CONFIDENTIALITY

Maintaining confidentiality stands as one of the most crucial aspects when dealing with suspected violations of publishing ethics. The entire peer-review process should be treated with utmost confidentiality and sensitivity, mirroring the approach to any suspected breaches of publishing ethics.

 

RESPONSIBILITIES

Journal editors, associate editors, members of the editorial board, and reviewers play pivotal roles in the publishing process, serving the research community in disseminating scholarly research.

Their key responsibilities include:

- Handling all submissions fairly and promptly, acknowledging submissions and communicating decisions post-peer review, while offering any assistance or advice available from reviewers or the editorial team.

- Ensuring the confidentiality of all submitted manuscripts, refraining from disclosing details without the author's prior consent, and treating the identity and details of reviewers with confidentiality.

- Making objective decisions about papers based solely on their relevance, significance, and quality.

- Disclosing any conflicts of interest that may arise.

- Taking into consideration authors' preferences regarding reviewer selection.

- Addressing any suspicions of scientific or publishing misconduct reasonably, sensibly, and confidentially, and ensuring fair and swift resolution of any author appeals.

- Complying with relevant data protection regulations.

 

REVIEWERS

We recognizes the invaluable contribution of reviewers in the dissemination of scholarly research. Reviewers are expected to familiarize themselves with these guidelines before conducting a review for an our journal, ensuring they adhere to our policies and practices.

Reviewers should:

- Review the manuscript they've been assigned for potential conflicts of interest that could affect their review. Any conflicts of interest should be disclosed to the editors, and reviewers should abstain from reviewing manuscripts where bias could occur.

- Refrain from using knowledge of the manuscript before its publication for personal gain.

- Handle review requests from editors and associate editors promptly, with care, consideration, objectivity, and confidentiality at every stage. It's appreciated when reviewers provide comprehensive explanations and justifications for their judgments to aid authors.

- Adhere to reviewer checklists and seek training if required, avoiding retaining copies of reviewed articles.

 

Editors, Associate Editors, and Journal Staff

Editors and associate editors involved in final manuscript decisions should recuse themselves in cases of conflicts of interest. Other editorial staff members must disclose any conflicts of interest related to editorial judgments and abstain from decisions where conflicts exist. Editorial staff should not exploit information gained through manuscript work for personal gain and must publish regular disclosure statements regarding potential conflicts of interest. Guest editors are held to the same standards.

 

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

Any potential conflict of interest from guest editors, associate editors, or reviewers should be disclosed to the journal editor or staff. Reviewers should refrain from suggesting additions to manuscripts for self-promotion.

 

DUPLICATION SUBMISSION OR PLAGIARISM

Reviewers suspecting duplicate submission or plagiarism should discreetly inform journal staff. Maintaining confidentiality is essential, as unfounded accusations can harm individuals' careers and reputations.

 

SPECIAL ISSUES

The journal frequently publishes special issues on innovative research topics in natural sciences. Proposals are evaluated by journal editors and guest editors are carefully selected. Manuscripts undergo rigorous peer review, with final decisions made by the editor-in-chief.

 

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION

Editors and reviewers should be aware of the potential for Freedom of Information requests, particularly in disputes over authorship or allegations of editorial misconduct.

 

COMMITTEE ON PUBLICATION ETHICS (COPE)

All journals published by VNUHCM adhere to COPE ethical principles, providing resources for handling suspected violations of publishing ethics.

 

INSTITUTIONAL REVIEW BOARDS

Authors are responsible for obtaining approval from Institutional Review Boards when necessary, particularly for research involving human subjects or regulated products. Compliance with FDA and HHS guidelines is mandatory, and IRB exceptions must be documented.