Publication Ethics and Allegation of Misconduct

Publication Ethics and Allegation of Research Misconduct

MEV recognizes the significance of ethical principles in academic publishing and is dedicated to upholding a high standard of ethical behavior. To ensure transparency and ethical conduct throughout the publication process, MEV journal adheres to rigorous peer-review standards. In line with the COPE Best Practice Guidelines, this publication ethics statement establishes clear expectations for all stakeholders, including authors, editors, reviewers, and the publisher (BRIN). With this ethical policy serving as a valuable guide, MEV aims to promote publication ethics and prevent malpractice among all stakeholders of the journal.

Publisher Commitment to Ethical Publishing

The publication of a peer-reviewed article in MEV journal is a vital component in creating a reputable and coherent knowledge network. It reflects the quality of the author's work and the institutions that support them and upholds the scientific method. Thus, it is crucial to establish ethical standards for all parties involved in the publishing process, including the author, editor, peer reviewer, publisher, and society.

As the publisher of MEV, BRIN recognizes its duty to oversee all stages of publishing and acknowledges its ethical and other responsibilities. It is committed to ensuring that editorial decisions remain independent and unbiased, unaffected by commercial revenue from advertising, reprints, or other sources. Additionally, the MEV Editorial Board and BRIN will facilitate communication with other publishers or journals as needed and appropriate.

Allegation of Research Misconduct

MEV takes all allegations of research and publication misconduct seriously. Misconduct includes, but is not limited to, fabrication, falsification, plagiarism, improper image or data manipulation, duplicate publication, authorship misconduct, citation manipulation, peer-review manipulation, undisclosed competing interests, paper-mill activity, misuse of confidential material, and undisclosed or prohibited use of artificial intelligence.

Allegations are handled fairly, confidentially, and in accordance with the guidelines of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). The matter will be assessed by editors or other qualified persons who have no relevant conflicts of interest. Individuals whose conduct is questioned will be given a reasonable opportunity to respond. MEV may seek advice from independent experts and cooperate with the authors’ institutions, research funders, other journals, or competent authorities when a formal investigation is required.

MEV is responsible for evaluating the reliability and integrity of submitted and published content. Formal investigations into the conduct of researchers are ordinarily the responsibility of their affiliated institutions or other competent bodies. MEV may nevertheless take editorial action based on the available evidence when necessary to protect the scholarly record.

Depending on the nature, seriousness, and status of the case, editorial actions may include suspension of the review or publication process, rejection, correction, expression of concern, retraction, or other action under MEV’s publication ethics policies. Allegations that are not supported by sufficient evidence will be closed without editorial action. Honest errors or legitimate differences in scientific interpretation do not, by themselves, constitute misconduct, although correction of the published record may still be required.

The complete procedure is described in MEV’s Allegations of Research and Publication Misconduct Policy.

Authorship and Contributorship

Authorship represents both scholarly credit and accountability. Each listed author must have: (1) made a substantial contribution to the conception or design of the work, or to the acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of its data; (2) drafted the manuscript or critically reviewed it for important intellectual content; (3) approved the final version for publication; and (4) agreed to be accountable for the integrity and accuracy of the work. All individuals who meet these criteria should be identified as authors, while those who do not meet all four criteria must not be listed as authors but may be acknowledged as contributors with their permission. Funding acquisition, general supervision, administrative support, technical assistance, language editing, or data collection alone does not qualify a person for authorship. All authors must agree on the author list, order, contribution statement, and final manuscript. Complete provisions are available in MEV’s Authorship and Contributorship Policy.

Conflicts of Interest and Competing Interests

MEV requires authors, reviewers, editors, and editorial staff to disclose any actual, potential, or perceived financial or non-financial competing interest that could influence, or reasonably be seen as influencing, their research, evaluation, or editorial judgment. Authors must include a competing-interest statement in every manuscript, including a declaration when no competing interest exists. Reviewers and editors must disclose relevant interests before participating and must withdraw from the process when their objectivity or independence could reasonably be questioned. The existence of a competing interest does not automatically prevent publication or participation; MEV will assess and manage each case through transparent disclosure, recusal, or independent editorial handling. Undisclosed competing interests may result in corrective or other editorial action. Complete provisions are available in MEV’s Conflicts of Interest and Competing Interests Policy.

Complaints and Appeals

MEV journal has a well-defined process for managing grievances lodged against the journal, Editorial Staff, Editorial Board, or Publisher. The complaints will be thoroughly explained to the concerned individual regarding the nature of the complaint. The scope of complaints covers any issue related to the journal's operational procedures, such as the editorial process, unethical citation practices, biased editors/reviewers, peer-review tampering, and so on. The complaint cases will be handled in compliance with COPE's guidelines.

Data Access, Retention and Reproducibility

In order to uphold the integrity and transparency of research, authors are strongly encouraged to provide the raw data used in their study to the editorial team during the review process. Additionally, authors should be willing to make this data available to the public, if feasible, or retain it for a reasonable period of time following publication. It is the author's responsibility to ensure that their data can be reproduced, thus allowing other researchers to verify and build upon their findings.

Ethical Oversight

When conducting research that involves potentially hazardous chemicals, procedures, equipment, humans, or animals, the author must disclose these hazards in the manuscript to comply with ethical research practices. Additionally, if necessary, the author must obtain legal ethical clearance from relevant associations or organizations. For research involving confidential data or business/marketing practices, authors must explain how they will securely protect the data or information.

