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

Research misconduct refers to several actions, such as fabrication, falsification, citation manipulation, and plagiarism, that can occur during the production, performance, review, or reporting of research and the writing of articles. It is the responsibility of editors to ensure the accuracy and integrity of the scientific record, particularly when articles that have been published are involved in such irregularities.

To address any suspicions of misconduct fairly, editors and editorial boards follow the best practices of COPE, including an investigation of allegations made by individuals with no relevant conflicts of interest. If misconduct is suspected, the corresponding author is contacted to provide a detailed response, and additional review and involvement of experts, such as statistical reviewers, may be sought.

When there is sufficient evidence of misconduct, submitted manuscripts are rejected, and published papers may be retracted, with a link to the original article. However, for cases where misconduct is unlikely, clarifications, additional analyses, or both, published as letters to the editor, often accompanied by a correction notice and correction to the published article, can suffice.

BRIN are expected to conduct thorough investigations of allegations of scientific misconduct. It is the critical responsibility of authors, journals, and institutions to guarantee the accuracy of the scientific record. MEV journal will continue to fulfill its responsibilities by responding appropriately to concerns about scientific misconduct and taking necessary actions, such as corrections, retractions with replacement, and retractions, to maintain the validity and integrity of the scientific record.


Authorship and Contributorship

Authors should ensure that the authorship of their research publications accurately reflects the contributions made by each individual involved in the work and its reporting. Only those who have significantly contributed to the conception, design, execution, or interpretation of the study should be listed as authors. Others who have made significant contributions must be acknowledged as co-authors. In cases where major contributors are listed as authors, those who have made less substantial or purely technical contributions should be listed in an acknowledgement section. Additionally, authors should confirm that all authors have reviewed and agreed to the final version of the manuscript and their inclusion as co-authors.


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:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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.
  6. 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

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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

  1. 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.
  2. Confidentiality: Reviewers should maintain the confidentiality of the manuscript and not share it with others unless authorized by the editor.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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.
  6. 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 and Corrections

MEV welcomes post-publication discussions and corrections from readers regarding published articles. If a reader wishes to provide discussions and corrections, they can contact the Editor in Chief via email and explain their feedback. If the Editor in Chief accepts the discussions and corrections, they will be published in the next issue as a Letter to the Editor. The authors of the original article are allowed to reply to the discussions and corrections by sending their response to the Editor in Chief, who may publish it as a Reply to the Letter to the Editor.


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.


Article Withdrawal Policy; Corrections and Retractions

MEV Journal has established policies for handling article withdrawal, retraction, removal, and replacement. These standards are outlined in our policy guidelines here.