Publication Ethics and Malpractice Policy

Neoplasia Research publishes peer-reviewed journals related to the discipline of cancer .it is committed to work in accordance to the recommendations of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) adhering to the Committee's Code of Conduct and Best Practice Guidelines.

 This statement explains the ethical responsibilities of all parties involved in the act of publishing an article for their journals, including authors, the Editor in Chief, the reviewers and the publisher. All are strictly required to follow the below mentioned principles while Conducting, Reporting, Editing and Publication of Scholarly Work in their Journals.

  • Peer Review Policy
  • Duties of Editors
  • Duties of Reviewers
  • Duties of Authors
  • Duties of Publisher
  • Human and Animal Rights Ethical Statement

Peer Review Policy

Peer review is the imperative step that each submitted article is required to go through. There is a strict policy that no Editor, including the Editor-in-Chief, will participate in the peer review and decision-making processes of their own manuscripts. No submission containing any form of defamation, copyright infringement, falsification, fabrication or plagiarism will be accepted. - Every unethical publishing behavior will be investigated, even if it is discovered years after publication, and Editors/Publishers will follow the COPE recommendations. If a simple error or misconduct are confirmed, a correction, retraction, or other note will be published in the journal.

Neoplasia Research honors every article submitted to its journals and maintaining strict confidentiality of contents of manuscripts is required from all editors, reviewers and editorial staff involved in the publication process. To maintain unbiased review process the identities of both reviewers and authors; or any other information likely to reveal their identities; are not shared among both of them.

 Every step towards unethical publishing practice will be investigated, even if it is discovered years after publication, and Editors/Publishers reserve the right to issue a correction or other necessary note in the journal if a minor error or misconduct is confirmed; or the manuscript may be retracted in confirmed cases of major unethical behavior.

Duties of Editors

Editors are instructed to evaluat every manuscript solely on their intellectual merit without regard to the author's race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy. The Editor in Chief of each Neoplasia Research Journal is responsible for deciding which of the articles submitted to the journal should be published and when. The Editor in Chief may be guided by the policies of the journal's editorial board concerning subjects of legal requirements regarding libel, copyright infringement and plagiarism. . Decisions to publish are not influenced by the governments policies or of any other agency outside of the concerned journal. The Editor in Chief may confer with other editors or reviewers in making this decision however, bearing full authority over entire editorial panel.

Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used by anyone who has a view of the manuscript (while handling it) in his or her own research without the expressed written consent of the author. Editors will only evaluate manuscripts for which they have NO substantial conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships/connections with any of the authors, companies or institutions connected to the papers.

Duties of Reviewers

Peer review is imperial for all submissions to the journals and assists the Editor in Chief and the editorial board in making editorial decisions, while editorial communications with the author may also assist the author in improving the paper. Any selected referee who feels unqualified to review the assigned manuscript or unable to provide a prompt review should notify the editor and excuse himself/herself from the review process. All reviews should be conducted objectively with no personal criticism to the author. Reviewers should express their critique clearly with supporting arguments.

Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors. Any statement that had been previously reported elsewhere should be accompanied by the relevant citation. A reviewer should also call the Editor in Chief's attention to any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published paper they have personal knowledge of.

Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential by the reviewers and not used for personal advantage; this also includes the reviewers who have declined to review the manuscript.

Reviewers should not review manuscripts in which they have any conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, firms or institutions connected to the papers. Any such conflict should be disclosed to the Editor-in-Chief by the reviewer. The Editors will then determine sufficiency of the conflict to exclude the reviewer from peer review.

Duties of Authors

Authors of reports 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 paper. A paper should contain sufficient detail and references to permit others to replicate the work. Review articles should be accurate, objective and comprehensive, Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behavior and are unacceptable.

Authors may be asked to provide the raw data in connection with a paper for editorial review and should be prepared to provide public access to such, if practicable, and should, in any event, be prepared to retain such data for a reasonable time (7-10 years) after publication.

Authors should ensure that they have written entirely original works, and if the authors have used the work and/or words of others, this must be appropriately cited or quoted. Plagiarism in any form (using another's paper as the author's own; copying or paraphrasing substantial parts of another's paper without proper attribution and claiming results from research conducted by others) constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable under all conditions.

An author should not, in general, publish manuscripts describing essentially the same research in more than one journal or primary publication. Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal concurrently constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable.

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

Sources of funding for the research reported in the article should be duly acknowledged at the end of the article.

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

When an author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in his/her own published work, it is the author's obligation to promptly notify the journal editor or the Publisher and cooperate with the editor to retract or correct the paper. If the Editors or Publisher learns from a third party that a published work contains a significant error or inaccuracy, then it is the authors obligation to promptly correct or retract the paper or provide evidence to the journal Editors of the correctness of the paper.

