1. Focus and Scope
Journal of Special
Education and Rehabilitation is a peer-reviewed, independent,
open-access special educational and rehabilitation journal. The mission
of Journal of Special Education and Rehabilitation is to facilitate the
equitable global dissemination of high-quality disability research; to
promote international dialogue and collaboration on health issues; to
improve special education; and to expand and deepen the understanding of
rehabilitation sciences. The Journal will examine issues relevant to
health and disability both in Macedonia and internationally.
2. Peer Review Process
Unbiased,
independent, critical assessment is an intrinsic part of all scholarly
work, including scientific investigation. Peer reviewers are experts in
their field who are not part of the editorial staff and thus are an
important extension of the scientific process. Manuscripts will be
reviewed by at least 2 reviewers. Peer reviewers are asked to submit
their review within two (2) weeks. All randomized controlled trials will
be fast-tracked through the peer-review and editorial process and we
will endeavor to publish accepted trials within 2 weeks of final
acceptance. Fast-tracking will be considered for other papers at the
authors request.
3. Publication Frequency
Journal of Special
Education and Rehabilitation publishes accepted papers as double issues
after completion of peer-review and editorial processes. Papers will
subsequently be collated as quarterly editions for indexing and citation
purposes.
4. Open Access Policy
Journal of Special
Education and Rehabilitation applies the Creative Commons Attribution
Share Alike License to works we publish, because we believe that there
should be no financial barriers to access to information that can
benefit medical practice.
We also believe
that authors should retain copyright to the article they have worked so
hard to produce. This Creative Commons license means that anyone is able
to freely copy, download, reprint, reuse, distribute, display or
perform the work we publish.
They are also free
to make derivative works (alter, transform, or build upon) so long as
they distribute the resulting work only under a license identical to
this one. Any derivative or non-derivative work must be attributed to
the author and to Journal of Special Education and Rehabilitation.
Any of these
conditions can be waived with permission from the copyright holder,
including the right to modification or commercial distribution. These
conditions do not negate or supersede Fair Use laws in any country.
5. Competing interest policy
Public trust in the
peer review process and the credibility of published articles depend in
part on how well competing interests are handled during writing, peer
review, and editorial decision making.
Competing interests
exists when an author (or the author’s institution), reviewer, or
editor has financial or personal relationships that inappropriately
influence (bias) his or her actions. These relationships vary from those
with negligible potential to those with great potential to influence
judgment, and not all relationships represent true competing interests.
The potential for competing interests can exist whether or not an
individual believes that the relationship affects his or her scientific
judgment.
Financial
relationships (such as employment, consultancies, stock ownership,
honoraria, paid expert testimony) are the most easily identifiable
competing interests and the most likely to undermine the credibility of
the journal, the authors, and of science itself. However, conflicts can
occur for other reasons, such as personal relationships, academic
competition, and intellectual passion.
All participants in
the peer review and publication process must disclose all relationships
that could be viewed as presenting a potential competing interest.
Editors may use
information disclosed in competing interest statements as a basis for
editorial decisions. Editors will publish this information if they
believe it is important in judging the manuscript.
5.1. Potential competing interests related to individual authors’ commitments
When authors submit
any manuscript they are responsible for disclosing all financial and
personal relationships that might bias their work. To prevent ambiguity,
authors must state explicitly whether potential conflicts do or do not
exist. Authors should do so in the manuscript on a competing interest
notification page that follows the title page, providing additional
detail, if necessary, in a cover letter that accompanies the manuscript.
Investigators must disclose potential competing interests to study
participants and should state in the manuscript whether they have done
so.
We believe that
financial conflicts of interest can be sufficiently great to preclude
the publication of certain types of articles due to the potential for
bias. In particular we draw attention to reviews (especially narrative
reviews), commentaries and guidelines. Based on the experiences and
guidelines of other journals, narrative reviews or commentaries (or
similar articles) will not be accepted for consideration of publication
(for either commissioned or spontaneously submitted pieces), if the any
author has financial investments (equity, shares, derivatives, bonds,
but excluding public traded mutual funds), received royalties or similar
payments that in total over the past year have exceeded US $10,000 per
company; or holds a patent (or is likely to or has applied for one or
more) in a company that markets a product (or a competitor product)
mentioned in the article. We will also refuse to publish papers by
authors who are employed by such companies, who have a contractual
relationship of any type with such companies, or who are named officers
or board members of such companies. Authors of guidelines also fall
within this remit.