Duties of Author:

Reporting Standards: Authors have a duty to report research accurately and honestly, without any manipulation or falsification of data. Manuscripts should provide enough detail and references to allow replication of the work. Fraudulent or inaccurate statements are unacceptable, and manuscripts should follow the journal's submission guidelines.
Originality and Plagiarism: Authors must ensure that their work is original and not submitted concurrently to multiple publications. Relevant previous work should be properly acknowledged and referenced, with citations to the primary literature where possible. Original wording taken directly from other publications should be appropriately cited.
Multiple, Redundant, or Concurrent Publications: Authors should not submit the same manuscript to more than one journal or publish redundant manuscripts describing the same research in more than one journal. Multiple publications from a single research project should be identified as such, and the primary publication should be referenced.
Acknowledgement of Sources: Authors should acknowledge all sources of data used in the research and cite publications that influenced the nature of the reported work.
Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest: Authors are required to reveal any financial or other significant conflicts of interest that could potentially impact the result or interpretation of their manuscript, and they must disclose all sources of financial support for their research project.
Fundamental Errors in Published Works: In case the author identifies any major mistake or inexactitude in the manuscript they submitted, it is their responsibility to inform the journal editor or publisher right away and work together to retract or correct the paper.

Duties of Editor

Decision on Publication: The editor shall decide whether to accept, reject or ask for revisions to the manuscript based on the review report from the editorial board. This decision should be guided by the importance and validity of the work, and editors should adhere to the policies of the journal's editorial board and legal requirements related to plagiarism, copyright infringement, and libel. The editor can consult with other editors or reviewers while making the decision, but they must be accountable for everything they publish and maintain the quality and integrity of the published record.
Manuscript Review: The editor should evaluate each manuscript for originality and ensure fair and wise peer review. They should clarify the peer review process in the information for authors and identify the parts of the journal that are peer-reviewed. The editor must choose appropriate peer reviewers who have sufficient expertise and no conflicts of interest. For more details on the complete review policy, refer to the journal.
Fairness: The editor must ensure that manuscripts are reviewed for their intellectual content, irrespective of the authors' sex, gender, race, religion, or citizenship. Editorial independence and integrity are crucial in making fair and unbiased decisions.
Confidentiality: The editor must keep the information regarding manuscripts confidential, including potential breaches of data protection and patient confidentiality. Properly informed consent for the research presented and publication must be required.
Disclosure and Conflict of Interest: The editor must not use any unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript for their own research without written consent from the author. Editors must not be involved in decisions about papers in which they have a conflict of interest.

Duties of Reviewer

Contribution to Editorial Decisions: Reviewers play a role in helping the editor make decisions on whether to publish or reject a manuscript, and may also provide feedback to help authors improve their work.
Confidentiality: Reviewers should maintain the confidentiality of the manuscript and not share it with others unless authorized by the editor.
Acknowledgement of Sources: Reviewers should ensure that authors have properly cited all sources used in their research, and should inform the editor of any concerns they have about the ethical aspects of the work. If reviewers become aware of any irregularities or potential misconduct, they should inform the editor immediately but should not personally investigate further.
Objectivity: Reviewers should provide an objective assessment of the manuscript and provide clear and constructive feedback to the authors. They should follow the journal's instructions for providing feedback and avoid any conflicts of interest.
Disclosure and Conflict of Interest: Reviewers should not use any privileged information obtained during the review process for personal gain and should avoid reviewing manuscripts in which they have a conflict of interest. They should inform the editor if they suspect any potential conflict of interest.
Promptness: Reviewers should respond to the review request in a timely manner and inform the editor if they cannot meet the deadline for completing the review.

Intellectual Property (Copyright Policy)

MEV Journal policy about intelectual property or copyright is declared here.

Post-Publication Discussions

MEV welcomes evidence-based post-publication discussion of articles published in the journal. Readers may submit comments as a Letter to the Editor, which will undergo editorial assessment and, where necessary, external review; the authors of the original article will normally be invited to respond. Accepted Letters and Replies will be published and linked to the original article. Concerns involving possible errors or misconduct will be handled under MEV’s relevant correction or misconduct policies. Complete policies on Post-Publication can be found here.

Peer-Review Process Policy

Our peer-review process policy is designed to ensure that each submission is evaluated based on its novelty, objectivity, methodology, scientific impact, conclusions, and references. The corresponding author will receive the reviewers' comments and is expected to take appropriate actions and provide responses. The Editorial Board will then review the comments and make a final decision based on the reviewer's recommendations. More information on our peer-review process and policy can be found here.

Plagiarism Screening Policy

MEV has a strict policy against plagiarism and self-plagiarism, and any papers found to contain such issues will be promptly investigated and rejected. The Editorial Board of MEV is committed to ensuring that all published articles do not exceed a similarity score of 30%. To achieve this, MEV employs a comprehensive plagiarism screening policy which can be found here.

Corrections, Retractions, Withdrawals, Removals, and Replacements

MEV is committed to maintaining the accuracy, integrity, and permanence of the scholarly record. Depending on the nature and status of a case, MEV may correct an article when an error does not invalidate its overall findings; retract an article when its findings are unreliable or it involves a serious ethical breach; withdraw accepted content before formal publication; remove content only in exceptional legal or safety-related circumstances; or replace an article in strictly limited cases. All such actions will follow applicable COPE guidance and be accompanied by a transparent, permanently accessible notice linked to the affected article. These standards are outlined in our policy guidelines here.