All parties involved in publishing (Publisher, editor(s), reviewer(s) and author(s) must follow standards of ethical behavior. Andover House, Inc., and its journals follow the COPE Code of Conduct and Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors.and the Code of Conduct for Journal Publishers guidelines.
The Editor-in-Chief has full authority and responsibility over the entire editorial content of the journal and the timing of publication of that content including published content, editorial decisions, and ethical standards (fair play, confidentiality, disclosure of potential conflict of interests, and objectivity).
Decisions to edit and publish are not determined by the policies of governments or any other agencies outside of the journal itself. Decisions are strictly based on intellectual content and scientific merit without regard to race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, age, institution, citizenship, or political philosophy of the authors.
Editors advocate freedom of expression and maintain professional standards; they strive to constantly improve submitted manuscripts and the journal.
The publisher haspolicies in place to assure the quality of the material they publish and considers all professional arguments in the decision process. The journal always willing to publish corrections, clarifications, retractions and apologies when needed.
Andover House journals maintain the integrity of the academic record, guards the standards of confidentiality and maintains confidentiality of information provided by authors, reviewers, editors and other contributors.
Our editors follow the guidelines on ethical behavior as described in the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) Best Practicesdocument and in the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors’ (ICMJE) Recommendations for the Conduct, Reporting, Editing and Publication of Scholarly Work in Medical Journals. The same is expected of authors and reviewers.
A selection of key points is included below, but you should always refer to the three documents listed above for full details.
Editors evaluate submitted manuscripts exclusively on the basis of their scientific merit and its relevance to the journal’s mission, without regard to the authors’ race, gender, nationality, sexual orientation, ethnic origin, citizenship, religious belief, political philosophy or institutional affiliation.
Editors and editorial staff will not disclose any information about a submitted manuscript to anyone other than the corresponding author, reviewers, potential reviewers, other editorial advisers, and the publisher, as appropriate.
Editors and editorial board members will not use unpublished information disclosed in a submitted manuscript for their own research purposes without the authors’ explicit written consent. Privileged information or ideas obtained by editors as a result of handling the manuscript will be kept confidential and not used for their personal advantage.
Editors will recuse themselves from considering manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships/connections with any of the authors, companies or institutions connected to the papers. Appearance of conflict also constitutes conflict of interest.
All submitted manuscripts being considered for publication undergo peer-review by at least two reviewers who are expert in the field. Expert editors suggest decisions regarding actions and the Editor-in-Chief is responsible for deciding which of the manuscripts submitted to the journal will be published, based on the validation of the work, its importance to researchers and readers, the reviewers’ comments, and legal requirements that are currently in force regarding libel, copyright infringement and plagiarism. The Editor-in-Chief may confer with other editors or reviewers in making this decision.
Editors (in conjunction with the publisher and/or society) will take responsive measures when ethical concerns are raised with regard to a submitted manuscript or a published paper. Every reported act of unethical publication behavior will be looked into, even if it is discovered years after posting. PRNANO editors follow the COPE Flowcharts when dealing with cases of suspected misconduct. If, on investigation, the ethical concern is well-founded, a correction, retraction, expression of concern, or other notes, as may be relevant, will be published in the journal.
All scholars have an obligation to do a fair share of reviewing. The purpose of peer review is to improve the manuscript through constructive remarks. Reviewers assist authors through editorial communication only and avoid direct communication regarding the manuscript. Reviewers advise editors, who recommend decisions to the Editor-in-Chief.
Any invited referee who feels unqualified to review the manuscript or cannot do it within a reasonable time (7-10 days) should immediately decline the invitation and notify the editors so that alternative reviewers can be contacted.
Any manuscripts received are confidential documents and must be treated as such; they must not be shown to or discussed with others except if authorized by the Editor-in-Chief. This applies also to invited reviewers who decline the invitation.
Reviews should be conducted objectively, comments formulated clearly, and constructively with supporting arguments. Personal criticism is inappropriate.
Reviewers should identify relevant and significant published work that may have not been cited by the authors. Any statement that is an observation, derivation or argument that has been reported in previous publications should be accompanied by the relevant citation. A reviewer should also notify the editors of any suspected plagiarism, substantial similarity or significant overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other manuscript (published or unpublished) of which they have personal knowledge.
Any invited referee who has conflicts of interest resulting from relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies or institutions connected to the manuscript should immediately notify the editors to declare their conflicts and decline the invitation to review so that alternative reviewers can be invited.
Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for the reviewer’s personal advantage. This applies also to invited reviewers who fail to complete the promised review. Appearance of conflict also constitutes conflict of interest.
Authors are those, who has made a significant contribution to the conceptual design and/or the execution of the study. Only persons who meet authorship criteria below should be listed as authors or co-authors in the manuscript and they must take public responsibility for the content:
(i) those, who made significant contributions to the conception, design, execution, data acquisition, analysis and/or interpretation of the study;
(ii) drafted the manuscript or revised it critically for important intellectual content and quality;
(iii) have seen and approved the final version of the paper and agreed to its submission for publication.
