensure the quality of the material published encourage freedom of thoughts and expression; maintain the value of academic research integrity; maintain high intellectual standards; and always be willing to publish corrections, clarifications, retractions, and apologies when necessary. EBNR strives for the quality of the material published. The decision was made based on the relevance to the journal scope, research importance, originality, and clarity.

 

 

 

Appeals and Complaints

The journal accepts appeals and complaints. Concerns about publication ethics/malpractice or complaints/appeals about issues such as editorial decisions, manuscript rejections, or delays in reviewing/publishing should be sent to admin@eepublisher.com. The Editor-In-Chief first handles all complaints/appeals. After that, the Editor-in-Chief will either accept or reject the appeal. The manuscript will be sent to another final reviewer. The appealer is then informed of the decision, along with an explanation.

Complaints about a specific manuscript might be routed to the editor who worked on the manuscript. The Editor-in-Chief will contact the person who filed the complaint to further investigate the situation. If there is a breach of ethics, urgent action will be taken to address the problem and ensure compliance.

 

Encourage debate

Journal allows for post-publication discussion through letters to the editor. After a formal critique is received, the journal invites the original authors of the critiqued article to write a 'response' or 'reply .'Furthermore, both critique and response are peer-reviewed and revised. We welcome studies that cast doubt on earlier work published in the journal. Studies with negative results are not ruled out.

Author and reviewer guidelines are published on the journal website

Author guidelines

http://eepublisher.com/index.php/ebnr/about/submissions

Reviewers’ guidelines

http://eepublisher.com/index.php/ebnr/about

 

Data sharing and reproducibility

We strongly encourage authors to include as many details and supplementary data as possible to make it easy for others in the scientific community to be able to reproduce their studies. Authors should cite all data referenced in their paper. We support and encourage research and data sets to be open, discoverable, citable, and reproducible. 

 

Encouraging academic integrity

The Journal ensures that all research material published contains ethical statements and approvals from ethical research committees at their institutions.

 

Protecting individual data

We only capture personal data to publish the authors' articles. This data is used to support the process of publishing the article. The editor has a duty of care to handle this personal data and is responsible for keeping this personal data secure and limited to only authorized users. All data extracted from the peer review system is saved in a password-protected file format.

Pursuing misconduct

Editors have a responsibility to act if they detect misconduct. This obligation applies to both published and unpublished articles. They have an ethical obligation to investigate alleged cases. Editors first try to get a response from those who have been accused. If they are not satisfied with the response, they request an investigation from the relevant employers or another suitable agency (such as a regulatory organization). In no case shall EEP or editors encourage such misconduct or knowingly allow such misconduct to take place. The journal is always following the COPE flow charts.

Sanctions

Suspected breaches of our publication or ethics policies or research ethics should be reported to the Editor-in-Chief. The investigation will be started and the author might be asked to provide the journal for needed evidence of data or images. If the publisher or the journal editor(s) are aware of breaches of the journal publication ethics policy, rejection of the manuscripts at any stage of publication, prohibit a manuscript submission for that author for 1-3 years, and prohibition from acting as a journal editor. Contact institution or employer to ask for investigation or to raise concerns might be happened.

Post-publication discussion, corrections, and retractions

We are always willing to publish corrections, clarifications, retractions, and apologies when needed. When errors are identified in published articles, the publisher will consider revision, author(s) or institution might be reported. Errors by the authors may be corrected by a corrigendum and errors by the publisher by an erratum.

Editors should consider retracting a publication if:

They have clear evidence that the findings are Editors should consider retracting a publication if they have clear proof that the findings are untrustworthy, either due to a serious error or fabrication (e.g., of data) or falsification (eg, image manipulation)

It comprises plagiarism

The findings have been published earlier without sufficient attribution to preceding sources, notification to the editor, permission to republish, or reason (ie, cases of redundant publication)

It comprises content or data that has not been given permission to be used.

It comprises content or data that has not been given permission to be used.

There has been a copyright infringement or there is some major legal issue (eg, libel, privacy)

It publishes unethical research findings.

It was solely published as a result of a tainted or manipulated peer review procedure.

