The HLRC editorial team is committed to ensuring the quality of manuscripts published in the journal. As such, the editorial team expects all parties involved in the publication process, including authors, reviewers, editors, sponsoring institutions, and the publisher, to adhere to international standards for ethics in academic publishing.
Under the Responsible Research Publication: International Standards for Authors (Wager & Kleinert, 2011), a position statement developed at the 2nd World Conference on Research Integrity, researchers and authors “have a responsibility to ensure that their publications are honest, clear, accurate, complete and balanced, and should avoid misleading, selective or ambiguous reporting.” Therefore, the editorial team expects authors submitting manuscripts for peer and editorial review to duly and carefully document all materials used and cited, properly record and verify their data, and present their findings in an accurate and truthful manner.
So that there is no ambiguity, the HLRC editorial team will reject manuscript submissions, and ban from submitting new manuscripts for a period of 1 year, any author(s) that commits any act of academic misconduct and dishonesty, including but not limited to the following:
- Plagiarism: Using someone else’s words or ideas without giving proper credit or accurately citing the source.
- Self-plagiarism: Using your own, already published materials without properly documenting and putting in context the prior publication or simply copying and pasting entire portions of your own previous works and passing them as new knowledge.
- Bilingual plagiarism: Copying and translating someone else’s work written in one language, without giving any credit, and passing that work as your own in another language.
- Multiple submissions: Submitting the same article for publication to two or more journals/publishers at the same time.
- Duplicate publications: Submitting research that has already been published, including merely changing the title of the manuscript and rehashing or reusing already published data.
- Data fabrication and falsification: Forging research data or omitting/altering the obtained results in a manner that no longer reflects the accuracy of the research record.
- Deception: Misrepresenting your academic work, record, or credentials, including taking credit for work or research in which you did not contribute or take part.
- Copyright infringement: Using materials protected under national and international copyright laws without permission or the proper license.
- Carelessness and negligence: Hurried and rushed manuscripts that lack adequate revisions and verification from the author(s) and, as a result, contain improperly cited materials or errors in the data reported.
Regarding the last point, if a manuscript is rejected because of plagiarism or errors in the data reported, but the author(s) was simply in a rush to finish the manuscript and honestly did not intend to plagiarize or misrepresent the data, the occurrence is still considered a form of academic misconduct.
Finally, since the HLRC editorial team employs a double-blind peer-review process, authors must ensure there is no personal information in the manuscript that may lead reviewers to discovering the authors' identities. That includes eliminating author names from the text and removing author identification metadata from Word documents and other text processing applications.
Under the Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers, published by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), reviewers must be objective and diligent in their review, and have the necessary expertise in order to assess the manuscript (Hames & Committee on Publication Ethics Council, 2013). Furthermore, access to unpublished research and data demands maintaining and ensuring the confidentiality of the information in the manuscript to safeguard both the review process and the intellectual property rights of the author(s).
Reviewers have a duty to promptly respond to review requests and notify one of the editors if, after accepting a request, circumstances change and the review won’t be completed on time. There is also an obligation to decline a review request if the reviewer feels he or she lacks the necessary expertise in a subject matter or if there is a conflict of interest (or even the appearance of one). If at any time during the review process there is a question or doubt regarding the accuracy of the research record, or there is suspicion of academic misconduct, the reviewer must bring this to the attention of the editors in a timely manner.
Since the HLRC editorial team employs a double-blind peer-review process, reviewers must refrain from trying to identify the author(s) or contacting him or her directly.
According to the Responsible Research Publication: International Standards for Editors, journal editors are responsible for everything they include in a publication and, as such, must adopt policies and have guidelines in place in order to “encourage maximum transparency and complete, honest reporting” (Kleinert & Wager, 2011). Furthermore, editors are accountable for the truthfulness of the publication, so they should “issue corrections and retractions when needed and pursu[e] suspected or alleged research and publication misconduct” (2011). Editors are the gatekeepers of the journal’s academic integrity and, consequently, must take the appropriate measures to ensure an objective review process and to publish accurate information.
Hames, I. & Committee on Publication Ethics Council (2013). COPE ethical guidelines for peer reviewers (Version 1). Retrieved from https://publicationethics.org/resources/guidelines
Wager, E. & Kleinert, S. (2011). Responsible research publication: International standards for authors. A position statement developed at the 2nd World Conference on Research Integrity, Singapore, July 22-24, 2010. In T. Mayer & N. Steneck (Eds.), Promoting research integrity in a global environment (pp. 309-316). Singapore: Imperial College Press/World Scientific Publishing.
Kleinert, S. & Wager, E. (2011). Responsible research publication: International standards for editors. A position statement developed at the 2nd World Conference on Research Integrity, Singapore, July 22-24, 2010. In T. Mayer & N. Steneck (Eds.), Promoting research integrity in a global environment (pp. 317-328). Singapore: Imperial College Press/World Scientific Publishing.