Publication Ethics
Savvy Science works while enforcing the most stringent publication ethics, and all parties involved in the publishing process of the journal (authors, editors, reviewers and publisher) are expected to agree to the highest standards of ethical behavior.
Authors’ Ethical Responsibilities:
Authors are responsible for submitting original work for publication which has neither been previously published in any language nor is under consideration elsewhere. The authors confirm that their work is the result of proper and ethical research conduct, that all data in articles is real and authentic, and that the use of any other authors’ work and/or words is duly cited or quoted. Authors shall guarantee that all those who have made significant contributions to the work are listed as co-authors, and to declare any potential acknowledgements and/or conflict of interests.
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. Review articles should be accurate, objective and comprehensive. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behavior and are therefore, unacceptable.
Authors may be asked to provide the raw data in connection with a paper for editorial review and should be prepared to provide public access to such data. If practicable the authors should retain such data for a reasonable time (7-10 years) after publication.
Authors should ensure that they have written entirely original works, and if the work and/or words of others have been used, this must be appropriately cited or quoted. Plagiarism in any form (using another's paper as the author's own; copying or paraphrasing substantial parts of another's paper without proper attribution; and claiming results from research conducted by others) constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable under all conditions.
An author should not, in general, publish manuscripts describing essentially the same research in more than one journal as primary publication.
Proper acknowledgment of the work of others must always be given. Authors should also cite the
publications that have been influential in determining the nature of the reported work.
Sources of financial support/funding for the research or project reported in the article should be duly acknowledged at the end of the article.
All authors should disclose any financial or another substantive conflict of interest in their manuscript that might be construed to influence the results or interpretation of their manuscript at the earliest stage possible (generally in cover letter at the time of submission and including a statement in the manuscript). Examples include financial ones such as honoraria, educational grants or other funding, employment, consultancies, stock ownership participation in speakers bureaus, membership, and paid expert testimony or patent-licensing arrangements, as well as non-financial ones such as personal or professional relationships, affiliations, knowledge or beliefs about the subject matter or materials discussed in the manuscript.
If the Editors or Publisher learns from a third party that a published work contains a significant error or inaccuracy, the author will be contacted and it will be the author’s obligation to make a prompt request to the editor for correction by providing corrected material or provide an evidence to the journal’s Editors of the correctness of the paper or else, the paper may be retracted as per decision of the editors/publisher.
Only persons who meet the authorship criteria mentioned in Savvy Science journals’ Editorial policies should be listed as authors of the manuscript. All other persons who made substantial contributions to the work reported in the manuscript (such as technical help, writing and editing assistance, general support) but, do not meet the criteria for authorship, may be acknowledged in the "Acknowledgements" section. The corresponding author should ensure that all appropriate coauthors(according to the above definition), and no inappropriate coauthors, are included in the author list and verify that all coauthors have seen and approved the final version of the manuscript and agreed to its publication.
Information obtained privately (from conversation, correspondence or discussion with third parties) must not be used or reported without written permission from the source and its mentioning in the article is mandatory. Authors should include a statement in the manuscript that informed consent was obtained for experimentation with human participants and the privacy rights of human participants must always be considered.
If the work involves chemicals, procedures or equipment that have any unusual hazards inherent in their use, the authors must clearly identify these in the manuscript. If the work involves the use of animals or human participants, the authors should ensure that all procedures are performed in compliance with relevant laws and institutional guidelines and that the appropriate institutional committee(s) has approved them; the manuscript should contain a statement to this effect. Authors are obliged to cooperate fully by responding promptly to Editors requests for raw data, clarifications, and proof of ethics committee’s approval, patient consents and copyright permissions. In case of a decision of "revisions necessary", authors should respond to the reviewers comments systematically, point by point, and in a timely manner, revising and re-submitting their manuscript to the journal by the deadline.
If the Editors/Publisher learns from a third party that a published work contains a significant error or inaccuracy, then it is the authors obligation to promptly correct the paper through editors’ guidance and assistance (to prevent retraction of their article) or provide evidence to the journal’s Editors of the correctness of the paper.