The author(s) failed to disclose a major competing interest (conflict of interest) that, in the editor's opinion, would have influenced editors' and peer reviewers' interpretations of the work or suggestions.

Retraction notices should include the following information:

Wherever feasible, include a link to the retracted article (ie, in all online versions)

Clearly identify the retracted article (eg, by including the title and authors in the retraction heading or citing the retracted article)

Be explicitly labeled as a retraction (i.e., have a different font).

Be published promptly to minimize harmful effects

All readers are able to access it for free (ie, not behind access barriers or available only to subscribers)

State who is retracting the article

State the reason(s) for retraction

Be objective, factual and avoid inflammatory language

Retractions are not usually appropriate if:

The authorship is disputed but there is no reason to doubt the validity of the findings

The main findings of the work are still reliable and correction could sufficiently address errors or concerns

An editor has inconclusive evidence to support retraction or is awaiting additional information such as from an institutional investigation

See also Expressions of Concern Forum discussion.

Author conflicts of interest have been reported to the journal after publication, but in the editor’s view, these are not likely to have influenced interpretations or recommendations or the conclusions of the article.

Ensuring the integrity of the academic record

The journal is committed to immediate correction of significant inaccuracy, misleading statement, or distorted report that has been published once it is detected. The journal retracts the articles that prove any fraudulence after appropriate investigation. The selection and acceptance of the submitted manuscript are based on the principle of editorial independence.

Commercial considerations

The journal did not accept advertisement

Supplement policies

  1. Acceptance criteria
  2. Articles and abstracts submitted for publication in the supplement must be original and have not been previously published in a citable format.
  3. The work must contain reliable data, add to the published literature, and be of educational value or represent a professional service to the scientific community.
  4. The work must be balanced, objective, of good quality, and independent. The journal's integrity, independence, and reputation are of prime importance.
  5. All submissions must comply with EBNR editorial policies.
  6. Supplements solely for promotional purposes will not be considered.
  7. Acceptance or rejection by the journal's editor is solely based on scientific merit. Profitability does not influence editorial decisions.
  8. Declarations
  9. A declaration of sponsorship is included on contents pages online and, in the case of supplements sponsored by for-profit organizations, in the individual articles.
  10. Where the publication fee is shared between authors, a statement about the author's source funding for publication is included in the article.
  11. Financial relationships between any Editors, authors, and sponsors must be disclosed along with any other competing interests.
  12. In supplements sponsored by for-profit organizations, where any sponsor's product is mentioned in an article, a statement to clarify this for readers must also be included in the Declarations section of the article.
  13. Any payments (honoraria, expenses) made to Supplement Editors, authors, or other parties concerning the generation of articles or supplements must be declared.
  14. The editor maintains editorial responsibility for the content of all supplements in their journal, including adherence to EBNR editorial policies. They retain the authority to reject or request amendments to any article or abstract submitted to a supplement.
  15. Peer review
  16. Articles submitted to supplements are subject to peer review using the same criteria applied to other journal content.
  17. All supplements funded by for-profit organizations undergo the standard peer-review process administered by the journal and overseen by the editor.
  18. All final acceptance decisions are the responsibility of the editor of the journal.
  19. Supplement Editors are appointed following consultation with the editor of the journal. All Supplement Editors must provide a competing interests statement. Abstract supplements do not require Supplement Editors. Abstracts are undergoing a review and acceptance process by suitably qualified experts.
  20. Charges apply for all supplements. EBNR requires that a statement is made in each supplement to state how the publication costs have been funded.

Conflict of interest

A declaration of competing interests for all reviewers must be received before an article can be reviewed and accepted for publication. If conflicts of interest are found after publication, this may be embarrassing for the authors, the editor, and the journal. It may be necessary to publish a corrigendum or reassess the review process.

Reviewers who might have a conflict of interest in reviewing a manuscript must inform the editorial board and refrain from the review process. If they suspect the author's identity, notify the journal if this knowledge raises any potential conflict of interest.