- Only persons who meet the following authorship criteria should be listed as authors on the manuscript, as they must be able to take public responsibility for the content: (a) made significant contributions to the conception, design, execution, data acquisition, or analysis/interpretation of the study; (b) drafted the manuscript or revised it critically for important intellectual content; and (c) have seen and approved the final version of the paper and agreed to its submission for publication. All persons who made substantial contributions to the work reported in the manuscript (such as technical help, writing and editing assistance, general support), but who do not meet the criteria for authorship, must not be listed as an author, but should be acknowledged in the "Acknowledgements" section. The corresponding author should ensure that all appropriate coauthors (according to the above definition) and no inappropriate coauthors are included in the author list and verify that all coauthors have seen and approved the final version of the manuscript and agreed to its publication.

- Authors should—at the earliest stage possible (generally at the time of submission and including a statement in the manuscript)—disclose any conflicts of interest that might influence the results or their interpretation in the manuscript. Examples include financial ones such as honoraria, educational grants or other funding, employment, consultancies, stock ownership participation in speakers bureaus, membership, and paid expert testimony or patent-licensing arrangements, as well as non-financial ones such as personal or professional relationships, affiliations, knowledge or beliefs about the subject matter or materials discussed in the manuscript. All sources of financial support for the work should be disclosed (including the grant number or other reference number, if any).

 Information obtained privately (from conversation, correspondence or discussion with third parties) must not be used or reported without written permission from the source. Authors should not use information obtained in the course of providing confidential services, such as refereeing manuscripts or grant applications, unless they have obtained written permission from the author(s) of the work involved in these services.

- If the work involves chemicals, procedures or equipment that have any unusual hazards inherent in their use, the authors must clearly identify these in the manuscript. If the work involves the use of animals or human participants, the authors should ensure that all procedures are performed in compliance with relevant laws and institutional guidelines and that the appropriate institutional committee(s) has approved them; the manuscript should contain a statement to this effect. Authors should also include a statement in the manuscript that informed consent was obtained for experimentation with human participants. The privacy rights of human participants must always be observed.

- Authors are obliged to cooperate fully by responding promptly to Editors requests for raw data, clarifications, and proof of ethics approval, patient consents and copyright permissions. In the case of a first decision of "revisions necessary", authors should respond to the reviewers comments systematically, point by point, and in a timely manner, revising and re-submitting their manuscript to the journal by the deadline.

If the Editors or Publisher learns from a third party that a published work contains a significant error or inaccuracy, then it is the authors obligation to promptly correct or retract the paper or provide evidence to the journal Editors of the correctness of the paper.

Article Withdrawal: Only used for early versions of articles which sometimes contain errors, or may have been accidentally submitted twice. Article Retraction: Infringements of professional ethical codes, such as multiple submission, bogus claims of authorship, plagiarism and fraudulent use of data, falsification and fabrication. Article Removal: Legal limitations. This will only occur where the article is clearly defamatory or infringes on others legal rights, or where the article, if acted upon, might pose a serious health risk. Correction: Authors should contact the Editor of the journal who will determine the impact of the change and decide on the appropriate course of action. Neoplasia Research will only publish a correction for a published article after receiving approval and instructions from the Editor.

Duties of Publisher

To handle any unethical publishing behavior the Publisher will be involved. In cases of scientific misconduct, plagiarism or fraudulent publication, the Publisher (with the Editors) is responsible to clarify the situation and take appropriate actions which may include publication of an erratum or correction; or even a retraction may be instructed. The Publisher with the Editors will make every possible effort to prevent the publication of fraudulent material and to forbid any misconduct to take place.

The Publisher is committed to the availability of publications and ensures the content preservation/accessibility by partnering with the corresponding organizations.

Human and Animal Rights Ethical Statement

If the research manuscript describes involvement of human participants, the approval granting from the the institutional review board or equivalent committee(s) must be clearly mentioned with the name of the board provided by the authors in the manuscript. Informed consent from human participants must have been obtained (or in case of lack of consent its reason must be explicitly explained, e.g. the data were analyzed retrospectively). All clinical investigations are expected to be conducted according to the principles specified in the Declaration of Helsinki of 1975, as revised in 2000. Authors should submit a statement from their ethics committee or institutional review board indicating the approval of the research.

All relevant national and international guidelines must be followed while conducting research on animals and submitting the article about such studies. Following the recommendations of the Weatherall report on "The use of non-human primates in research," the authors are specifically required to include details of animal welfare and steps taken to ameliorate suffering in all work involving non-human primates.