5.2. Potential competing interests related to project support
Increasingly,
individual studies receive funding from commercial firms, private
foundations, and government. The conditions of this funding have the
potential to bias and otherwise discredit the research. Scientists have
an ethical obligation to submit creditable research results for
publication. Moreover, as the persons directly responsible for their
work, researchers should not enter into agreements that interfere with
their access to the data and their ability to analyze it independently,
to prepare manuscripts, and to publish them.
Authors should
describe the role of the study sponsor(s), if any, in study design; in
the collection, analysis, and interpretation of data; in the writing of
the report; and in the decision to submit the report for publication. If
the supporting source had no such involvement, the authors should so
state. Biases potentially introduced when sponsors are directly involved
in research are analogous to methodological biases of other sorts. We
therefore, choose to include information about the sponsor’s involvement
in the methods section.
Editors request
that authors of a study funded by an agency with a proprietary or
financial interest in the outcome sign a statement such as, “I had full
access to all of the data in this study and I take complete
responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the
data analysis.” Editors may also review copies of the protocol and/or
contracts associated with project-specific studies before accepting such
studies for publication.
Editors may choose not to consider an article if a sponsor has asserted control over the authors’ right to publish.
We do not accept guideline submissions that have been funded by a single-industry sponsor.
5.3.Potential competing interests related to commitments of editors, journal staff, or reviewers
Editors will avoid
selecting external peer reviewers with obvious potential conflicts of
interest, for example, those who work in the same department or
institution as any of the authors.
Authors often
provide editors with the names of persons they feel should not be asked
to review a manuscript because of potential competing interests, usually
professional. When possible, authors will be asked to explain or
justify their concerns; that information is important to editors in
deciding whether to honor such requests.
Reviewers must
disclose to editors any competing interests that could bias their
opinions of the manuscript, and they should disqualify themselves from
reviewing specific manuscripts if they believe it to be appropriate. As
in the case of authors, silence on the part of reviewers concerning
potential conflicts may mean either that such conflicts exist that they
have failed to disclose, or that conflicts do not exist. Reviewers must
therefore also be asked to state explicitly whether conflicts do or do
not exist. Reviewers must not use knowledge of the work, before its
publication, to further their own interests.
Editors who make
final decisions about manuscripts will have no personal, professional,
or financial involvement in any of the issues they might judge. Other
members of the editorial staff, if they participate in editorial
decisions, will provide editors with a current description of their
financial interests (as they might relate to editorial judgments) and
disqualify themselves from any decisions where they have competing
interests.
Editorial staff
will not use the information gained through working with manuscripts for
private gain. Editors publish regular disclosure statements about
potential competing interests related to the commitments of journal
staff.
6. Competing interest statements of Journal of Special Education and Rehabilitation editors
The editors of
Journal of Special Education and Rehabilitation are required to complete
the following statement regarding potential competing interests:
-
Have you accepted
monetary compensation for any of the following from an organization that
might gain or lose financially or in any other way because of a
relationship with Journal of Special Education and Rehabilitation?
Reimbursement for attending a symposium; Speaker Fees Fees for
educational event; Research funds; Funds for a member of your staff;
Consulting fees
-
Have you been
employed by an organization that may in any way gain or lose financially
from the publication of papers in Journal of Special Education and
Rehabilitation?
-
Do you hold stocks
or shares in an organization that might benefit or lose from an
existing relationship with Journal of Special Education and
Rehabilitation?
-
Do you wish to disclose other competing interests, financial or otherwise?
7. Confidentiality statement
The editors of
Journal of Special Education and Rehabilitation are required to agree to
the following statement regarding editorial content:
As a member of the
Journal of Special Education and Rehabilitation editorial team, I agree
to keep confidential the content of accepted submissions until
publication. I also agree to respect the privacy and intellectual
property rights of authors who submit material to the journal.
I will not disclose
information concerning the journal’s receipt of a submission, its
content, or its review, other than in discussions with the journal’s
editors and peer reviewers in the normal process of evaluation.
