Publication Ethics

Martor Journal ethics and malpractice statements are based on Publishing ethics resource (PERK) kit of Elsevier and follow the recommendations of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). We provide the following information, knowing that there is always the possibility to improve the journal’s procedure. Thus, we actively seek the points of view of our authors, readers, reviewers and editors, encouraging them to ameliorate our policy.

DUTIES FOR EDITORIAL BOARD

Publication Decisions

The Editorial Board of Martor Journal is responsible for deciding which of the materials submitted to the journal should be published. The decision to accept or reject a paper for publication, according to the scientific evaluation, is based on its importance, originality, clarity, its relevance to the scope of the journal (see the section “About” on the website), and its relevance for the topic of each issue. The managing editor may be guided by the policies of the  Editorial Board and constrained by such legal requirements as shall then be in force regarding libel, copyright infringement and plagiarism. The managing editor may confer with other editors or reviewers in making this decision.

Fair Play

The Editorial Board of Martor Journal and the associate editors evaluate materials for their intellectual content without regard to the author’s race, ethnicity, religious beliefs, gender, citizenship, sexual orientation or political ideology. Yet, the editorial team can reject a material if that material cannot be included in the topic of the forthcoming issues or if it doesn’t respect the author’ guidelines.

Confidentiality

The Editorial Board must ensure that all materials submitted to Martor Journal remain confidential while under review. The Editorial Board and the editorial staff will not disclose any information about the submitted materials to anyone other than the corresponding author, reviewers, other editorial advisers, and the publisher.

Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest

Unpublished materials disclosed in the submitted manuscript are not to be used by the Editorial Board in their own research without the express written consent of the author. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review are to be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage.

In the case of considering materials, editors should recuse themselves if there are 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 authors to disclose relevant competing interests and publish corrections if competing interests are revealed after publication. If needed, other appropriate actions should be taken, such as the publication of a retraction or expression of concern.

Journal selfcitation

The editors should never conduct any practice that forces authors to cite his or her journal either as an implied or explicit condition of acceptance for publication. Any recommendation regarding articles to be cited in a paper should be made if it is relevant to the article, with the objective of improving its final form. Editors should direct authors to relevant materials as part of the peer review process; however, this should never extend to blanket instructions to cite individual journals.

Involvement and Cooperation in Investigations

An editor should take reasonably responsive measures when ethical complaints have been presented concerning a submitted material or published paper, in conjunction with the publisher (or society). Such measures will generally include contacting the author of the material 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.

PEER REVIEW POLICY

Peer review is an essential component of formal scholarly communication, and lies at the heart of the scientific method, ensuring the objectivity of the evaluation, and thus, the high standard and quality of Martor Journal. All manuscripts of the academic articles are evaluated in double-blind peer review system, following the procedure outlined below.

Initial manuscript evaluation

The Editorial Board evaluates first all the manuscripts. It is possible, though rare, for an exceptional manuscript to be accepted at this stage. The manuscripts rejected at this stage are either insufficiently original, and have scientific flaws, or are outside the aims and scope of the thematic issue. Papers accepted for publishing are forwarded to two (or three, sometimes) expert referees for peer-review evaluation.

Type of peer review

Martor Journal uses double-blind peer review system, where both the referee and the author remain anonymous throughout the process, in order to ensure its objectivity.

Selection of the referee

Referees are selected and matched to the paper, according to their expertise. The reviewers will be selected in order not to have the same institutional affiliation as the authors. They will review the manuscript within 1 or 2 months.

Referee reports

Referees are asked to evaluate the manuscript, detailing their comments according to the following criteria: 

• originality (in importance of the subject; choice of methodology; efficacity of argumentation; relevance of the conclusions); 
• clear results presented and how they support the conclusions;
• appropriate ethical guidelines;
• good use of academic language;
• references to relevant papers/work are made correctly.

The Reports may request the publication of the paper as it is, or a revision of the article, either with minor, or with major interventions. It can also state that the article is not publishable and must be rejected.

Duties of the referees 

a) Contribution to Editorial Decisions

The referees assist the editor in making editorial decisions and, through the editorial communications with the author, may also assist the author in improving the paper. Their activity should be conducted objectively, personal criticism of the author being inappropriate. They should express their views clearly and with supporting arguments. 

b) Promptness

Any reviewer who feels unqualified to review the material or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should notify the Editorial Team so as to excuse himself from the review process.

c) Confidentiality

Any materials received for review should be treated with strict confidentiality. They must not be shown to or discussed with others, except when authorized by the editor.

d) Acknowledgement of Source

Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the author. Any statement such as an observation or argument that had been previously reported should be accompanied by the relevant citation. Any similarity or overlap between the material under consideration and any other published paper should be reported to the Editor-in-Chief.

e) Disclosure and Conflict of Interest

Privileged information or ideas obtained through the peer review process must be kept confidential and must not be used for personal advantage. Reviewers should not consider materials in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other connection with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the material.

Final decision

The Editorial Board is responsible for the final decision to accept or reject an article, taking into account the reports from the external referees, the editors, or the members of the Editorial Advisory Board.

DUTIES OF AUTHORS

Reporting Standards

The authors of materials should present an accurate account of the work performed as well as an objective discussion of its significance. A paper should contain sufficient details and references to permit others to replicate the work. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behavior and are unacceptable.

Multiple, Redundant or Concurrent Publication

The authors should not submit materials describing essentially the same research in more than one journal or primary publication. Submitting the same material to more than one journal concurrently constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable.

Acknowledgement of Sources

Proper acknowledgement 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 materials 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 contributions should be listed as co-authors. The corresponding author should ensure that all appropriate co-authors and no inappropriate co-authors are listed in the paper, and that all co-authors have seen and approved the final version of the paper and have agreed to its submission for publication.

Fundamental Errors in Published Works

When the author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in his/her own published work, it is the author’s obligation to promptly notify the journal as well as to cooperate with the managing editor to retract or correct the paper.

Disclosure and conflicts of interest

All authors should disclose in their materials any financial or other substantive conflict of interest that might be construed to influence the results or interpretation of their material. 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.

Originality and Plagiarism

The contributors should ensure that they have written entirely original works, and if the authors have used the work and/or words of others, that this has been appropriately cited or quoted. Plagiarism in all its forms constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable. Online technology is also available to detect plagiarism from web sites. Editors can subscribe to a service and require authors to upload their paper to the service’s site. The site compares papers with material on the Web. Some of these sites are free; others have subscription. Some plagiarism detection sites are:

Eve 2  http://www.canexus.com/eve

FindSame-free service  http://www.findsame.com/

HowOriginal.com-free service  http://www.howoriginal.com/

PaperBin.com  http://www.paperbin.com/

Plagiarism.org  http://www.plagiarism.org/