The given section is developed in the strict accordance with the recommendations given on the site COPE – Committee on Publication Ethics: http://publicationethics.org/
The scientific and analytical journal “CITISE” was established in 2014. The founder of the journal is Regional Social Organization “Centre of Innovative Technologies and Social Expertise”.
Full versions of the articles published in the scientific journal “CITISE” are in free open access; the registration is not necessary.
The main language of the journal is Russian, the additional ones are: English, German. Periodicity of publishing is quarterly (four times a year). The journal is multidisciplinary.
The mission of the scientific journal “CITISE” is representing achievement of scientific thought of both Russian and domestic foreign researchers; supporting the scientists who have peculiar type of thinking, that is an innovative view of the research problem; developing scientific area in the society.
The purpose of the scientific journal “CITISE” consists of creation of favorable conditions for external examination of the results of researches of scientists according to the approved branches of the science (scientific specialities), on the basis of publication of their scientific materials (articles, reportings, reports, concepts, scientific materials of round tables, conferences, symposiums, others) on the new, not published earlier significant results of scientific researches, including significant results of their application in the social life.
Tasks of scientific journal “CITISE”:
The publishing house “CITISE” is in charge of keeping to modern ethical standards and rules in the published work.
The publishing house “CITISE” takes responsibility for controlling scientific materials according to the ethical standards and the rules accepted in the international scientific community, published in [1; 2] and other documents placed on the site of COPE – Committee on Publication Ethics: http://publicationethics.org/
ETHICS OF EDITORS
Editors should encourage the authors to keep to the high standards of ethics of publications. Besides it, editors can contribute indirectly to responsible holding of researches, while carrying out the policy of editing. To get the maximum effectiveness, all editors should keep to the universal standards and the leading practice, within the limits of the research community. As there are significant distinctions between different directions of scientific researches, which are considered to be urgent in each research community, there are important general processes and principles of the editorial policy that editors should follow.
Editors should realize themselves as a part of the wider professional editorial community, be aware of corresponding events and develop their ability of editing by training and studying on corresponding issues.
Editors should take responsibility for everything that they publish, and should keep to the procedures and the rules to provide high quality of the materials which they publish.
An important part of the responsibility, directed to providing fair and impartial decisions, is protection of the principle of editorial independence and integrity.
2.1. Separating decision-making from commercial considerations.
Editors should make up decisions on the publication themselves and be totally responsible for their decisions. It is necessary to separate the commercial activity of the journal from editorial processes and decision-making. Editors should take an active part in a pricing policy of the publisher and strive for wide accessibility of the materials which they publish.
Advertisements should pass the same strict control of the quality and the expert estimation, as well as any other materials prepared for the publication in the journal. Decisions on such the materials should be made in the same way, as concerning to other contents of the journal. Sponsorship and a role of the sponsor should be declared to readers in a careful way.
Announcements should be checked up to find out if they keep to the recommendations of the journal; they should differ from the other content and should not be connected with the scientific component of the content in some way.
The scientific journal “CITISE” being independent of sponsors, has the right to place advertisements and announcements (no more than 20 % from the total amount of the published materials).
2.2. Editors’ relationship to the journal publisher or owner.
In ideal, editors should have the written contract in which terms and conditions of their appointment as the publisher or the owner in the journal are defined. The principle of editorial independence should be specified carefully in the given contract. Publishers and owners of the journal should not play any role in decision-making on the publishing content owing to the commercial or political reasons. Publishers should not fire the editor because of any content of the journal if there has been no serious offence or the independent editorial investigation has not come to the conclusion that the editor’s decision of publishing the material was made up against the scientific mission of magazine.
2.3. Journal metrics and decision-making.
Editors should not to try to influence the rating of the journal and increase the references to the journal artificially. For example, it is inexpedient to demand including of the reference to the articles of this journal, if there are not real scientific reasons. In general, editors should guarantee that the documents are considered on the purely scientific bases and the authors are not under the pressure to refer to the certain publications if there are not real scientific reasons.
