Author Standards
The Journal of Public Law Knowledge, owned by the Research Institute of the Constitutional Council, is committed to upholding and applying the Committee on Publication Ethics' International Standards for Authors in the design and conduct of the journal's review and publication process. You can find the International Standards for Authors here.
International Standards for Authors
the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE)
Introduction
Publication is the final stage of research and therefore a responsibility of all researchers. Scholarly publications are expected to provide an accurate and permanent record of research. Since publications form the basis for further research and the application of findings, they can have an impact not only on the research community but also, indirectly, on society. Researchers therefore have an obligation to ensure that their publications are honest, transparent, accurate, complete, and balanced, and to avoid misleading, selective, or ambiguous reporting. Journal editors also have responsibilities to ensure the integrity of the research literature, and these are set out in separate guidelines.
The aim of this document is to establish international standards for authors of scientific research publications and to describe the responsible conduct of research reporting. We hope that these standards will be endorsed by research institutions, funders, and professional societies; promoted by editors and publishers; and used to educate researchers about research integrity.
Responsibilities of Research Publication
1-1. The research reported should have been conducted in an ethical and responsible manner, and in compliance with all relevant regulations.
1-2. The research reported should be accurate and performed with care.
1-3. Researchers should use appropriate methods for the analysis and display of data (and seek and follow expert advice on this if necessary).
1-4. Authors should accept collective responsibility for the work and the content of their publications. Researchers should carefully review their publications at all stages to ensure that methods and findings are accurately reported. Authors should check calculations, data presentation, typescript/submissions, and proofs carefully.
2-1. Researchers should present their results honestly, without fabrication, falsification, or inappropriate data manipulation. Research images (such as micrographs, X-rays, electrophoresis gels) should not be misleadingly adjusted.
2-2. Researchers should strive to describe their methods and present their findings clearly and unambiguously. Researchers should follow applicable reporting guidelines. Publications should provide sufficient detail to allow the experiments to be repeated by other researchers.
2-3. Research reporting should be complete. It should not omit inconvenient, inconsistent, or inexplicable findings or results that do not support the authors' or sponsors' hypothesis or interpretation.
2-4. Research funders and sponsors should not be able to veto publication of findings that do not favor their product or position. Researchers should not sign contracts that allow the research sponsor to veto or control publication of the findings (unless there are exceptional circumstances, such as research classified by governments for security reasons).
2-5. Authors should promptly alert the editor if they discover any errors in a submitted, accepted, or published paper. Authors should cooperate with editors in issuing corrections or retractions as necessary.
2-6. Authors should accurately indicate the work of others by referencing and quoting.
2-7. Authors should not copy material from other publications without reading the original paper.
3-1. New findings should be presented in the context of previous research. The work of others should be fairly represented. Scientific reviews and syntheses of existing research should be comprehensive, balanced, and should include findings irrespective of whether they support the proposed hypothesis or interpretation.
Opinions that present a single viewpoint or argument should be clearly distinguished from scientific reviews.
3-2. The limitations of the study should be addressed in the publications.
4-1. Authors should adhere to publication requirements that the submitted work is not published elsewhere in any language. The work should not be simultaneously submitted to more than one journal unless the editors have agreed to co-publication. If papers are co-published, this fact should be made clear to readers.
4-2. Copyright laws and conventions should be respected.
Copyright material (such as tables, figures or extensive quotations) should be reproduced only with appropriate permission and acknowledgement.
4-3. Relevant previous work, both by other researchers and by the authors themselves, should be properly acknowledged and referenced. Primary literature should be cited where possible.
4-4. Data, text, figures, or ideas that are originated by other researchers should be properly acknowledged and should not be presented as if they were the authors' own. Phrases that are directly taken from other researchers' publications should appear in quotation marks with appropriate citations.
4-5. If findings have been previously published, or if multiple reports or multiple analyses of a single data set are under review for publication elsewhere, authors should inform the editors. Authors should provide copies of related publications or manuscripts submitted to other journals.
4-6. Multiple publications arising from a single research project should be clearly identified and the primary publication should be referenced. Translations and adaptations for different audiences should be clearly identified, should acknowledge the original source, and should respect copyright agreements and licensing requirements. If in doubt, authors should seek permission from the original publisher before republishing any work.
5.1. All sources of research funding, including direct and indirect financial support, provision of equipment or materials, and other support (such as statistical or specialized writing assistance) must be disclosed.
5.2. Authors should disclose the role of the research funder(s) or sponsor(s) (if any) in the design, execution, analysis, interpretation, and reporting of the research.
5.3. Authors should consider disclosing relevant financial and non-financial interests and relationships that could be perceived to influence the interpretation of their findings or that readers, editors, or reviewers would reasonably want to know about. This includes any relationship with the journal, for example, if editors are publishing their own research in their own journal. In addition, authors should follow the requirements of journals and organizations for disclosing competing interests.