I understand that
the final editorial decision will be disclosed to peer reviewers, who
are bound by a similar obligation of confidentiality. Peer reviews of
rejected material will be shared with other journals only with the
author’s explicit consent.
8. No embargo policy
Journal of Special
Education and Rehabilitation does not impose media embargos on content.
Authors, as the owners of their original work, are free to disseminate
advance information about forthcoming articles that they have
contributed to Journal of Special Education and Rehabilitation.
All Journal of Special Education and Rehabilitation content will be freely available to everyone from the moment of publication.
9. Advertising policy
Journal of Special
Education and Rehabilitation is a non-profit journal whose mission is to
provide a venue for scientific publishing that is independent of
commercial interests which can influence editorial objectivity.
Therefore, Journal
of Special Education and Rehabilitation will not accept advertisements
from for-profit pharmaceutical or medical device companies, nor will we
accept advertisements for Continuing Medical Education that is funded by
these companies.
We reserve the
right to refuse advertising from any business or organization whose
activities we believe are inconsistent with the mission of Journal of
Special Education and Rehabilitation.
Please contact
jser@fzf.ukim.edu.mk if you
are interested in advertising with Journal of Special Education and
Rehabilitation, inserting "Advertising" in the subject line.
10.Sponsorship policy
Companies,
individuals and other organizations are invited to support the
development of Journal of Special Education and Rehabilitation by
becoming a journal sponsor.
Sponsorships
provide unrestricted funds that will help Journal of Special Education
and Rehabilitation advance its service to authors and readers and
fulfill its mission. Sponsors will be highlighted on a Sponsors page.
The mission of
Journal of Special Education and Rehabilitation is to facilitate the
equitable global dissemination of high-quality health research within
the health community; to promote international dialogue and
collaboration on health issues; to improve clinical practice; and to
expand and deepen the understanding of health and health care.
Our open-access
publishing platform is key to accomplishing our goals. To ensure their
commitment to the integrity of debate within the pages of Journal of
Special Education and Rehabilitation, and to the independence of our
editors, sponsors of Journal of Special Education and Rehabilitation
will be asked to endorse the following sponsorship statement: We support
the mission and principles of Journal of Special Education and
Rehabilitation and recognize the potential for competing interests while
providing financial support to the Journal. We hereby state that we
will not attempt to influence any editorial decisions made by the
editors of Journal of Special Education and Rehabilitation, in return
for our support.
Journal of Special
Education and Rehabilitation reserves the right to refuse sponsorship
from any business or organization. In keeping with our policy on
advertising, Journal of Special Education and Rehabilitation does not
accept sponsorships from pharmaceutical or medical device companies.
Please contact
jser@fzf.ukim.edu.mk if you
are interested in becoming an Journal of Special Education and
Rehabilitation sponsor, inserting "Sponsorship" in the subject line.
11.Editorial board terms of reference
-
The volunteer
Editorial Board will provide input, oversight, contacts and moral
support, and establish the journal’s first Board of Directors.
-
The Journal’s
Editorial Board will consist of highly skilled, committed professionals
in Canada and internationally. It will represent the Journal’s various
constituencies: readers, researchers, physicians, policy makers and
patients, using their skills to achieve the Journal objectives. The
Journal's Editorial Board will include a maximum of 30 members.
-
By agreeing to sit
on the Board, Editorial Board members will assist the
Editor-in-Chief(s) of the Journal to review, solicit and submit relevant
papers for the Journal and support Journal efforts to secure ongoing
funding.
-
The Editorial
Board will support the Editor-in-Chief(s) to maintain Journal principles
underlying the editorial integrity and independence of the Journal
example supporting editorial independence, Journal advertising policies
and the open access platform.
-
The Editorial
Board will meet once per year to receive a report on Journal progress
from the Editor-in-Chief(s) and to review a report on the performance of
the Editor-in-Chief from the Chair of the Board of Directors.
-
Initial membership
of the Editorial Board will initially be determined by the ‘Friends of
the Journal’ group who came forward to work to create the Journal.
-
Ongoing membership
of the Editorial Board will be determined by the Editor-in-Chief(s) in
conjunction with the existing Editorial Board. A new member can be
nominated by 2 editors and/or board members, and is approved by a
two-third vote of existing editorial board members. Members will serve
for a staggered period of 3 years, renewable once.