3.1. Authors’ material.
If the system operates in the journal and the reviewers are chosen by editors (instead of placing the articles before publication for commenting), the editors must protect confidentiality of the material of authors and remind reviewers to do it. In general, the editors should not share the presented documents with editors of other journals if there is no authors’ agreement or in cases of prospective illegal behaviour (see more below). As a rule, the editors are not obliged to give the materials to lawyers for conducting of cases. The editors must not give any instructions concerning to the status of the journal to anybody, except the authors. The systems of representation of articles through Web-applications should be started in such the way that it could prevent unapproved access.
In case of illegal actions and start of conduction of a case there can be a necessity for opening the material to third person (for example, institutional investigatory committee or other editors). Besides Scientific journal “CITISE” offers its databases to checking and controlling branches, and also after an inquiries of the Higher Attestation Commission (by VAK) in the Russian Federation.
Editors should not refer to the person of the reviewers, except those cases when the open system of an expert estimation works. Nevertheless, if the reviewers would like their names to be known, it should be allowed.
If the offence of the suspected reviewers has been proved to be true, it can be necessary to call the name of the reviewer to the third party.
To wide knowledge in scientific areas, it is important to understand why the given research has been held, how it was planned to be done, who has done it and what the research adds to the current knowledge. For achievement of such understanding the maximum clarity, complete and honest reporting have the decisive importance.
4.1. Authorship and responsibility.
Journals should have the accurate policy on authorship that corresponds to standards within corresponding area. They should give instructions for authors and point out what is expected from the author and if there are different conventions of authorship; they should point out what rules they keep to.
For multidisciplinary and collaborative research, it should be apparent to readers who has done what and who takes responsibility for the conduct and validity of which aspect of the research. Each part of the work should have at least one author who takes responsibility for its validity. For example, individual contributions and responsibilities could be stated in a contributor section. All authors are expected to have contributed significantly to the paper and to be familiar with its entire content and ideally, this should be declared in an authorship statement submitted to the journal.
When there are indisputable changes in authorship owing to the corresponding reasons, the editors should demand, that all authors (including those whose names are deleted from the list of the authors) agreed and confirmed it in writing. Disputes concerning to the authorship (that is disagreement on a person who should or should not be the author, before or after the publication) cannot be solved by the editors before adjudication, but must be solved at the institutional level or by means of other corresponding independent authorities, for both published and not published documents. The editors should act then on the basis of the judgments, for example, correcting the authorship in the published works.
Journals should have open declared policy on how the documents, sent and presented to the editors or members of the editorial board (see point 8.2 on editorial conflicts of interests), are processed.
4.2. Conflicts of interest and role of the funding source.
The editors should have principles which demand from all the authors to declare any corresponding financial and other conflicts of interests, at least those that can influence the reader’s perception of the article and place declarations in the publication. The sources of financing of researches should be declared and published, and the role of sources of financing in the concept, in holding of it, analysis and reporting of the research should be specified and published.
Editors should inform the authors or in some divisions of the journal that certain conflicts of interests exclude the authorship.
4.3 Full and honest reporting and adherence to reporting guidelines.
Among the most important editors’ duties is keeping to high standards in the scientific literature. Though standards differ in journals, the editors should work to guarantee that all published works have the essential new contribution to their area. The editors should interfere in publishing of weak works (the publication of minimum part of the research which could be published), avoid duplication or superfluous publishing, except cases when the publication is comprehensible (for example, the publication in a foreign language with cross references) and encourage the authors to place the works in the context of the previous work (i.e., in the article it should be specified why this work has been necessary and why it has been executed, what this work adds to the scientific knowledge or why repetition of the previous work was required, and for what reasons readers should accept it).
