Principles of Publishing Ethics
Naif Arab University for Security Sciences (NAUSS) publishes open access (CC BY-NC), peer-reviewed, and free of charge journals. All NAUSS journals are committed to applying publication ethics based on the COPE’s Code of Conduct and Best Practices. You can find the journal’s code of publication ethics here.
Introduction:
NAUSS journals aim to be the main channel for communicating data and sharing ideas and information with the scientific research community. It is mandatory for us to strictly follow a code of ethics, which will greatly enhance the quality of the published works in the journal. This current written code of ethics provides guidance on the proper behavior of editors, authors and reviewers in the process of scientific publication.
Authors and Co-authors
Authors
NAUSS journals are committed to following and applying the International Standards for Authors provided by the Committee on Publication Ethics, in designing and leading the journal’s reviewing and publishing processes and other related issues. You can view International Standards for Authors here. Authors should read the standards and apply them completely.
Authors submitting a paper confirm that the manuscript has been read and approved by all authors and that all authors agree to the submission of the manuscript to the journal.
NAUSS journals adhere to the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE), who recommend that authorship be based on the following four criteria:
It is a requirement that all authors have been accredited as appropriate upon submission of the manuscript. Contributors who do not qualify as authors should be mentioned under Acknowledgements.
In addition, authors must strictly follow the code of ethics by only submitting manuscripts that are their own original work or work they are associated with during their tenure.
Submitted manuscripts should contain original and new results, data, and ideas, which have not been submitted for publishing to other publications or published elsewhere. Fabrication of data and results, intellectual property theft, and plagiarism are highly unacceptable. Information obtained via various media should be provided in the manuscript only with prior permission from the owner of the source of information or data.
Authors must properly cite the work they are referencing and are strongly advised to crosscheck the reference before submitting a manuscript.
They may not promote their works in any form via any media to get them published. No article may have an author who is not directly involved in the work.
Authors and co-authors are requested to review and ensure the accuracy and validity of all the results prior to submission. Any potential conflict of interest should be communicated to the editor in advance. Authors are bound by the Creative Commons licensing policy of publication.
All authors are requested to submit the copyright transfer form without failure, once they receive the acceptance of their article for publication.
Editors
NAUSS journals are committed to following and applying the International Standards for Editors provided by the Committee on Publication Ethics, in designing and leading the journal’s reviewing and publishing processes and dealing with related issues.
The term editor is a commonly used to refer to the Chief Editor of any journal, its Content Editor, Subject Editor, and editorial board members.
Editors of the NAUSS journals are fully responsible for the editorial and technical decisions of the journal. Any editor or office bearer should not intervene or give comment on any editorial decisions taken on any manuscript by the concerned editor. Editors are requested to give unbiased considerations for the articles submitted. NAUSS journals aim for timely publication, and editors are therefore advised to process the manuscripts promptly and diligently.
Editors are the persons solely responsible for the acceptance or rejection of a manuscript; it may be subjected to peer review, but the final decision is bound to the concerned editor.
Any decision taken or matter of concern about a submitted article should not be revealed to anyone by an editor. If one of the editors is willing to publish an article, the article should be processed by another editor.
Any editor should refrain from using the information, data, theories, or interpretations of any submitted manuscript in his/ her own work, until that manuscript is in press.
Reviewers
Reviewers are the main element of the journal, as a peer reviewed (blind referee) journal. They are obligated not to disclose their identity in any form.
A reviewer should immediately decline to review an article submitted if he/she feels that the article is technically unqualified or if the timely review cannot be done by him/her or if the article has a conflict of interest.
All submissions should be treated as confidential; editorial approval may be given for any outside person’s advice received.
No reviewer may pass on the article submitted to him/her for review to another reviewer. If that happens, it should be declined immediately.
Reviewers must ensure that the articles published must be high quality and original. They may inform the editor if they find the article submitted to them for review is under consideration in any other publication.
Analysis and evaluation of articles is done on a case-to-case basis, taking into consideration the worthiness, quality, and originality of the article submitted.
In general, the following may be evaluated in a review:
The acceptance or rejection of an article is decided by reviewers; they are one major element in a peer review process. All our reviewers are requested to review the articles submitted to them in detail and provide their comments without any bias, which will increase the quality of the journal.
Breach of Code
All individuals must abide by the code of ethics. Being a non-profit body, NAUSS journals do not enforce this: it is the internal responsibility of individuals to abide by it.
NAUSS journals committee members are entitled to take action against an individual, if they are found to have violated the code.
COPE’s Guidelines & Flowcharts
NAUSS journals are committed to following and applying the guidelines and flowcharts of the Committee on Publication Ethics in its reviewing and publishing process and related issues.
COPE’s Code of Conduct and Best Practices
Chief Editors are accountable for everything published in the journal. This means the editors do the following:
1.1 Strive to meet the needs of readers and authors,
1.2 strive to constantly improve their journal,
1.3 have processes in place to ensure the quality of the material they publish,
1.4 champion freedom of expression,
1.5 maintain the integrity of the academic record,
1.6 preclude business needs from compromising intellectual and ethical standards, and
1.7 always be willing to publish corrections, clarifications, retractions and apologies, when needed.
Best Practice for Editors would include the following:
2.1 Readers should be informed about who has funded research or other scholarly work and whether the funders had any role in the research and its publication and, if so, what this was.
