Resourceedings adheres to set ethical standards for publication to ensure high-quality scientific publications to ensure the dissemination of credible content and properly credit the researchers/authors for their work.
All submitted manuscripts will enter a rigorous, and anonymous, peer review process and are expected to meet specifically set out standards for approval by the journal editors.
Submissions that do not follow publication ethics and/or possess serious ethical, security, and societal implications will be investigated by consulted experts and may be (a) declined/ no longer considered (b) declined submissions for 1-5 years/ probation (c) prohibit roles of editors/reviewers.
Cases of Misconduct:
1. Redundant Publication
Suspected redundant publication in a submitted manuscript:
If a submitted manuscript is found to have been published previously during the similarity/cross-check screening process, the reviewer is expected to inform the editor. The editor will then carry out an investigation using evidence and consider the extent of redundancy. Major Redundancy cases, where identical/similar findings are found, will be dealt with by contacting the corresponding author, or other authors, and requesting an explanation. If the explanation is unsatisfactory, the submission will be rejected and the author/reviewer will be informed. If the authors are not responsive, the author’s institution will be contacted and concerns shared. Minor Overlap will be followed by correspondence to the author or in neutral terms and modification requests until a review/decision has been made.
Suspected redundant publication in a published manuscript:
If concern is expressed to edit or by a reader, the nature of redundancy will be investigated and the steps explained above based on minor/major overlap detected. If found guilty, a publishing statement of redundant publication/retraction will be made and edited or of other journals, author, and reader informed.
When citing others’ (or your own) previous work, please ensure you have:
- Clearly marked quoted verbatim text ("") from another source with quotation marks.
- Attributed and referenced the source of the quotation clearly using in-text citation and a reference in your bibliography. Failure to do so will be considered plagiarism and your manuscript will be rejected.
3. Fabricated Data
Suspected fabricated data in a submitted manuscript:
If the reviewer suspects fabricated data is present in the paper, we will ask for evidence, and take a 2nd reviewer’s opinion. The author will be contacted for an explanation. If the author replies with a satisfactory explanation, we proceed with the review process. If the author replies with an unsatisfactory answer or admits guilt, the author’s institution(s) are contacted requesting an investigation. If the author is cleared, we proceed with the peer review and inform the reviewer of the outcome. If the author is found guilty, we reject the paper and inform the reviewer of the outcome. In case the author does not reply in the first place, the institution(s) will be contacted for concern to be passed to the author’s superior and/or person responsible for research governance. Still, if no response is granted, regulatory bodies will be requested for an inquiry.
Suspected fabricated data in a published manuscript:
In the case, the reader suspects fabricated data is present in a published paper, two of the reviewers’ opinions are taken. The author is then contacted for an explanation. If the author replies with a satisfactory explanation, a correction will be published if necessary, and the reader will be informed of the outcome. If the author admits guilt, the author’s institution(s) are contacted requesting an investigation. In this case, if the author is not found guilty, the reader is informed about the outcome, and if the author is found guilty of fabrication, a retraction will be published, and the reader will be informed. If the institutions do not provide a response or an unsatisfactory response, regulatory bodies will be requested for an inquiry, or an expression of concern will be published, and the reader is informed. In the case the author does not reply in the first place, the institution(s) will be contacted for concern to be passed to the author’s superior and/or person responsible for research governance. If still, there is no response, regulatory bodies are requested for an inquiry, and then check if the author is guilty or not, following the fore mentioned process.
4. Authorship and Contribution
Authors or co-authors should only be listed in the study submitted if they made a significant contribution to the manuscript. In other words, authors should avoid “gift” or “ghost” authorships; the addition of an individual to the list of authors without having contributed in any way to the writing of the study. That being said, an author, alongside co-authors involved, shares the responsibility for the content and results of the submitted article. Co-authors, specifically, must have contributed to the work reported by: having taken part in the research concept/design, written/revised the work, and agreed on the journal where the article is submitted. If the article has been found to breach the codes of conduct, responsibility will then be equally shared by the named authors and corresponding authors. If needed, authors will be asked to provide detail(s) of individual contributions. In the case that the listed author does not meet authorship criteria, suggestions to remove guest/gift authorship will be made and agreements changed accordingly.
5. Changes in authorship
Before the submission of a manuscript, the author and corresponding authors of the article are expected to be in agreement and provide definitive information accordingly. Changes in the authorship of a submitted article are acceptable ONLY before its publication and upon the approval of the Journal Editor(s). For changes to be considered:
- The exact changes requested should be clearly stated in an email to the Editor.
- Reasons as to why the changes are necessary should be communicated in the same e- mail.
- Confirmation in an e-mail from all involved parties (Authors and Corresponding Authors) must be sent to the Editor.
- Conflict of Interest.
6. Ethics approval
Manuscripts reporting data involving questionnaires, surveys and interviews or any type of data that has been collection from by the author/co-authors must:
Include a statement on ethics approval and consent (even where the need for approval was waived).
Include the name of the ethics committee that approved the study and the committee’s reference number if appropriate.
7. Conflict of Interest
In case any relationship could present some kind of conflict of interest, the author is obliged to disclose this information in full. Any financial relationship or any other kind that could be recognized as influencing an author’s objectivity is considered a potential source of conflict of interest.
As part of the journal submission requirements, and during the process of an author’s submission of his/her article, they will be asked to provide ticks for statements that apply. The statement(s) are designed to ensure that no financial or personal interest could affect their impartiality. If otherwise, authors are expected to contact the editor stating the source and nature of the potential conflict. Any detection of conflict of interest will be met with a request to amend, and announce if the article is already published, competing for interest statement(s).
All funding resources for the submitted research paper should be declared. The role of the funding body in the design of the study and collection, analysis, and interpretation of data and in writing the manuscript should be stated in the declaration section of the paper.
9. Peer Review
Journal rely on a double blinded peer-review process to evaluate the quality and validity of submitted manuscripts. Peer reviewers must maintain confidentiality, provide unbiased and constructive feedback, and disclose any conflicts of interest that may compromise their objectivity.
10. Retraction and Corrections
If errors or significant flaws are identified in published work, the journal may issue retractions or corrections. Authors should cooperate with journal editors to address any issues promptly and transparently.
We are committed to ensuring that all submissions receive a fair and impartial review. As such, if you believe that we have come to an unfair decision regarding your publication, we encourage you to Appeal the decision by providing additional information or clarification regarding your article and address any concerns raised during the review process. To initiate an appeal, please email us at: [email protected].