Journals should accept the policy stimulating complete and honest reporting; for example, by demanding from the authors to present reports or research plans in the areas where there is the standard, and to give proofs of keeping to the corresponding supervising principles of presentation of the reports if they exist. Keeping to the principles of reporting developed for improvement of it, also facilitates abilities of editors, reviewers and readers to judge the actual carrying out of the research.
Digital files of images, drawings and tables should be corresponding to standards in the area. Images should not be changed unreasonably in comparison with the original or lead to errors.
Editors might also consider screening for plagiarism, duplicate or redundant publication by using anti-plagiarism software, or for image manipulation. If plagiarism or fraudulent image manipulation is detected, this should be pursued with the authors and relevant institutions (see paragraph on how to handle misconduct: 5.2).
Reaction and response to published research by other researchers is an important part of scholarly debate in most fields and should generally be encouraged. In some fields, journals can facilitate this debate by publishing readers’ responses. Criticisms may be part of a general scholarly debate but can also highlight transgressions of research or publication integrity.
5.1 Ensuring integrity of the published record – corrections.
When genuine errors in published work are pointed out by readers, authors, or editors, which do not render the work invalid, a correction (or erratum) should be published as soon as possible. The online version of the paper may be corrected with a date of correction and a link to the printed erratum. If the error renders the work or substantial parts of it invalid, the paper should be retracted with an explanation as to the reason for retraction (i.e., honest error).
5.2 Ensuring the integrity of the published record – suspected research or publication misconduct.
If serious concerns are raised by readers, reviewers, or others, about the conduct, validity, or reporting of academic work, editors should initially contact the authors (ideally all authors) and allow them to respond to the concerns. If that response is unsatisfactory, editors should take this to the institutional level (see below). In rare cases, mostly in the biomedical field, when concerns are very serious and the published work is likely to influence clinical practice or public health, editors should consider informing readers about these concerns, for example by issuing an expression of concern’, while the investigation is ongoing. Once an investigation is concluded, the appropriate action needs to be taken by editors with an accompanying comment that explains the findings of the investigation. Editors should also respond to findings from national research integrity organizations that indicate misconduct relating to a paper published in their journal. Editors can themselves decide to retract a paper if they are convinced that serious misconduct has happened even if an investigation by an institution or national body does not recommend it.
Editors should respond to all allegations or suspicions of research or publication misconduct raised by readers, reviewers, or other editors. Editors are often the first recipients of information about such concerns and should act, even in the case of a paper that has not been accepted or has already been rejected. Beyond the specific responsibility for their journal’s publications, editors have a collective responsibility for the research record and should act whenever they become aware of potential misconduct if at all possible. Cases of possible plagiarism or duplicate/redundant publication can be assessed by editors themselves. However, in most other cases, editors should request an investigation by the institution or other appropriate bodies (after seeking an explanation from the authors first and if that explanation is unsatisfactory).
Retracted papers should be retained online, and they should be prominently marked as a retraction in all online versions, including the PDF, for the benefit of future readers.
For further guidance on specific allegations and suggested actions, such as retractions, see the COPE flowcharts and retraction guidelines (http://publicationethics.org/flowcharts; http://publicationethics.org/files/u661/Retractions_COPE_gline_final_3_Sept_09__2_.pdf)
5.3 Encourage scientific debate.
All journals should consider the best mechanism by which readers can discuss papers, voice criticisms, and add to the debate (in many fields this is done via a print or on-line correspondence section). Authors may contribute to the debate by being allowed to respond to comments and criticisms where relevant. Such scholarly debate about published work should happen in a timely manner. Editors should clearly distinguish between criticisms of the limitations of a study and criticisms that raise the possibility of research misconduct. Any criticisms that raise the possibility of misconduct should not just be published but should be further investigated even if they are received a long time after publication.
Especially in biomedical research but also in social sciences and humanities, ethical conduct of research is paramount in the protection of humans and animals. Ethical oversight, appropriate consent procedures, and adherence to relevant laws are required from authors. Editors need to be vigilant to concerns in this area.
