Publication Ethics
This Ethics Statement for Visioner : Journal Communication, Business, and Creative Content is adapted from the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) guidelines and outlines ethical standards for editors, reviewers, and authors.
Authors’ Responsibilities
1. Reporting Standards: Authors must present an accurate account of original research conducted, along with an objective discussion of its significance. Data must be presented honestly, without fabrication, falsification, or inappropriate manipulation. The manuscript should contain sufficient detail and references to enable replication. Deliberately false or inaccurate statements are unethical and unacceptable.
2. Originality and Plagiarism: Authors must ensure that submitted work is entirely original. Simultaneous submission to multiple publications is prohibited unless jointly approved by editors. Proper acknowledgment of prior work, including relevant literature and the authors’ own previous publications, must be made.
3. Multiple, Redundant, or Concurrent Publications: Authors should not submit the same manuscript to more than one journal concurrently. Publishing the same research in multiple outlets without proper justification is unethical.
4. Acknowledgment of Sources: Authors must properly cite all data sources and influential publications relevant to the study.
5. Authorship of the Paper: Authorship should reflect significant contributions to the conception, design, execution, or interpretation of the study. Those who contributed substantially must be listed as co-authors, while those with minor contributions should be acknowledged. All listed authors must approve the submitted version of the manuscript.
6. Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest: Authors must disclose any financial or substantive conflicts of interest that may influence their results or interpretation, as well as all sources of financial support.
7. Fundamental Errors in Published Works: If authors discover a significant error in their published work, they must promptly inform the editor to correct or retract the paper.
8. Hazards and Human or Animal Subjects: Authors must clearly identify in their manuscript any use of hazardous materials or procedures involving humans or animals and provide evidence of ethical approval where applicable.
Editors’ Responsibilities
1. Publication Decisions: Editors are responsible for deciding which articles to publish based on the manuscript’s validity and its significance to researchers and readers. Decisions must align with legal requirements regarding defamation, copyright infringement, and plagiarism. Editors may consult with reviewers or editorial board members when necessary.
2. Manuscript Review: Editors must ensure that each submission undergoes an initial originality check, followed by a fair and unbiased peer review by qualified experts. The review process should be clearly described in the “Information for Authors.”
3. Fairness: Editors must evaluate manuscripts solely based on intellectual merit, without regard to authors’ gender, race, religion, nationality, or political beliefs.
4. Confidentiality: Editors must maintain the confidentiality of all submitted materials and must ensure that patient data or sensitive information is protected.
5. Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest: Editors must not use unpublished materials disclosed in submitted manuscripts for their own research without written permission from the authors.
Reviewers’ Responsibilities
1. Confidentiality: All manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents.
2. Acknowledgment of Sources: Reviewers should ensure that authors have cited all relevant works. Any unacknowledged similarities with other published works should be reported to the editor.
3. Objectivity Standards: Reviews must be conducted objectively and supported by clear arguments. Reviewers should provide constructive feedback to help authors improve their manuscripts.
4. Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest: Reviewers must not use privileged information obtained through peer review for personal advantage and must decline to review if a conflict of interest exists.
Promptness: Reviewers should respond within a reasonable timeframe. Reviewers should only agree to review a manuscript if they are reasonably confident they can return the review within the proposed or mutually agreed-upon timeframe, and should notify the journal promptly if they require an extension. If a reviewer feels it is impossible to complete the review within the allotted timeframe, this information should be communicated to the editor so that the manuscript can be forwarded to another reviewer.