12.Data sharing policy
At Journal of
Special Education and Rehabilitation we believe that original and novel
research is vitally important, so too are the studies that follow to
confirm or repudiate their findings.
We also believe in
the creative re-use of data. Allowing other researchers access to the
data that you have collected considerably extends its value. Creative
re-use offers the opportunity to validate your findings as well as
exploring new ways of using it. It also means that funding bodies and
patients involved in the research see their initial investment grow.
Like other journals starting to build upon the value of data sharing and publishing (see PLoS Medicine & Annals of Internal Medicine ),
we would like to you to indicate your willingness to share your
protocol, dataset and the statistical code used for your analysis with
other authors. We encourage authors who publish secondary analysis to
use the same Creative Commons licence that we use; encouraging ongoing
open access to your data and the knowledge derived from it.
We strongly
encourage you to discuss sharing your data on the Journal of Special
Education and Rehabilitation website with our Editorial team (
jser@fzf.ukim.edu.mk) after we have accepted your paper. We look forward to working together on this exciting open initiative.
13.Ghost and guest authorship policy
Ghost authorship occurs when someone makes a significant contribution to a manuscript without due acknowledgement of their role.
Guest authorship occurs when an individual is named as an author of a manuscript when they do not meet authorship criteria.
Journal of Special
Education and Rehabilitation considers that both ghost and guest
authorship are breaches of publication ethics, and believes they violate
readers’ trust in scientific reporting and can potentially bias medical
literature. The Journal’s editors and readers need to be confident that
authors listed have undertaken the work and that the written manuscript
reflects their work; public confidence and scientific integrity depend
on this.
Commercial interests should not inappropriately influence our scientific knowledge base.
Journal of Special
Education and Rehabilitation acknowledges the role of professional
medical writers and requires that all writing assistance be disclosed.
To support
transparent and complete authorship reporting, Journal of Special
Education and Rehabilitation expects authors to fulfill the following
requirements:
1. Authors must
provide a contributor statement that describes the specific contribution
of each author to the manuscript and shows how each author meets the 3
authorship criteria of the ICMJE. For example:
"Petar Stojanovski
participated in finalizing the study methodology, managed the
quantitative component and was the principal writer of the manuscript.
Milka Basheska conceived the project, oversaw the data collection and
analysis and participated in all phases of the writing. Todor Micev
helped implement the study, worked on finalizing the methodology and
contributed to the writing and editing of the manuscript. Tatjana
Ivanovska supervised the data collection, described the qualitative
methods used in the study and reviewed all manuscript drafts. Mirjana
Kostic conducted the data analysis and participated in editing and
reviewing manuscript drafts. Dejan Kocevski conceived the study and
oversaw its implementation and participated in the writing of the
manuscript. Venko Petrovski helped guide the analysis and participated
in the writing. All of the authors approved the final version of the
manuscript."
2. Authors should
specify who wrote the first draft of the article (and for research
studies, who wrote the protocol and did the statistical analyses). If
the people named are not authors, the Journal editors will contact them
to confirm their contribution.
3. Contributors who
do not meet the criteria for authorship should be named in an
Acknowledgements section with their contribution clearly described.
Vague statements in the Acknowledgments section, such as “We thank XX”
(without specifying for what), or “XY provided editorial assistance,”
will not be accepted.
4. Authors should retain copies of drafts to facilitate investigations of possible misconduct.
5. Any and all
assistance from professional writers must in every case be appropriately
acknowledged and described and their funding source named.
6. Professional
medical writers whose contribution to a manuscript qualifies them as an
author according to the ICMJE criteria for authorship must be listed as
authors, with their affiliations and competing interests provided and
the source of their funding named.
7. Professional
writers whose contribution to a manuscript does not qualify them as an
author according to the ICMJE criteria for authorship must be named in
the Acknowledgements section, with their contribution clearly described
and their funding source named. Authors are requested to contact the
Journal of Special Education and Rehabilitation editors to obtain
clarification as to the appropriate place in the manuscript to
acknowledge and describe the contribution of a medical writer.
Journal of Special
Education and Rehabilitation strongly believes in transparent reporting.
