Research and Publication ethics

RESEARCH ETHICS POLICY

Studies to be published by the Global Psychiatry Archives must follow the highest ethical standards as outlined in the Declaration of Helsinki and the following updates published by the World Health Organisation. All studies need a positive ethical approval of the local or national Ethics Committee following individual national guidelines. Authors must confirm the positive decision of the approving organisation and must provide the necessary documentation if requested by the journal.

Human Hazards and Animals

If the submitted paper involves chemicals, procedures or equipment that have any unusual hazards inherent in their use, the authors must clearly identify these in the manuscript.

Animal research will only be accepted in exceptional cases. The author should contact the editor in chief for any potential submission. The highest standards for ethical research with animals that are available in the public domain at the time of submission will be the guide for the editors. Such papers and their potential publication will be discussed by at least three editors who have sufficient experience to deal with such requests.

 

Publication Ethics Policy follows the Committee on Publication Ethics Recommendations

For all parties involved in the act of publishing (the author, the journal editors, the peer reviewers, and the publisher) it is necessary to agree upon standards of expected ethical behaviour. The ethics statements for Global Psychiatry Archives are based on the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors (see https://publicationethics.org).

We will strictly abide by the review for publication ethics as recommended by the ‘COPE’ and remain transparent in acknowledging the source while publishing the information on a collaborative mode. Global Psychiatric Archives adheres to publication standards by honouring copyright laws. The journal will remain transparent and neutral to regions, religion, and should not discriminate based on the authors’ age, gender, race, or a person who may be physically challenged.

In case individual issues have not been covered to keep the provided information concise or because related events were unlikely to be relevant, we will apply the recommendations of COPE in its spirit.

 

Guidelines for Editors

Accountability

The editor of a peer-reviewed journal is responsible for deciding which articles submitted to the journal should be published, and, moreover, is accountable for everything published in the journal. In making these decisions, the editor may be guided by the policies of the journal’s editorial board as well as by legal requirements regarding libel, copyright infringement and plagiarism. The editor may confer with other editors or reviewers when making publication decisions. The editor should maintain the integrity of the academic record, preclude business needs from compromising intellectual and ethical standards, and always be willing to publish corrections, clarifications, retractions, and apologies when needed.

Fairness

The editor should evaluate manuscripts for intellectual content without regard to race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy of the authors.

Confidentiality

The editor and any editorial staff must not disclose any information about a submitted manuscript to anyone other than the corresponding author, reviewers, potential reviewers, other editorial advisers, and the publisher, as appropriate.

Disclosure, conflicts of interest, and other issues

The editor will be guided by COPE’s Guidelines for Retracting Articles when considering retracting, issuing expressions of concern about, and issuing corrections pertaining to articles that have been published in Global Psychiatry Archives.

Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in an editor’s own research without the express written consent of the author. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage.

The editor is committed to ensuring that advertising, reprints or other commercial revenue has no impact or influence on editorial decisions.

Any editor must seek to ensure a fair, timely and appropriate peer review process. Editors should recuse themselves from considering manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, other connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers. In this case, another member of the editorial board should edit, manage, and review the paper. Editors require all contributors to disclose relevant competing interests and publish corrections if competing interests are revealed after publication. If needed, other appropriate action should be taken, such as the publication of a retraction or expression of concern.

Involvement and cooperation in investigations

Editors should guard the integrity of the published record by issuing corrections and retractions when needed and pursuing suspected or alleged research and publication misconduct. Editors should pursue reviewer and editorial misconduct. An editor should take reasonably responsive measures when ethical complaints have been presented concerning a submitted manuscript or published paper.

Editors’ Verification Summary

Manuscripts are evaluated in fairness based on the intellectual content of the paper without regard of gender, race, ethnicity, religion, citizenship or political values of authors. Conflicts of interest pertaining to submitted manuscripts must be disclosed. Manuscript information is confidential. Publication decisions of submitted manuscripts based on the reviewer’s evaluation of the manuscript, policies of the journal editorial board and legal restrain acting against plagiarism, libel and copyright infringement rest with the Editorial Board.

 

Reviewer Responsibilities

Contribution to editorial decisions

Peer reviewers assist the editor in making editorial decisions and, through the editorial communication with the author, also assist the author in improving the manuscript.

Promptness

Any invited referee who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its timely review will be impossible should immediately notify the editor so that alternative reviewers can be contacted.

Confidentiality

Any manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. They must not be shown to or discussed with others except if authorised by the editor.

Standards of objectivity

Reviews should be conducted objectively. Personal criticism of the author is unacceptable. Referees should express their views clearly with appropriate 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 data 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 evaluating 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 submission.

