JNS is committed to ensuring ethics in publication and quality of articles. Conformance to standards of ethical behavior based on The Committee on Publication Ethnics Code of Conduct and Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors (COPE 2011) is therefore expected of all parties involved. The relevant duties and expectations of editors, reviewers and authors of the proceeding are set out below.
Duties of the Editors
* Editors are responsible for deciding which of the submitted articles should be published. In doing yo they are guided by the policies of the journal’s Editorial Board.
* Editors should evaluate manuscripts exclusively on the basis of their intellectual content and academic merit only and without regard to race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy of the authors.
* Editors 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. Editors must not use unpublished information in the editor's own research without the express written consent of the author.
* Editors should take reasonable responsive measures when ethical complaints have been presented concerning a submitted manuscript or published paper.
Duties of the Authors
* Authors reporting results of original research should present an objective discussion of the significance of research work. Underlying data should be represented accurately in the mauscript. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behavior and are unacceptable.
* Review articles should also be objective, comprehensive, and accurate accounts of the state of the art.
* The authors should ensure that their work is entirely original works, and if the work and/or words of others have been used, this has been appropriately acknowledged. Plagiarism in all its forms constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable.
* Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal concurrently constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable.
Duties for the Reviewers
*Anonymous peer review assists the editors in making editorial decisions. Any manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage.
* Reviews should be conducted objectively, personal criticism of the author is inacceptable. Reviewers should express their observations clearly with supporting arguments, so that authors can use them for improving the paper.
* Any selected referee who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should notify the editor and excuse himself from the review process. Reviewers should not consider manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers.
In cases of alleged or proven scientific misconduct, fraudulent publication or plagiarism the publisher, in close collaboration with the Editors-in-Chief, 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. The publisher and the journal do not discriminate on the basis of age, color, religion, creed, disability, marital status, veteran status, national origin, race, gender, genetic predisposition or carrier status, or sexual orientation in its publishing programs, services and activities.
Reference: Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). (2011, March 7). Code of Conduct and Best-Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors. Retrieved from http://publicationethics.org/files/Code_of_conduct_for_journal_editors_Mar11.pdf