Ghost and guest authorship are dishonest, and the Journal editors
intend to maintain processes that improve public accountability and the
credibility of scientific research reporting.
14.Privacy and confidentiality
14.1. Patients and study participants
Patients have a
right to privacy that should not be infringed without informed consent.
Identifying information, including patient's names, initials, or
hospital numbers, should not be published in written descriptions,
photographs, and pedigrees unless the information is essential for
scientific purposes and the patient (or parent or guardian) gives
written informed consent for publication. Informed consent for this
purpose requires that a patient who is identifiable be shown the
manuscript to be published. Identifying details will be omitted if they
are not essential. Complete anonymity is difficult to achieve, however,
and informed consent should be obtained if there is any doubt. For
example, masking the eye region in photographs of patients is inadequate
protection of anonymity. If identifying characteristics are altered to
protect anonymity, such as in genetic pedigrees, authors should provide
assurance that alterations do not distort scientific meaning and editors
should so note.
14.2. Authors and reviewers
Manuscripts must be
reviewed with due respect for authors' confidentiality. In submitting
their manuscripts for review, authors entrust editors with the results
of their scientific work and creative effort, on which their reputation
and career may depend. Authors' rights may be violated by disclosure of
the confidential details of the review of their manuscript. Reviewers
also have rights to confidentiality, which must be respected by the
editor. Confidentiality may have to be breached if dishonesty or fraud
is alleged but otherwise must be honoured. Editors will not disclose
information about manuscripts (including their receipt, content, status
in the reviewing process, criticism by reviewers, or ultimate fate) to
anyone other than the authors and reviewers. This includes requests to
use the materials for legal proceedings.
Editors will make
clear to their reviewers that manuscripts sent for review are privileged
communications and are the private property of the authors. Therefore,
reviewers and members of the editorial staff must respect the authors'
rights by not publicly discussing the authors' work or appropriating
their ideas before the manuscript is published. Reviewers must not be
allowed to make copies of the manuscript for their files and must be
prohibited from sharing it with others, except with the permission of
the editor. Reviewers should return or destroy copies of manuscripts
after submitting reviews. Editors will not keep copies of rejected
manuscripts. Reviewers will be anonymous and their identity will not be
revealed to the author or anyone else without the reviewer's permission.
Reviewer comments
will not be published or otherwise made public without permission of the
reviewer, author, and editor. Reviewers' comments will be sent to other
reviewers of the same manuscript, which helps reviewers learn from the
review process, and reviewers may be notified of the editor's
decision.
15.Protection of human subjects and animals in research
When reporting
experiments on human subjects, authors should indicate whether the
procedures followed were in accordance with the ethical standards of the
responsible committee on human experimentation (institutional and
national) and with the Helsinki Declaration of 1975, as revised in 2000.
If doubt exists whether the research was conducted in accordance with
the Helsinki Declaration, the authors must explain the rationale for
their approach, and demonstrate that the institutional review body
explicitly approved the doubtful aspects of the study. When reporting
experiments on animals, authors will be asked to indicate whether the
institutional and national guide for the care and use of laboratory
animals was followed.
16.Other editorial and publishing policies
16.1. Obligation to publish negative studies
Editors will
consider seriously for publication any carefully done study of an
important question, relevant to their readers, whether the results are
negative or positive to avoid publication bias. Many studies that
purport to be negative are, in fact, inconclusive; publication of
inconclusive studies is problematic, since they add little to biomedical
knowledge and consume journal resources. The Cochrane Library may be
interested in publishing inconclusive trials.
16.2. Corrections, retractions and "expressions of concern"
Editors assume
initially that authors are reporting work based on honest observations.
Nevertheless, two types of difficulty may arise.
First, errors may
be noted in published articles that require the publication of a
correction or erratum of part of the work. The corrections will appear
on a numbered page, be listed in the contents page, include the complete
original citation, and link to the original article and vice versa if
online. It is conceivable that an error could be so serious as to
vitiate the entire body of the work, but this is unlikely and will be
handled by editors and authors on an individual basis. Such an error
will not be confused with inadequacies exposed by the emergence of new
scientific information in the normal course of research. The latter
require no corrections or withdrawals.