Reviewers’ Ethical Responsibilities:
Reviewers at Savvy Science are considered as the base of the whole quality process of publishing. Reviewers are responsible for evaluating manuscripts, assisting the editor in making editorial decisions and improving the quality of the articles published in the journal. Reviewers shall conduct their assessment in a timely and objective manner, avoiding any personal or unsupported criticisms. Reviewers agree not to disclose any information regarding the manuscript to any other party or to use any part of the content on their own behalf. If they wish to suggest other potential reviewers or to share the reviewing task with other colleagues they shall always inform the editor before making any contact with a third party. Any selected referee who feels unqualified to review the assigned manuscript or unable to provide a prompt review should notify the editor and excuse him/herself from the review process. To guarantee a completely rigorous and unbiased review process, reviewers should not have any conflict of interests with respect to the research, the authors and/or the research funders firms or institutions connected to the papers resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of them. Any such conflict should be disclosed to the Editor-in-Chief by the reviewer. The Editors will then determine sufficiency of the conflict to exclude the reviewer from peer review.
Reviewers should express their critique clearly with supporting arguments.
Reviewers should call for the handling Editor's attention to any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published paper that is in their personal knowledge.
Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential by the reviewers and not used for personal advantage; this also includes the reviewers who have declined to review the manuscript.
Reviewers are expected to follow COPE’s Guidelines which can be viewed in detail here https://publicationethics.org/sites/default/files/ethical-guidelines-peer-reviewers-cope.pdf
Editors’ Ethical Responsibilities:
Editors of Savvy Science journals are responsible for ensuring the quality of the material published in their journal and maintaining the integrity of its academic record. The editor shall rely solely on the quality and merit of the article as a criterion for publication, and act independently of the race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy of the authors. The editor also agrees not to disclose any information regarding submitted manuscripts to any other party or to use any part of the content on their own behalf.
The respective Editor-in-Chief/Manuscript handling editor of each Savvy Science Journal is responsible for finally deciding which of the articles submitted to the journal should be published and when. In this regard they may find guidance from the editorial policies of the journal constructed in detail according to the COPE’s guidelines including subjects of legal requirements such as, copyright infringement and plagiarism. Decisions to publish are not influenced by the government or any other agency’s policies outside the concerned journal. The Editor in Chief may confer with other editors or reviewers in making their final decision however, bearing full authority over entire editorial panel. In cases of proven misconduct the editors will collaboration with the publisher to take all appropriate measures to amend the situation, and are expected to take notice of necessary corrections, clarifications, retractions, and apologies. The editors advise journals’ team the ways to improve the standard of publications and assure the strict evaluation of submitted articles by qualified peer reviewers. They are supposed to advise and support the steps taken by the editorial members to discourage misconduct in publication and research activities. Editors make sure that the published articles do not involve the unethical practices of ghost authors and ambiguous financial supporters; any form of financial funding is therefore stressed to be clearly mentioned in the articles. All submissions from members of the journal’s staff or editorial board receive an objective and unbiased double-blinded evaluation by external peer reviewers and editors oblige by relevant rules.
Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used by anyone who has a view of the manuscript (while handling it) in his or her own research without the expressed written consent of the author. Editors will only evaluate manuscripts for which they have NO substantial conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships/connections with any of the authors, companies or institutions connected to the papers.
Though Savvy Science has developed policies for all steps to exclude the possibility of a biased review, it is an ethical duty of Editors to refrain themselves from participating in review/evaluation of any article where a potential conflict of interest with the author/content of the article may exist.
Editors are suggested to follow COPE guidelines where they feel misconduct in review process of any article. For further help they may see,
Publisher’s Ethical Responsibilities:
Savvy Science is committed to the highest ethical and transparent publishing principles, and guarantees full integrity and professionalism in all its editorial processes. The editorial members of Savvy Science journals are given independence in their relationship to the publisher; and their decisions about publication of articles are never influenced by Savvy Science, rather the quality and suitability of submission are given sole consideration. Savvy Science ensures its regular communication with the editors and has a zero tolerance policy regarding plagiarism, fraudulent publication and scientific misconduct. To verify the originality of all work published by Savvy Science, all submissions are screened at the earliest stages of publishing using a plagiarism detection system. All cases of alleged unethical behavior are taken very seriously by Savvy Science and an investigation will be initiated in consultation with the authors, editors and/or peer-reviewers, as appropriate. In cases of proven misconduct the publisher, in collaboration with the editors, will take all appropriate measures to amend the situation, and is always willing to publish corrections, clarifications, retractions, and apologies when needed. Savvy Science is committed to ensure the all-time-availability of its published material; therefore contents of its journals are preserved and made accessible to the readers by partnering with the corresponding organizations.
