Publishing Ethic Statement of JDIS
Journal of Data and Information Science (JDIS) is committed to ethical scientific publication to help authors publish ethically. Authors, editors, and reviewers are expected to be aware of, and comply with, best practice in publication ethics. In cases of suspected or alleged misconduct, we will follow theCommittee on Publication Ethics (COPE) flowcharts
1 Authors′ Rights and Responsibilities
1.2 Conflicts of Interest Statement
All authors are required to provide a statement of any competing interests (or affirm that there are no competing interests) within the submitted manuscript, as the competing interests might appear to affect their ability to present or review data objectively. These include relevant ?nancial (for example, patent ownership, stock ownership, consultancies, speaker’s fees), personal, political, intellectual, or religious interests.
1.3 Changes in Authorship
It is the responsibility of the corresponding author to contact the editorial office to apply for inclusion of a new author or removal of an author before publication. JDIS follows the COPE guidelines for changes in authorship, including requests of addition of extra author before or after publication, removal of author before or after publication, and ways to deal with suspected guest, ghost or gift authorship.
2 Scientific Misconduct
We will vigorously investigate allegations of research or publication misconduct and we reserve the right to contact authors’ institutions, funders or regulatory bodies if needed. Authors should avoid the following forms of scientific misconduct.
Plagiarism: Thisis the appropriation of another person's ideas, thoughts, data, figures, processes, results, or words without giving appropriate credit and representation of them as one's own original work.
Fabrication: This is making up primary documentation and study results and recording or reporting them; deceptive selective reporting of findings; omission of conflicting data; or willful suppression and/or distortion of data.
Falsification: This refers to manipulating research materials, equipment, or processes or changing or omitting data or results such that the research is not accurately represented in the research record.
Duplicate submission: This refers to the practice of submitting the same study to two journals or publishing more or less the same study in two journals. These submissions/publications can be nearly simultaneous or years later.
Redundant publication: This refers to the situation that one study is split into several parts and submitted to two or more journals. Or the findings have previously been published elsewhere without proper cross-referencing, permission or justification. “Self-plagiarism” is considered a form of redundant publication. It concerns recycling or borrowing content from previous work without citation.
Undeclared conflict of interest: A conflict of interest is a situation in which financial or other personal considerations from authors or reviewers have the potential to compromise or bias professional judgment and objectivity. Authors and reviewers should declare all conflicts of interest relevant to the work under consideration (i.e. relationships, both financial and personal, that might interfere with the interpretation of the work) to avoid the potential for bias.
Since JDIS follows COPE guidelines in all aspects of publication ethics, please consider the following instructions during the reviewing process.
Recommended action for dealing with suspect plagiarism
- Suspected plagiarism in a submitted manuscript (Link
- Suspected plagiarism in a published article (Link
Recommended action for dealing with suspect fabricated data
- Suspected fabricated data in a submitted manuscript (Link
- Suspected fabricated data in a published article (Link
Recommended action for dealing with suspect redundant (duplicate) publication
- Suspected redundant publication in a submitted manuscript (Link
- Suspected redundant publication in a published article (Link
Recommended action for dealing with undeclared conflict of interest
- What to do if a reviewer suspects undisclosed conflict of interest in a submitted manuscript (link
- What to do if you suspect a reviewer has appropriated an author’s idea or data (link
- What to do if a reader suspects undisclosed conflict of interest in a published article (link
3 Peer Review
3.1 Review Process
All submissions for JDIS will be checked first by the Scientific Editors for the composition and arrangement against JDIS’s Author Guidelines, as well as for the plagiarism detection. Then the Editor-in-Chief will evaluate them for suitability in the journal on the basis of scope and quality, with possible consultation from other members of the Editorial Board. Contributions deemed unsuitable can be rejected without further review.
Articles and reviews deemed in scope and of sufficient quality will be sent to external reviewers (typically two or three) for an in-depth review. The names of the authors will be disclosed to reviewers. Reviewers will be kept anonymous unless they choose to disclose their identity to the authors.
JDIS asks that the review report should include the following parts: 1. A summary identifying the specific strengths and weaknesses of the work, including where appropriate, the novelty of the study and the conceptual advance over previously published works. 2. Comments on the quality of the scientific content and writing. 3. Suggestions as to what additional changes might be required in order to support the claims being made. 4. Whether the authors make appropriate citations to the pre-existing literature.
The types of decisions are accept without revision, minor revision, major revision and reject. It takes about 28 days from submission to first decision.
For the manuscripts with high quality, JDIS provides a Pub-Express channel which means the submissions through this channel can be directly sent to the Co-EICs for a quick but comprehensive evaluation without entering the external peer-review process. The final decision on whether the manuscript is accepted or not for publication by JDIS is normally made within 72 hours. Authors who think their manuscript worthy of quick publication are encouraged to apply to the Pub-Express by stating the exact reasons in Cover Letter when submitting. Please note: entering into the Pub-Express does not mean final acceptance.
3.2 Duties of Reviewers
Contribution to Editorial Decisions: Peer review assists the editor in making editorial decisions and through the editorial communications with the author may also assist the author in improving the paper.
Promptness: Any selected referee who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should notify the editor and excuse himself from the review process.
Confidentiality: Any manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. They must not be shown to or discussed with others except as authorized by the editor.
Standards of Objectivity: Reviews should be conducted objectively. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate. Referees should express their views clearly with supporting arguments.
Acknowledgement of Sources: Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors. Any statement that an observation, derivation, or argument had been previously reported should be accompanied by the relevant citation. A reviewer should also call to the editor's attention any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published paper of which they have personal knowledge.
Disclosure and Conflict of Interest: Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage. Reviewers should not consider manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers.
Authors have a right to appeal editorial decisions. Authors appealing a reject decision must submit a rebuttal detailing a point-by-point response to reviewer and editor comments. The rebuttal should clearly explain how authors can update the manuscript to handle the concerns raised. Using the authors’ rebuttal and the original submissions reviews and rankings, the Board of Editors will make a decision on allowing a resubmission. This decision will generally take 1-4 weeks. If the authors are permitted to resubmit the manuscript it must be submitted as a NEW manuscript. It will be subjected to initial review, which is followed by the reviewers in-depth review for a subset of all manuscripts submitted.
We encourage readers and authors to notify us if they find errors, especially errors that could affect the interpretation of data or information presented in an article. When an error is identified, we should work with authors to correct important published errors.
We publish corrections when important errors are found, and consider retraction when errors are so fundamental that they invalidate the work.
Corrections arising from errors within an article are distinguishable from retractions and statements of concern relating to misconduct. Corrections are included in indexing systems and linked to the original article. In addition, corrections are free to access.
We follow the COPE Guidelines for Retracting Articles
. We will issue an article retraction notification in the latest issue. We will give the reason for the retraction and evidence for the decision. The title of the notification is "Retraction Notification". We will retract this article from the journal website and related database in which our journal is indexed.