The second type of
difficulty is scientific fraud. If substantial doubts arise about the
honesty or integrity of work, either submitted or published, it is the
editor's responsibility to ensure that the question is appropriately
pursued, usually by the authors' sponsoring institution. However, it is
not ordinarily the task of editors to conduct a full investigation or to
make a determination; that responsibility lies with the institution
where the work was done or with the funding agency. The editor should be
promptly informed of the final decision, and if a fraudulent paper has
been published, the journal will print a retraction. If this method of
investigation does not result in a satisfactory conclusion, the editor
may choose to conduct his or her own investigation.
As an alternative
to retraction, the editor may choose to publish an expression of concern
about aspects of the conduct or integrity of the work. The retraction
or expression of concern, so labeled, will appear on a numbered page in a
prominent section of the print journal as well as in the online
version, be listed in the contents page, and include in its heading the
title of the original article. Ideally, the first author should be the
same in the retraction as in the article, although under certain
circumstances the editor may accept retractions by other responsible
persons. The text of the retraction should explain why the article is
being retracted and include a full original citation reference to it.
The validity of previous work by the author of a fraudulent paper cannot
be assumed. Editors may ask the author's institution to assure them of
the validity of earlier work published in their journals or to retract
it. If this is not done editors may choose to publish an announcement
expressing concern that the validity of previously published work is
uncertain.
16.3. Overlapping publications
16.3.1 Duplicate submission
Most journals will
not consider manuscripts that are simultaneously being considered by
other journals. Among the principal considerations that have led to this
policy are: (1) the potential for disagreement when two (or more)
journals claim the right to publish a manuscript that has been submitted
simultaneously to more than one; and (2) the possibility that two or
more journals will unknowingly and unnecessarily undertake the work of
peer review and editing of the same manuscript, and publish same
article. However, editors of different journals may decide to
simultaneously or jointly publish an article if they believe that doing
so would be in the best interest of the public's health.
16.3.2 Redundant Publication
Redundant (or
duplicate) publication is publication of a paper that overlaps
substantially with one already published in print or electronic media.
Readers of primary source periodicals, whether print or electronic,
deserve to be able to trust that what they are reading is original
unless there is a clear statement that the article is being republished
by the choice of the author and editor. The bases of this position are
international copyright laws, ethical conduct, and cost-effective use of
resources. Duplicate publication of original research is particularly
problematic, since it can result in inadvertent double counting or
inappropriate weighting of the results of a single study, which distorts
the available evidence.
Most journals do
not wish to receive papers on work that has already been reported in
large part in a published article or is contained in another paper that
has been submitted or accepted for publication elsewhere, in print or in
electronic media. This policy does not preclude the journal considering
a paper that has been rejected by another journal, or a complete report
that follows publication of a preliminary report, such as an abstract
or poster displayed at a professional meeting. Nor does it prevent the
Journal considering a paper that has been presented at a scientific
meeting but not published in full or that is being considered for
publication in a proceedings or similar format. Press reports of
scheduled meetings will not usually be regarded as breaches of this
rule, but additional data or copies of tables and illustrations should
not amplify such reports.
When submitting a
paper, the author must always make a full statement to the editor about
all submissions and previous reports that might be regarded as redundant
or duplicate publication of the same or very similar work. The author
must alert the editor if the manuscript includes subjects about which
the authors have published a previous report or have submitted a related
report to another publication. Any such report must be referred to and
referenced in the new paper. Copies of such material should be included
with the submitted paper to help the editor decide how to handle the
matter.
If redundant or
duplicate publication is attempted or occurs without such notification,
authors should expect editorial action to be taken. At the least, prompt
rejection of the submitted manuscript should be expected. If the editor
was not aware of the violations and the article has already been
published, then a notice of redundant or duplicate publication will
probably be published with or without the author's explanation or
approval.
16.3.3 Acceptable secondary publication
Certain types of
articles, such as guidelines produced by governmental agencies and
professional organizations, may need to reach the widest possible
audience. In such instances, editors sometimes choose deliberately to
publish material that is also being published in other journals, with
the agreement of the authors and the editors of those other journals.
Secondary publication for various other reasons, in the same or another
language, especially in other countries, is justifiable, and can be
beneficial, provided all of the following conditions are met.