6.1. The research record serves not only as a history of what has been discovered but also of who made the discovery. Therefore, authorship of research publications should accurately reflect the individuals' contributions to the work and its reporting.
6.2. Where major contributors are listed as authors and those who have made less essential or purely technical contributions to the research or publication are listed in an acknowledgments section, the criteria for authorship and acknowledgment should be agreed upon at the outset of the project. Ideally, criteria for authorship in a particular field should be agreed upon, published, and consistently applied by research institutions, professional and scholarly societies, and funders. While journal editors should publish and promote accepted criteria for authorship appropriate to their field, they cannot be expected to adjudicate authorship disputes. The responsibility for proper attribution of authorship lies with the authors themselves, acting under the guidance of their institution. Research institutions should promote and uphold fair and accepted standards of authorship and attribution. Where necessary, institutions should adjudicate authorship disputes and should ensure that due process is followed.
6.3. Researchers should ensure that only those who meet the authorship criteria (i.e., have made a significant contribution to the research) are rewarded with authorship, and that deserving authors are not omitted. Institutions and journal editors should encourage practices that discourage guest, gift, and ghost authorship. All authors should agree to be listed and should approve the final submitted and accepted versions of the paper. Any change to the author list must be approved by all authors, including those who have been removed from the list. The corresponding author should act as a point of contact between the editor and the other authors and should keep co-authors informed and involved in major decisions about the publication (e.g., responding to reviewer comments).
6.4. Authors should not use misleading acknowledgments to imply participation or endorsement by individuals who were not actually involved in or did not endorse the research.
7.1. All authors should have read and be familiar with the reported work and should ensure that the work complies with the principles outlined in these guidelines. In most cases, authors are expected to take responsibility for the integrity of the research and its reporting. However, if authors are only responsible for some aspects of the research and its reporting, this should be made clear in the publication.
7.2. Authors should work with the editor or publisher to promptly correct their work if errors or omissions are discovered after publication.
7.3. Authors should follow relevant guidelines, requirements, and regulations to make materials, reagents, software, or datasets available to other researchers who request them. Researchers, institutions, and funders should have clear policies for handling such requests. Authors should also follow the standards of the relevant journals. While appropriate attribution is expected, researchers should not request authorship as a condition for sharing materials.
7.4. Authors should respond appropriately to post-publication comments and published correspondence. They should endeavor to answer the correspondents' questions and provide additional explanations or details if necessary.
8.1. Authors should comply with publishers' requirements that a work not be submitted to more than one journal for concurrent review.
8.2. Authors should notify the editor if they withdraw their work from consideration or fail to respond to reviewer comments after receiving a conditional acceptance.
8.3. Authors should respond to reviewers' comments professionally and promptly.
8.4. Authors should respect publishers' requests for press embargoes and should not generally allow their findings to be reported in the press until after they have been accepted for publication in a scientific journal (but not yet published). Authors and their institutions should communicate and cooperate with publishers to coordinate media activities (such as press releases and press conferences) with publication. Press releases should accurately reflect the work and should not contain statements that go beyond the research findings.
9.1. Appropriate approval, license, or registration should be obtained before research begins, and details should be provided in the report (e.g., institutional review board, research ethics committee approval, national authority permits for animal use).
9.2. Authors should provide evidence, if requested by editors, that the reported research has received appropriate approval and was conducted ethically (e.g., copies of approvals, licenses, participant consent forms).
9.3. Researchers should not generally publish or share individually identifiable data collected during research without the consent of the individual (or their representative). Researchers should be aware that many scientific journals are now freely available online, and therefore should be mindful of the risk of causing harm or distress to unwitting readers (e.g., research participants or their families who recognize themselves from case studies, descriptions, images, or pedigrees).
9.4. Appropriate statistical analyses should be determined at the outset of the study, and a data analysis plan should be prepared and followed for pre-specified outcomes. Secondary or post-hoc analyses should be distinguished from primary analyses and those specified in the data analysis plan.
9.5. Researchers should publish all meaningful research results that may contribute to a greater understanding. In particular, there is an ethical responsibility to publish the findings of all clinical trials. Publishing negative studies or trials that fail to reject a hypothesis may help to prevent others from wasting time and resources on similar projects. If the findings of small studies and those that fail to reach statistical significance can be combined to produce more useful information (e.g., by meta-analysis), such findings should be published.
9.6. Authors should provide research protocols to journal editors upon request (e.g., for clinical trials) so that reviewers and editors can compare the research report with the protocol to check that it was conducted as planned and that no relevant details have been omitted. Researchers should follow relevant requirements for clinical trial registration and should include the trial registration number in all publications arising from the trial.
Note: