The Editorial Team has adopted and applies the principles of publication ethics in accordance with COPE – the Committee on Publication Ethics.
View does not consider contributions under consideration or published elsewhere. Unethical practices (e.g. ghostwriting, guest authorship or plagiarism) are not accepted. If appropriate, funding acknowledgments should always be added.
The Editors make every effort to meet the highest ethical standards. In the event of any suspected or discovered misconduct on the author's part – such as plagiarism, falsifying data or double publication, “ghostwriting” or “guest authorship” – the journal’s Editorial Team will contact the author to ask for explanation, and undertake steps appropriate in such situations. These might include rejecting the article, possible refusal to publish further submissions by the same author, as well as notification of the authorities at the author's institution.
- Providing guidelines for authors preparing and submitting manuscripts.
- Clearly communicating all other editorial policies and standards.
- Establishing and defining policies on conflicts of interest for all involved in the publication process, including editors, staff, authors, and reviewers.
- Careful review of any notification of malpractice and/or misconduct.
- Informing appropriate institutions about justified malpractice suspicion.
- Assigning papers for review appropriate to each reviewer’s area of interest and expertise.
- Establishing a process for reviewers to ensure that they treat the manuscript as a confidential document and complete the review promptly.
The procedure in the event of suspected malpractice
Any party can report possible publishing and/or research malpractice or misconduct, as well as piracy and plagiarism (including anonymously, although that excludes the possibility of providing explanations). If the notification refers to an article under review, the review procedure shall be suspended. The reviewer is informed about the suspension. All notifications about ethical issues, research misconduct or research/publishing malpractices are considered by the journal’s Editorial Board. This investigation includes an analysis of the notification, verification of the validity of the accusation, request for details (if necessary), informing the author about accusations relating to his or her work, analysis of the received explanation, and, if justified, reporting the malpractice to the relevant institutions or bodies. These include: the direct supervisor of the author, the head of the department/institution, the ethical board appropriate for the specific discipline, and any sponsor or funding body.
- Authors should only provide original articles, not those under consideration or published elsewhere, regardless of the language of the publication, in whole or in part.
- Authors are responsible for presenting their research in the article in a reliable, honest manner, without fabricating, manipulating or concealing significant facts or data, as well as sources of funding and authorship.
Identification of authors and other contributors is the responsibility of those who carried out the work (the researchers) not those who publish the work (editors, publishers). Researchers should determine which individuals have contributed sufficiently to the work to warrant identification as an author. Individuals who contributed to the work but whose contributions were not of sufficient magnitude to warrant authorship should be identified by name in an acknowledgments section.
- Providing written, unbiased feedback in a timely manner on the scholarly merits and the scientific value of the work, together with a documented basis for the reviewer’s opinion.
- Indicating whether the writing is clear, concise, and relevant and rating the work’s composition, scientific accuracy, originality, and interest to the journal’s readers.
- Maintaining the confidentiality of the review process: not sharing, discussing with third parties, or disclosing information from the reviewed paper.
- Alerting the editor to any potential personal or financial conflict of interest and declining to review when a possibility of such a conflict exists.
- Determining the scientific merit, originality, and scope of the work; indicating ways to improve it; and recommending acceptance or rejection using whatever rating scale the editor deems most useful.
- Noting any ethical concerns, such as a substantial similarity between the reviewed manuscript and any published paper or any manuscript concurrently submitted to another journal which may be known to the reviewer.
All personal data, including contact data, submitted to the editorial team are used only for the needs of current operations of the journal and contact with the authors. It is not disclosed to third parties.