Ethics and Disclosures
The Journal has a Conflict of Interest policy in place and complies with international, national and/or institutional standards on research involving Human Participants and/or Animals and Informed Consent.
The Journal follows the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) recommendations and subscribes to its principles on how to deal with acts of misconduct thereby committing to investigate allegations of misconduct in order to ensure the integrity of research. The Journal is committed to ensure that the potential for advertising has no impact or influence on the content of the Journal or editorial decisions.
The Journal may use plagiarism detection software to screen the submissions. If plagiarism is identified, the COPE guidelines on plagiarism will be followed. The editorial policies of the Journal encourages transparency and honest reporting as well as ensuring that peer reviewers and authors have a clear understanding of what is expected of them as stated in the reviewer electronic statement and instructions for authors. The editorial office uses the Journal’s standard electronic submission system for all Journal communications. The information in the Journal system is confidential and submitted material can not be used in any way but by the authors.
Content published in this Journal is peer reviewed (double blind review process) and all reviewers declare any conflicts of interest during the review process.
RESEARCH ETHICS POLICY
A submitted manuscript must be an original contribution not previously published (except as an abstract and should be indicated); cannot be under consideration for publication in other journals; and, if accepted, must not be published or reproduced elsewhere. All authors are obliged to provide retractions or corrections of mistakes after the review process. The final responsibility for the scientific accuracy and validity of published manuscripts rests with the authors, not with the Journal, its editors, or the publisher (Örebro University Hospital).
Detailed Ethical Guidelines
Maintaining the integrity of the research and its presentation is helped by following the rules of good scientific practice, which are outlined here:
- The manuscript should not be submitted to more than one journal for simultaneous consideration.
- The submitted work should be original and should not have been published elsewhere in any form or language (partially or in full), unless the new work concerns an expansion of previous work. (Please provide transparency on the re-use of material to avoid the concerns about text-recycling ("self-plagiarism").)
- A single study should not be split up into several parts to increase the quantity of submissions and submitted to various journals or to one journal over time (i.e. "salami-slicing/publishing").
- Concurrent or secondary publication is sometimes justifiable, provided certain conditions are met. Examples include translations or a manuscript that is intended for a different group of readers.
- Results should be presented clearly, honestly, and without fabrication, falsification or inappropriate data manipulation (including image based manipulation). Authors should adhere to discipline-specific rules for acquiring, selecting, and processing data.
- No data, text, or theories by others are presented as if they were the author’s own ("plagiarism"). Proper acknowledgements to other works must be given (this includes material that is closely copied (near verbatim), summarized and/or paraphrased), quotation marks (to indicate words taken from another source) are used for verbatim copying of material, and permissions secured for material that is copyrighted.
- Authors should avoid untrue statements about an entity (who can be an individual person or a company) or descriptions of their behavior or actions that could potentially be seen as personal attacks or allegations about that person.
- Authors are strongly advised to ensure the author group, the Corresponding Author, and the order of authors are all correct at submission. Adding and/or deleting authors during the revision stages is generally not permitted, but in some cases may be warranted. Reasons for changes in authorship should be explained in detail. Please note that changes to authorship cannot be made after acceptance of a manuscript.
In order to maintain the highest scientific standards, the Journal follows strict quality standards:
Upon request authors should be prepared to send relevant documentation or data in order to verify the validity of the results presented. This could be in the form of raw data, samples, records, etc. Sensitive information in the form of confidential or proprietary data is excluded.
If there is suspicion of misbehavior or alleged fraud the Journal and/or Publisher will carry out an investigation following COPE guidelines. If, after investigation, there are valid concerns, the author(s) concerned will be contacted under their given e-mail address and given an opportunity to address the issue. Depending on the situation, this may result in the Journal’s and/or Publisher’s implementation of the following measures, including, but not limited to:
- If the manuscript is still under consideration, it may be rejected and returned to the author.
- If the article has already been published online, depending on the nature and severity of the infraction:
- an erratum/correction may be placed with the article
- an expression of concern may be placed with the article
- or in severe cases retraction of the article may occur.
The reason will be given in the published erratum/correction, expression of concern or retraction note. Please note that retraction means that the article is maintained on the platform, watermarked “retracted” and the explanation for the retraction is provided in a note linked to the watermarked article.
Authors have an obligation to correct mistakes once they discover a significant error or inaccuracy in their published article. The author(s) is/are requested to contact the Journal and explain in what sense the error is impacting the article. A decision on how to correct the literature will depend on the nature of the error. This may be a correction or retraction. The retraction note should provide transparency as to which parts of the article are impacted by the error.