6.1 Ethics approval and ethical conduct.
Editors should generally require approval of a study by an ethics committee (or institutional review board) and the assurance that it was conducted according to the Declaration of Helsinki for medical research in humans but, in addition, should be alert to areas of concern in the ethical conduct of research. This may mean that a paper is sent to peer reviewers with particular expertise in this area, to the journal’s ethics committee if there is one, or that editors require further reassurances or evidence from authors or their institutions.
Papers may be rejected on ethical grounds even if the research had ethics committee approval.
6.2 Consent (to take part in research).
If research is done in humans, editors should ensure that a statement on the consent procedure is included in the paper. In most cases, written informed consent is the required norm. If there is any concern about the consent procedure, if the research is done in vulnerable groups, or if there are doubts about the ethical conduct, editors should ask to see the consent form and enquire further from authors, exactly how consent was obtained.
6.3 Consent (for publication).
For all case reports, small case series, and images of people, editors should require the authors to have obtained explicit consent for publication (which is different from consent to take part in research). This consent should inform participants which journal the work will be published in, make it clear that, although all efforts will be made to remove unnecessary identifiers, complete anonymity is not possible, and ideally state that the person described has seen and agreed with the submitted article.
The signed consent form should be kept with the patient file rather than sent to the journal (to maximise data protection and confidentiality, see paragraph 6.4). There may be exceptions where it is not possible to obtain consent, for example when the person has died. In such cases, a careful consideration about possible harm is needed and out of courtesy attempts should be made to obtain assent from relatives. In very rare cases, an important public health message may justify publication without consent if it is not possible despite all efforts to obtain consent and the benefit of publication outweighs the possible harm.
6.4 Data protection and confidentiality.
Editors should critically assess any potential breaches of data protection and patient confidentiality. This includes requiring properly informed consent for the actual research presented, consent for publication where applicable (see paragraph 6.3), and having editorial policies that comply with guidelines on patient confidentiality.
6.5 Adherence to relevant laws and best practice guidelines for ethical conduct.
Editors should require authors to adhere to relevant national and international laws and best practice guidelines where applicable, for example when undertaking animal research. Editors should encourage registration of clinical trials.
One of the most important responsibilities of editors is organising and using peer review fairly and wisely. Editors should explain their peer review processes in the information for authors and also indicate which parts of the journal are peer reviewed.
7.1 Decision whether to review.
Editors may reject a paper without peer review when it is deemed unsuitable for the journal’s readers or is of poor quality. This decision should be made in a fair and unbiased way. The criteria used to make this decision should be made explicit. The decision not to send a paper for peer review should only be based on the academic content of the paper, and should not be influenced by the nature of the authors or the host institution.
7.2 Interaction with peer reviewers.
Editors should use appropriate peer reviewers for papers that are considered for publication by selecting people with sufficient expertise and avoiding those with conflicts of interest. Editors should ensure that reviews are received in a timely manner.
Peer reviewers should be told what is expected of them and should be informed about any changes in editorial policies. In particular, peer reviewers should be asked to assess research and publication ethics issues (i.e., whether they think the research was done and reported ethically, or if they have any suspicions of plagiarism, fabrication, falsification, or redundant publication). Editors should have a policy to request a formal conflict of interest declaration from peer reviewers and should ask peer reviewers to inform them about any such conflict of interest at the earliest opportunity so that they can make a decision on whether an unbiased review is possible. Certain conflicts of interest may disqualify a peer reviewer. Editors should stress confidentiality of the material to peer reviewers and should require peer reviewers to inform them when they ask a colleague for help with a review or if they mentor a more junior colleague in conducting peer review. Editors should ideally have a mechanism to monitor the quality and timeliness of peer review and to provide feedback to reviewers.