The lead author should ensure that all coauthors (according to the above definition) 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 submission.
All persons who made contributions to the work reported in the manuscript (e.g., technical help, writing and editing assistance, general support) but do not meet the criteria for authorship must not be listed as an author, and should be acknowledged in the "Acknowledgements" section.
Authors reporting results of their 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 manuscript regardless whether numbers, graphs, images, photographs, etc. ‘Doctoring’ images is unacceptable. A complete manuscript (including supporting material) should contain sufficient detail and references to permit others to replicate the work. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behavior and are unacceptable.
Authors may be asked to provide the raw data of their study together with the manuscript for editorial review and should be prepared to share their data publicly. Authors should ensure accessibility of such data to other competent professionals for at least 10 years after publication (preferably via an institutional or subject-based data repository or other data center).
Authors should submit only their own works, and if they have used the work and/or words of others, then make sure that this has been appropriately cited. Publications that have been influential in determining the nature of the work reported in the manuscript should also be cited. Plagiarism may take many forms, but in all its forms constitutes unethical behavior and is unacceptable. The Editors use professional plagiarism checking software when a manuscript is submitted online and react to suspected cases accordingly.
Authors are fully responsible for recognizing and disclosing financial and/or other conflicts of interest that might bias their work and/or could inappropriately influence his/her judgment.
Upon submission, the author(s) will be required to complete a form to declare any conflicts of interest, funding, employment, or leadership and honoraria. This information must also be included within the manuscript before the References section.If no specified acknowledgement is given, the Publishers assume that no conflict of interest exists.
All sources of financial support for the work should be disclosed (including the grant number or other reference number if any).
Authors should not submit any manuscript that has already been published in another journal or is under consideration at another journal.
Papers reproducing essentially the same research should be clearly marked as a replication study, the intention of which is to confirm reproducibility of data and reliability of conclusions. This intent must clearly be indicated and the two works to be compared in the discussion. The primary reference must always be cited in the second publication.
Authors should ensure that they have properly acknowledged the work of others and should also cite publications that have been influential in determining the nature of the reported work. Information obtained privately (from conversation, correspondence or discussion with third parties) must not be used or reported without an explicit, written permission from the source.
Authors should not use information obtained in the course of providing confidential services, such as refereeing manuscripts or grant applications, unless they have obtained the explicit written permission of the author(s) of the work involved in these services.
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 were 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 must confirm in writing that institutional and national standards for the care and use of laboratory animals were followed (please consult the International Association of Veterinary Editors’ Consensus Author Guidelines on Animal Ethics and Welfarefor further guidance)Work involving human subjects should comply with the principles laid down in the revised Declaration of Helsinki.Authors should also include a statement in the manuscript that informed consent was obtained for experimentation with human participants. The privacy rights of human participants must always be observed.
Peer review is a form of scientific discussion and all scholars, including authors are obliged to participate in the peer review process and cooperate fully by responding promptly to editors’ requests for raw data, clarifications, proof of ethics approval, patient consents and copyright permissions. If the decision is "Revise", authors should respond to all comments systematically, point by point, and in a timely and professional manner revise their manuscript accordingly.
When an author or any scientist discover significant errors or inaccuracies in a published work, it is their obligation to promptly notify the journal’s editors or publisher and cooperate with them to either correct the paper in the form of an erratum or to retract the paper. If the editors or 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 or retract the paper or provide evidence to the journal editors of the correctness of the paper. For guidelines on retracting or correcting articles, please see the National Library of Medicine's policyon retractions and the recommendations of theInternational Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE)concerning corrections and retractions.
In cases of alleged or proven scientific misconduct, fraudulent publication or plagiarism, the publisher, in close collaboration with the editors, will take all appropriate measures to clarify the situation and to amend the article in question. This includes the prompt publication of an erratum, clarification or the retraction of the affected work. The publisher, together with the editors, shall take reasonable steps to identify and prevent the publication of papers where research misconduct has occurred, and under no circumstances encourage such misconduct or knowingly allow such misconduct to take place.
The publisher is committed to the permanent availability and preservation of scholarly research and ensures accessibility by partnering with organizations and maintaining our own digital archive. In addition, content is preserved in Crossref and archived by Portico.
All articles are licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License. Creative Commons CC BY-NC-SA 4.0license. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder (i.e., the Authors).
We follow Sherpa/Romeo‘s green archiving policy.Both pre-print and post-print or publisher’s version/PDF can be archived, without restrictions. Authors are responsible for updating the archived preprint with the journal reference (including DOI) and a link to the published articles on the appropriate journal website upon publication.
In case of strong suspicion of any fraudulent behavior concerning publications, please contact:
Andover House, Inc.
138 River Rd, Ste 107
Andover, MA 01810