-
The authors have
received approval from the editors of both journals; the editor
concerned with secondary publication must have a photocopy, reprint, or
manuscript of the primary version.
-
The priority of
the primary publication is respected by a publication interval of at
least one week (unless specifically negotiated otherwise by both
editors).
-
The paper for secondary publication is intended for a different group of readers; an abbreviated version could be sufficient.
-
The secondary version faithfully reflects the data and interpretations of the primary version.
-
The footnote on
the title page of the secondary version informs readers, peers, and
documenting agencies that the paper has been published in whole or in
part and states the primary reference. A suitable footnote might read:
"This article is based on a study first reported in the [title of
journal, with full reference]." Permission for such secondary
publication should be free of charge.
-
The title of the
secondary publication should indicate that it is a secondary publication
(complete republication, abridged republication, complete translation,
or abridged translation) of a primary publication. Of note, the National
Library of Medicine does not consider translations to be
"republications," and does not cite or index translations when the
original article was published in a journal that is indexed in MEDLINE.
16.4. Competing Manuscripts Based on the Same Study
Publication of
manuscripts to air co-investigators disputes may waste journal space and
confuse readers. On the other hand, if editors knowingly publish a
manuscript written by only some of a collaborating team, they could be
denying the rest of the team their legitimate co authorship rights; they
could also be denying the journal's readers access to legitimate
differences of opinion about the interpretation of a study.
Two kinds of
competing submissions are considered: submissions by coworkers who
disagree on the analysis and interpretation of their study, and
submissions by coworkers who disagree on what the facts are and which
data should be reported. Setting aside the unresolved question of
ownership of the data, the following general observations may help
understand these problems.
16.4.1 Differences in Analysis or Interpretation
If the dispute
centers on the analysis or interpretation of data, the authors should
submit a manuscript that clearly presents both versions. The difference
of opinion should be explained in a cover letter. The normal process of
peer and editorial review of the manuscript may help the authors to
resolve their disagreement regarding analysis or interpretation.
If the dispute
cannot be resolved and the study merits publication, both versions will
be published. Options include publishing two papers on the same study,
or a single paper with two analyses or interpretations. In such cases it
is likely that we will publish a statement outlining the disagreement
and the Journal's involvement in attempts to resolve it.
16.4.2 Differences in reported methods or results
If the dispute
centers on differing opinions of what was actually done or observed
during the study, the journal editor will refuse publication until the
disagreement is resolved. Peer review cannot be expected to resolve such
problems. If there are allegations of dishonesty or fraud, editors will
inform the appropriate authorities; authors should be notified of an
editor's intention to report a suspicion of research misconduct.
16.5. Competing Manuscripts Based on the Same Database
Editors sometimes
receive manuscripts from separate research groups that have analyzed the
same data set, e.g., from a public database. The manuscripts may differ
in their analytic methods, conclusions, or both. Each manuscript should
be considered separately. Where interpretations of the same data are
very similar, it is reasonable but not necessary for editors to give
preference to the manuscript that was received earlier. However,
editorial consideration of multiple submissions may be justified in this
circumstance, and there may even be a good reason for publishing more
than one manuscript because different analytical approaches may be
complementary and equally valid.
16.6. Correspondence
Journals should
provide its readership with a mechanism for submitting comments,
questions, or criticisms about published articles, as well as brief
reports and commentary unrelated to previously published articles. This
will likely, but not necessarily, takes the form of a correspondence
section or column. The authors of articles discussed in correspondence
should be given an opportunity to respond, preferably in the same issue
in which the original correspondence appears. Authors of correspondence
are asked to declare any competing or conflicting interests.
Published
correspondence may be edited for length, grammatical correctness, and
journal style. Authors should approve editorial changes that alter the
substance or tone of a letter or response.
Although editors have
the prerogative to sift out correspondence material that is irrelevant,
uninteresting, or lacking in cogency, they have a responsibility to
allow a range of opinion to be expressed. The correspondence column will
not be used merely to promote the Journal's, or the editors', point of
view. In all instances, editors must make an effort to screen out
discourteous, inaccurate, or libelous statements, and should not allow
ad hominem arguments intended to discredit opinions or findings.
17.Publication Charges
There are no publication fees.