7.3 Reviewer misconduct.
Editors must take reviewer misconduct seriously and pursue any allegation of breach of confidentiality, non-declaration of conflicts of interest (financial or non-financial), inappropriate use of confidential material, or delay of peer review for competitive advantage. Allegations of serious reviewer misconduct, such as plagiarism, should be taken to the institutional level (for further guidance see: http://publicationethics.org/files/u2/07_Reviewer_misconduct.pdf).
7.4 Interaction with authors.
Editors should make it clear to authors what the role of the peer reviewer is because this may vary from journal to journal. Some editors regard peer reviewers as advisors and may not necessarily follow (or even ask for) reviewers’ recommendations on acceptance or rejection. Correspondence from editors is usually with the corresponding author, who should guarantee to involve co-authors at all stages. Communicating with all authors at first submission and at final acceptance stage can be helpful to ensure all authors are aware of the submission and have approved the publication. Normally, editors should pass on all peer reviewers’ comments in their entirety. However, in exceptional cases, it may be necessary to exclude parts of a review, if it, for example, contains libellous or offensive remarks. It is important, however, that such editorial discretion is not inappropriately used to suppress inconvenient comments.
There should always be good reasons, which are clearly communicated to authors, if additional reviewers are sought at a late stage in the process.
The final editorial decision and reasons for this should be clearly communicated to authors and reviewers. If a paper is rejected, editors should ideally have an appeals process. Editors, however, are not obliged to overturn their decision.
Editors are in a powerful position by making decisions on publications, which makes it very important that this process is as fair and unbiased as possible, and is in accordance with the academic vision of the particular journal.
8.1 Editorial and journal processes.
All editorial processes should be made clear in the information for authors. In particular, it should be stated what is expected of authors, which types of papers are published, and how papers are handled by the journal. All editors should be fully familiar with the journal policies, vision, and scope. The final responsibility for all decisions rests with the editor-in-chief.
8.2 Editorial conflicts of interest.
Editors should not be involved in decisions about papers in which they have a conflict of interest, for example if they work or have worked in the same institution and collaborated with the authors, if they own stock in a particular company, or if they have a personal relationship with the authors. Journals should have a defined process for handling such papers. Journals should also have a process in place to handle papers submitted by editors or editorial board members to ensure unbiased and independent handling of such papers. This process should be stated in the information for authors. Editorial conflicts of interests should be declared, ideally publicly.
RESPONSIBLE RESEARCH PUBLICATION:
INTERNATIONAL STANDARDS FOR AUTHORS
Publication is the final stage of research and therefore a responsibility for all researchers. Scholarly publications are expected to provide a detailed and permanent record of research. Because publications form the basis for both new research and the application of findings, they can affect not only the research community but also, indirectly, society at large. Researchers therefore have a responsibility to ensure that their publications are honest, clear, accurate, complete and balanced, and should avoid misleading, selective or ambiguous reporting. Journal editors also have responsibilities for ensuring the integrity of the research literature and these are set out in companion guidelines.
This document aims to establish international standards for authors of scholarly research publications and to describe responsible research reporting practice. We hope these standards will be endorsed by research institutions, funders, and professional societies; promoted by editors and publishers; and will aid in research integrity training.
Responsible research publication:
1.1. The research being reported should have been conducted in an ethical and responsible manner and follow all relevant legislation. [See also the Singapore Statement on Research Integrity, www.singaporestatement.org]
1.2. The research being reported should be sound and carefully executed.
1.3. Researchers should use appropriate methods of data analysis and display (and, if needed, seek and follow specialist advice on this).
1.4. Authors should take collective responsibility for their work and for the content of their publications. Researchers should check their publications carefully at all stages to ensure methods and findings are reported accurately. Authors should carefully check calculations, data presentations, typescripts/submissions and proofs.
2.1. Researchers should present their results honestly and without fabrication, falsification or inappropriate data manipulation. Research images (e.g. micrographs, X-rays, pictures of electrophoresis gels) should not be modified in a misleading way.