Best practice for editors would include the following:
3.1 Editors’ decisions to accept or reject a paper for publication should be based on the paper’s importance, originality and clarity, and the study’s validity and its relevance to the remit of the journal.
3.2 Editors should not reverse decisions to accept submissions unless serious problems are identified with the submission.
3.3 New editors should not overturn decisions to publish submissions made by the previous editor unless serious problems are identified.
3.4 A description of peer review processes should be published, and editors should be ready to justify any important deviation from the described processes.
3.5 Journals should have a declared mechanism for authors to appeal against editorial decisions.
3.6 Editors should publish guidance for authors on everything that is expected of them. This guidance should be regularly updated and should refer or link to this code.
3.7 Editors should provide guidance about criteria for authorship and/or who should be listed as a contributor following the standards within the relevant field.
4.1 Editors should provide guidance to reviewers on everything that is expected of them, including the need to handle submitted material in confidence. This guidance should be regularly updated and should refer or link to this code.
4.2 Editors should require reviewers to disclose any potential competing interests before agreeing to review a submission.
4.3 Editors should have systems to ensure that peer reviewers’ identities are protected, unless they use an open review system that is declared to authors and reviewers.
5.1 Editors should provide new editorial board members with guidelines on everything that is expected of them and should keep existing members updated on new policies and developments.
- acting as ambassadors for the journal
- supporting and promoting the journal
6.1 The relationship of editors with Naif Arab University for Security Sciences as the publisher and the owner is based firmly on the principle of editorial independence.
6.2 Editors should make decisions on which articles to publish based on quality and suitability for the journal and without interference from Naif Arab University for Security Sciences as the publisher.
6.3 Editors have a written contract(s) setting out their relationship with Naif Arab University for Security Sciences as the publisher.
6.4 The terms of this contract are in line with the COPE (Code of Conduct for Journal Editors).
Best practice for editors would include:
7.1 Editors should strive to ensure that peer review of their journal is fair, unbiased and timely.
7.2 Editors should have systems to ensure that material submitted to their journal remains confidential while under review.
8.1 Editors should take all reasonable steps to ensure the quality of the material they publish, recognizing that journals and sections within journals will have different aims and standards.
9.1 Editors must obey laws on confidentiality in their own jurisdiction, regardless of local statutes. However, they should always protect the confidentiality of individual information obtained in the course of research or professional interactions. It is therefore almost always necessary to obtain written informed consent for publication from people who might recognize themselves or be identified by others (e.g. from case reports or photographs). It may be possible to publish individual information without explicit consent if public interest considerations outweigh possible harms, it is impossible to obtain consent, and a reasonable individual would be unlikely to object to publication.
Note that consent to take part in research or undergo treatment is not the same as consent to publish personal details, images or quotations.
10.1 Editors should endeavor to ensure that research they publish was carried out according to the relevant international Declaration of Helsinki for clinical research, and the AERA and BERA guidelines for educational research.
10.2 Editors should seek assurances that all research has been approved by an appropriate body (e.g. research ethics committee, institutional review board) where one exists. However, editors should recognize that such approval does not guarantee that the research is ethical.
11.1 Editors have a duty to act if they suspect misconduct or if an allegation of misconduct is brought to them. This duty extends to both published and unpublished papers.
11.2 Editors should not simply reject papers that raise concerns about possible misconduct. They are ethically obliged to pursue alleged cases.
11.3 Editors should follow the COPE flowcharts where applicable.
11.4 Editors should first seek a response from those suspected of misconduct. If they are not satisfied with the response, they should ask the relevant employers, or institution, or some appropriate body (perhaps a regulatory body or national research integrity organization) to investigate.
11.5 Editors should make all reasonable efforts to ensure that a proper investigation into alleged misconduct is conducted; if this does not happen, editors should make all reasonable attempts to persist in obtaining a resolution to the problem. This is an onerous but important duty.
12.1 Errors, inaccurate, or misleading statements must be corrected promptly and with due prominence.
12.2 Editors should follow the COPE guidelines on retractions.
13.1 Editors should be alert to intellectual property issues and work with NAUSS Publishing House to handle potential breaches of intellectual property laws and conventions.
14.1 Editors should encourage and be willing to consider cogent criticisms of work published in their journal.
14.2 Authors of criticized material should be given the opportunity to respond.
14.3 Studies reporting negative results should not be excluded.
15.1 Editors should respond promptly to complaints and should ensure there is a way for dissatisfied complainants to take complaints further. This mechanism should be made clear in the journal and should include information on how to refer unresolved matters to COPE.
15.2 Editors should follow the procedure set out in the COPE flowchart on complaints.
16.1 Journals should have policies and systems in place to ensure that commercial considerations do not affect editorial decisions (e.g. advertising departments should operate independently from editorial departments).
16.2 Editors should have declared policies on advertising in relation to the content of the journal and on processes for publishing sponsored supplements.
16.3 Reprints should be published as they appear in the journal, unless a correction needs to be included. In which case, it should be clearly identified.
17.1 Editors should use ICMJE form and procedure for managing the conflicts of interest issues.
17.2 Journals should have a declared process for handling submissions from the editors, employees or members of the editorial board to ensure unbiased review.