Read more in the Submissions section.
The Editors of JEVTM have responsibilities toward the authors who provide the content of the Journal, the peer reviewers who comment on the suitability of manuscripts for publication, the Journal’s readers and the scientific community, the owners/publishers of the Journal, and the public as a whole.
Peer review assists editors in making editorial decisions and, through editorial communications with authors, may assist authors in improving their manuscripts. Peer review is an essential component of formal scholarly communication and lies at the heart of scientific endeavor.
Any invited referee who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should immediately notify the editors and decline the invitation to review so that alternative reviewers can be contacted.
Any manuscripts received for review are confidential documents and must be treated as such; they must not be shown to or discussed with others except if authorized by the Editor-in-Chief (who would only do so under exceptional and specific circumstances). This applies also to invited reviewers who decline the review invitation.
Reviews should be conducted objectively and observations formulated clearly with supporting arguments so that authors can use them for improving the manuscript. Personal criticism of the authors is inappropriate. Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors. Any statement that is an observation, derivation or argument that has been reported in previous publications should be accompanied by the relevant citation. A reviewer should also notify the editors of any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other manuscript (published or unpublished) of which they have personal knowledge.
Any invited referee who has conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies or institutions connected to the manuscript and the work described therein should immediately notify the editors to declare their conflicts of interest and decline the invitation to review so that alternative reviewers can be contacted.
Unpublished material disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in a reviewer’s own research without the express written consent of the authors. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for the reviewer’s personal advantage. This applies also to invited reviewers who decline the review invitation.
INFORMED CONSENT POLICY
Patient Anonymity and Informed Consent
It is the author’s responsibility to ensure that a patient’s anonymity is protected, to verify that any experimental investigation with human subjects reported in the manuscript was performed with informed consent and follows all the guidelines for experimental investigation with human subjects required by the institution(s) with which all the authors are affiliated and/or ethical committee processing. Authors are asked to comply with the general guidelines for integrity protection, as listed by the health ministries in the EU, the EU commission and US department of health (see, for example, https://www.hhs.gov/hipaa/for-professionals/special-topics/research/index.html). Authors should mask patient’s eyes and always remove patient names from figures as well as genital organs as far as possible.
Protection of Human Subjects & Animals in Research
For original articles in the Journal that report research involving animals, the corresponding author must confirm that all experiments were performed in accordance with relevant guidelines and regulations (i.e. IACUC guidelines and federal regulations, or EU guidelines for animal research). One recommended document for animal studies is the ARRIVE reporting guidelines (PLoS Bio 8(6), https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.1000412). We encourage authors to follow the RRR principles of animal studies in medicine (https://www.feam.eu/wp-content/uploads/FEAM-Forum_Round-table-animals_Report_Final.pdf).
All studies of human subjects must contain a statement within the Methods section indicating approval of the study by an institutional review body (i.e. Institutional Review Board or ethical committee), and, if appropriate, a statement confirming that informed consent was obtained from all subjects if possible. If no legally informed consent can be obtained, such as in research carried out with human subjects receiving emergency treatment, authors should indicate when possible if a waiver of regulatory requirements for obtaining and documenting informed consent applies.
All submissions are screened for inappropriate image manipulation, plagiarism, duplicate publication and other issues that violate research ethics. Depending on the outcome of these investigations, the Journal may decide to publish errata, or, in cases of serious scientific misconduct, ask authors to retract their paper or to impose retraction on them.
Patients have a right to privacy that should not be infringed without informed consent. Identifying information, including patients’ names, initials, or hospital numbers, should not be published in written descriptions, photographs, and pedigrees unless the information is essential for scientific purposes and the patient (or parent or guardian) gives written informed consent for publication. Informed consent for this purpose requires that a patient who is identifiable be shown the manuscript to be published. Authors should identify Individuals who provide writing assistance and disclose the funding source for this assistance.
Identifying details should be omitted if they are not essential. Complete anonymity is difficult to achieve, however, and informed consent should be obtained if there is any doubt. For example, masking the eye region in photographs of patients is inadequate protection of anonymity. If identifying characteristics are altered to protect anonymity, such as in genetic pedigrees, authors should provide assurance that alterations do not distort scientific meaning and editors should so note.
JEVTM follows guidelines and best practices published by professional organizations, including Recommendations for the Conduct, Reporting, Editing, and Publication of Scholarly Work in Medical Journals by ICMJE, and Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing (joint statement by COPE, DOAJ, WAME and OASPA).