2.2. Researchers should strive to describe their methods and to present their findings clearly and unambiguously. Researchers should follow applicable reporting guidelines. Publications should provide sufficient detail to permit experiments to be repeated by other researchers.
2.3. Reports of research should be complete. They should not omit inconvenient, inconsistent or inexplicable findings or results that do not support the authors’ or sponsors’ hypothesis or interpretation.
2.4. Research funders and sponsors should not be able to veto publication of findings that do not favour their product or position. Researchers should not enter agreements that permit the research sponsor to veto or control the publication of the findings (unless there are exceptional circumstances, such as research classified by governments because of security implications).
2.5. Authors should alert the editor promptly if they discover an error in any submitted, accepted or published work. Authors should cooperate with editors in issuing corrections or retractions when required.
2.6. Authors should represent the work of others accurately in citations and quotations.
2.7. Authors should not copy references from other publications if they have not read the cited work.
3.1. New findings should be presented in the context of previous research. The work of others should be fairly represented. Scholarly reviews and syntheses of existing research should be complete, balanced, and should include findings regardless of whether they support the hypothesis or interpretation being proposed. Editorials or opinion pieces presenting a single viewpoint or argument should be clearly distinguished from scholarly reviews.
3.2. Study limitations should be addressed in publications.
4.1. Authors should adhere to publication requirements that submitted work is original and has not been published elsewhere in any language. Work should not be submitted concurrently to more than one publication unless the editors have agreed to co-publication. If articles are co-published this fact should be made clear to readers.
4.2. Applicable copyright laws and conventions should be followed. Copyright material (e.g. tables, figures or extensive quotations) should be reproduced only with appropriate permission and acknowledgement.
4.3. Relevant previous work and publications, both by other researchers and the authors’ own, should be properly acknowledged and referenced. The primary literature should be cited where possible.
4.4. Data, text, figures or ideas originated by other researchers should be properly acknowledged and should not be presented as if they were the authors’ own. Original wording taken directly from publications by other researchers should appear in quotation marks with the appropriate citations.
4.5. Authors should inform editors if findings have been published previously or if multiple reports or multiple analyses of a single data set are under consideration for publication elsewhere. Authors should provide copies of related publications or work submitted to other journals.
4.6. Multiple publications arising from a single research project should be clearly identified as such and the primary publication should be referenced. Translations and adaptations for different audiences should be clearly identified as such, should acknowledge the original source, and should respect relevant copyright conventions and permission requirements. If in doubt, authors should seek permission from the original publisher before republishing any work.
5.1. All sources of research funding, including direct and indirect financial support, supply of equipment or materials, and other support (such as specialist statistical or writing assistance) should be disclosed.
5.2. Authors should disclose the role of the research funder(s) or sponsor (if any) in the research design, execution, analysis, interpretation and reporting.
5.3. Authors should disclose relevant financial and non-financial interests and relationships that might be considered likely to affect the interpretation of their findings or which editors, reviewers or readers might reasonably wish to know. This includes any relationship to the journal, for example if editors publish their own research in their own journal. In addition, authors should follow journal and institutional requirements for disclosing competing interests.
6.1. The research literature serves as a record not only of what has been discovered but also of who made the discovery. The authorship of research publications should therefore accurately reflect individuals’ contributions to the work and its reporting.
6.2. In cases where major contributors are listed as authors while those who made less substantial, or purely technical, contributions to the research or to the publication are listed in an acknowledgement section, the criteria for authorship and acknowledgement should be agreed at the start of the project. Ideally, authorship criteria within a particular field should be agreed, published and consistently applied by research institutions, professional and academic societies, and funders. While journal editors should publish and promote accepted authorship criteria appropriate to their field, they cannot be expected to adjudicate in authorship disputes. Responsibility for the correct attribution of authorship lies with authors themselves working under the guidance of their institution. Research institutions should promote and uphold fair and accepted standards of authorship and acknowledgement. When required, institutions should adjudicate in authorship disputes and should ensure that due process is followed.