Reviewers Verification Summary

Manuscripts are reviewed based on the intellectual content of the paper without regard of gender, race, ethnicity, religion, citizenship or political values of the author(s). Conflicts of interest during the review process must be communicated to the Editor. Manuscript information is kept confidential. Any concerns regarding the review of a manuscript are communicated to the Editor.

 

Author Responsibilities

Reporting standards

Authors reporting results of original research should present an accurate account of the work performed as well as an objective discussion of its significance. Underlying data should be represented accurately in the manuscript. A paper should contain sufficient detail and references to permit others to replicate the work. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behaviour and are unacceptable.

Originality and plagiarism

The authors should ensure that they have written entirely original works, and if the authors have used the work and/or words of others, that this has been appropriately cited or quoted.

Multiple, redundant, or concurrent publication

An author should not in general publish manuscripts describing essentially the same research in more than one journal or primary publication. Parallel submission of the same manuscript to more than one journal constitutes unethical publishing behaviour and is unacceptable. Global Psychiatry Archives will routinely check submitted articles for plagiarisms. 

Acknowledgement of sources

Proper acknowledgment of the work of others must always be given. Authors should also cite publications that have been influential in determining the nature of the reported work.

Authorship of a manuscript

Authorship should be limited to those who have made a significant contribution to the conception, design, execution, or interpretation of the reported study. All those who have made significant contributions should be listed as co-authors. Where there are others who have participated in certain substantive aspects of the research project, they should be named in the acknowledgements section.

The corresponding author takes responsibility for the communication with the journal during submission, review and publication of the journal. He should ensure that all appropriate co-authors (according to the above definition) and no inappropriate co-authors are included in the author list of the manuscript, and that all co-authors have seen and approved the final version of the paper and have agreed to its submission for publication.

Editors are welcome to submit their papers. These will be assessed with the same scrutiny as all other papers. The criteria for acceptance will be based on scientific value of the papers only. The acceptance of the papers by other editors will be discussed between the handling editor and the editor in chief. The editor in chief takes the final responsibility for the quality of the publication.

Disclosure and conflicts of interest

All authors should disclose in their manuscript any financial or other substantive conflict of interest that might be construed to influence the results or their interpretation in the manuscript. All sources of financial support for the project should be disclosed.

Fundamental errors in published works

When an author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in their own published work, it is the author’s obligation to promptly notify the journal’s editor or publisher and cooperate with them to either retract the paper or to publish an appropriate erratum.

Authors Verification Summary

Submitted manuscripts are the original work of the author(s), and that all contributing authors are listed and/or given credit. Manuscripts have not been published nor are under consideration by another journal concurrently. All sources of data used in the development of the manuscript are properly cited.

Publisher’s confirmation

In cases of alleged or proven scientific misconduct, fraudulent publication, or plagiarism the publisher, in close collaboration with the editors, will take all appropriate measures to clarify the situation and to amend the article in question. This includes the prompt publication of an erratum or, in the most severe cases, the complete retraction of the affected work.

Any further issues can be discussed and will be dealt with by the editor-in-chief with the support of the editorial board, as necessary.

 

PROCESS FOR HANDLING CORRECTIONS, RETRACTIONS, AND EDITORIAL EXPRESSIONS OF CONCERN

Should any paper need to be removed from a Journal that has already been published, that paper will be removed from the PDF version of the Journal in such a way that it does not change the page numbers of other papers published in that issue of the Journal. The authors of the removed manuscript may be subject to republication fees (if applicable). Corrected versions of the Journal will be made available on the Journal website, as well as all applicable indexes.

Corrections that need to be made to an already published Journal will be handled in such a way that it does not affect any of the other papers published in that issue. If the correction stems from author error, a republication fee may apply. Corrections due to publisher error will be handled without charge. Corrected versions of the Journal will be made available on the Journal website, as well as all applicable indexes.

Editorial concerns will be discussed within the editorial board and communicated with the authors of the paper of concern. In case the authors can address the concerns, the paper can be published. If not the editorial board (at least three members) will agree on a joint decision that will be communicated by the editor in chief.

Compliance with international guidance and recommendations

Global Psychiatry Archives endeavours to comply with guidelines and best practices published by professional organizations, including Recommendations for the Conduct, Reporting, Editing, and Publication of Scholarly Work in Medical Journals from International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) and Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing (joint statement by COPE, DOAJ, WAME, and OASPA).

The guidance presented on our website are meant to be concise and cover the most essential issues. For further questions, new developments, e.g. artificial intelligence, and in case of ambiguities the above-mentioned international guidance and recommendations will be applied preferentially.