Here are a few examples of conflicts:

  • Financial — financing and other payments, as well as products and services, received or expected by the authors in connection with the work's subject or from an organization with a stake in the work's outcome.
  • Affiliations — being employed by, on the advisory board for, or a member of an organization with interest in the work outcome.
  • Intellectual property — patents or trademarks owned by someone or their organization.
  • Personal — friends, family, relationships, an interest in the work outcome.
  • Ideology — political or religious ideas or activism relevant to the work.
  • Academic — competitors or someone whose work is critiqued.

The scope of responsibilities and right of editors:

 Editor Responsibilities toward Authors

  • Providing authors with guidelines for manuscript preparation and submission.
  • Providing a clear statement of the Journal’s policies on authorship criteria
  • Treating all authors with fairness, objectivity, civility, honesty, and transparency
  • Creating and outlining conflict-of-interest policies for all parties engaged in the publishing process, including editors, staff (e.g., editorial and sales), authors, and reviewers.
  • Protecting the confidentiality of authors’ work
  • Establishing a system for effective and rapid peer review.
  • Making editorial decisions clear and constructive with reasonable speed.
  • Being attentive in avoiding the possibility of manuscript delay for suspicious reasons either from editors and/or referees.
  • Establishing clear standards for authors on acceptable practices for sharing experimental materials and information, especially those needed to replicate the research, both before and after publication.
  • Establishing a procedure for reconsidering manuscripts after editorial decisions.
  • Regularly reviewing policies for handling ethical issues and allegations or findings of misconduct by authors and anyone involved in the peer review process.
  • Informing manuscripts’ authors that the submission will be evaluated according to the journal’s standard of practice.
  • Develop a system, in cooperation with the publisher, to ensure that the accepted manuscripts are published according to the schedule.
  • Clearly communicating all other editorial policies and standards

The editor may require the following from submitting authors

  • State all funding sources for research and include this information in the acknowledgment section of the submitted manuscript.
  • State in the manuscript, if appropriate, that the research protocol employed was approved by the relevant institutional review boards or ethics committees for human (including human cells or tissues) or animal experiments and that all human subjects provided appropriate informed consent.
  • When race/ethnicity is reported, define who determined race/ethnicity, whether the options were defined by the investigator and, if so, what they were and why race/ethnicity is considered important in the study.
  • List contributors who meet the journal’s criteria for authorship
  • Reveal any potential conflicts of interest of each author either in the cover letter, manuscript, or disclosure form, in accordance with the journal’s policy.
  • Include (usually written) permission from everyone identified as a source of personal communication or unpublished data.
  • Describe and provide copies of any similar works in process.
  • Provide copies of cited manuscripts that are submitted or in press.
  • Supply supporting manuscript data (e.g., actual data that were summarized in the manuscript) to the editor when requested or indicate where (site) the data can be found.
  • Share data or materials needed by other scientists to replicate the experiment. Authors must disclose upon submission of the manuscript any restrictions on the availability of materials or information.
  • Cite and reference other relevant published work on which the submitted work is based.
  • Obtain permission from the copyright owner to use/reproduce copyrighted content (e.g., figures and tables) in the submitted manuscript, if applicable.
  • Provide written permission from any potentially identifiable individuals referred to or shown in photographs in the manuscript.
  • Copyright transfer statement or licensing agreement.

Responsibility of Authors

Our authors are responsible for being objective in their research work and providing as much detail and references as possible for the rest of the scientific community to replicate their studies. Authors must ensure the originality of their work and cite their references when needed. Plagiarism is prohibited in all its forms.

Citation manipulation

Authors whose submissions are discovered to contain citations whose primary objective is to boost the number of citations to a given author's work or articles published in a specific publication may face sanctions. Editors and reviewers should not require authors to submit references just to enhance the number of citations to their own or an associate's work, the journal, or another publication with which they are affiliated.

Fabrication and falsification

Authors of submitted manuscripts or published publications who are found to have faked or falsified results, including image manipulation, may face sanctions, and their work may be retracted.

Responsibility of Reviewers

The journal reviewers are a group of national and international academics and experts in nursing and medical sciences who are not a part of the editorial board. Reviewers must treat manuscripts as confidential documents and not used for personal purposes. Objectivity is required in all reviews, and comments must be clear and with supporting evidence. Reviewers who might have a conflict of interest in reviewing a manuscript must inform the editorial board and refrain from the review process.