6.3. Researchers should ensure that only those individuals who meet authorship criteria (i.e. made a substantial contribution to the work) are rewarded with authorship and that deserving authors are not omitted. Institutions and journal editors should encourage practices that prevent guest, gift, and ghost authorship.
6.4. All authors should agree to be listed and should approve the submitted and accepted versions of the publication. Any change to the author list should be approved by all authors including any who have been removed from the list. The corresponding author should act as a point of contact between the editor and the other authors and should keep co-authors informed and involve them in major decisions about the publication (e.g. responding to reviewers’ comments).
6.5. Authors should not use acknowledgements misleadingly to imply a contribution or endorsement by individuals who have not, in fact, been involved with the work or given an endorsement.
7.1. All authors should have read and be familiar with the reported work and should ensure that publications follow the principles set out in these guidelines. In most cases, authors will be expected to take joint responsibility for the integrity of the research and its reporting. However, if authors take responsibility only for certain aspects of the research and its reporting, this should be specified in the publication.
7.2. Authors should work with the editor or publisher to correct their work promptly if errors or omissions are discovered after publication.
7.3. Authors should abide by relevant conventions, requirements, and regulations to make materials, reagents, software or datasets available to other researchers who request them. Researchers, institutions, and funders should have clear policies for handling such requests. Authors must also follow relevant journal standards. While proper acknowledgement is expected, researchers should not demand authorship as a condition for sharing materials.
7.4. Authors should respond appropriately to post-publication comments and published correspondence. They should attempt to answer correspondents’ questions and supply clarification or additional details where needed.
8.1. Authors should follow publishers’ requirements that work is not submitted to more than one publication for consideration at the same time.
8.2. Authors should inform the editor if they withdraw their work from review, or choose not to respond to reviewer comments after receiving a conditional acceptance.
8.3. Authors should respond to reviewers’ comments in a professional and timely manner.
8.4. Authors should respect publishers’ requests for press embargos and should not generally allow their findings to be reported in the press if they have been accepted for publication (but not yet published) in a scholarly publication. Authors and their institutions should liaise and cooperate with publishers to coordinate media activity (e.g. press releases and press conferences) around publication. Press releases should accurately reflect the work and should not include statements that go further than the research findings.
9.1. Appropriate approval, licensing or registration should be obtained before the research begins and details should be provided in the report (e.g. Institutional Review Board, Research Ethics Committee approval, national licensing authorities for the use of animals).
9.2. If requested by editors, authors should supply evidence that reported research received the appropriate approval and was carried out ethically (e.g. copies of approvals, licences, participant consent forms).
9.3. Researchers should not generally publish or share identifiable individual data collected in the course of research without specific consent from the individual (or their representative). Researchers should remember that many scholarly journals are now freely available on the internet, and should therefore be mindful of the risk of causing danger or upset to unintended readers (e.g. research participants or their families who recognize themselves from case studies, descriptions, images or pedigrees).
9.4. The appropriate statistical analyses should be determined at the start of the study and a data analysis plan for the prespecified outcomes should be prepared and followed. Secondary or post hoc analyses should be distinguished from primary analyses and those set out in the data analysis plan.
9.5. Researchers should publish all meaningful research results that might contribute to understanding. In particular, there is an ethical responsibility to publish the findings of all clinical trials. The publication of unsuccessful studies or experiments that reject a hypothesis may help prevent others from wasting time and resources on similar projects. If findings from small studies and those that fail to reach statistically significant results can be combined to produce more useful information (e.g. by meta-analysis) then such findings should be published.
9.6. Authors should supply research protocols to journal editors if requested (e.g. for clinical trials) so that reviewers and editors can compare the research report to the protocol to check that it was carried out as planned and that no relevant details have been omitted. Researchers should follow relevant requirements for clinical trial registration and should include the trial registration.