Ethics
PUBLICATIONS ETHICS AND MALPRACTICES
Ethical standards for publication exist to ensure high-quality scientific publications, public trust in scientific findings, and that people receive credit for their work and ideas.
All manuscripts are subject to peer review and are expected to meet standards of academic excellence. If approved by the editor, submissions will be considered by peer reviewers, whose identities will remain anonymous to the authors.
Our Research Integrity team will occasionally seek advice outside standard peer review, for example, on submissions with serious ethical, security, biosecurity, or societal implications. We may consult experts and the academic editor before deciding on appropriate actions, including but not limited to recruiting reviewers with specific expertise, assessment by additional editors, and declining to further consider a submission.
A. Relations with the other editors/editorial board
The editor-in-chief will work with a team of section editors. They will confirm the roles and responsibilities of all editors and editorial staff (assistant editors), so that everybody is clear about who does what.
The editorial board will be invited by the editors according with their expertise and levels of activity and involvement. BDS journal has a policy of appointing editors for a fixed time period, and the editorial committee will discuss possible changes if necessary.
Changes in the direction of the journal to redefine its scope must be undertaken in agreement with the other editors and the publisher; otherwise editorial decisions may be inconsistent. New aims and scope need to be agreed on and clearly published in whatever medium the journal uses to communicate with authors, reviewers, and editors.
Plagiarism
Authors must not use the words, figures, or ideas of others without attribution. All sources must be cited at the point they are used, and reuse of wording must be limited and be attributed or quoted in the text.
Brazilian Dental Science uses Turnitin to detect submissions that overlap with published and submitted manuscripts.
Manuscripts that are found to have been plagiarized from a manuscript by other authors, whether published or unpublished, will be rejected.
Authorship and acknowledgments
All listed authors must have made a significant scientific contribution to the research in the manuscript, approved its claims, and agreed to be an author. It is important to list everyone who made a significant scientific contribution. Author contributions must be described on the Title Page, using roles defined by CRediT. Changes in authorship must be declared to the journal and agreed to by all authors.
Anyone who contributed to the research or manuscript preparation, but is not an author, should be acknowledged with their permission.
Submissions by anyone other than one of the authors will not be considered.
Transparency (a checklist to authors)
Work with the journal publisher/editorial office to determine processes for handling submissions that are the most efficient and appropriate for the journal. The electronic submission system aids authors in providing all required information (e.g., authorship declarations, funding information). All elements must be completed before a manuscript is sent for peer review (chasing details at a later stage can delay publication and upset schedules). BDS will consider checking for the following elements (as appropriate):
Confirmation that the authors have read and understood the Instructions to Authors Authorship statement explaining what each author contributed to the paper Funding information Competing interests declaration Permission obtained for use of copyrighted material from other sources (including the Web) Documentation for any citations to unpublished work (e.g., articles in press/personal communications) Confirmation that the manuscript is under evaluation solely to BDS and it is not published, in press, or submitted elsewhere.
BDS adopts and promotes an authorship policy that is appropriate to the field of research. This will include:
requiring statements of each individual’s contribution to the research and publication [Credit Taxonomy] use of checklists to prevent ghost authorship (see PLoS:
http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pmed.1000023#s4) requiring all authors to sign an authorship declaration including all authors in communications (e.g., acknowledging receipt of a submission), not just the corresponding author clearly specifying authorship criteria in the Instructions to Authors For biomedical journals you might consider in addition: Details of ethical approval and informed consent for studies in humans Details of approval and ethical conduct for animal experimentation
Guidance on ethical approval for studies in humans is available from COPE (Guidance for Editors: Research, Audit and Service Evaluations: http://publicationethics.org/resources/guidelines).
C. Editors and Reviewers
Editors and reviewers should decline to be involved with a submission when they
Have a recent publication or current submission with any author Share or recently shared an affiliation with any author Collaborate or recently collaborated with any author Have a close personal connection to any author Have a financial interest in the subject of the work Feel unable to be objective
Editors and reviewers must declare if they have previously discussed the manuscript with the authors.
BDS provides guidance to reviewers on everything that is expected of them. Guidelines are available in our website and from COPE (COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers. http://publicationethics.org/resources/guidelines).
This guidance is regularly updated and is referred to the COPE Code of Conduct and Best Practice Guidelines (http://publicationethics.org/resources/code-conduct). BDS will consider the following points:
Reviews should be conducted objectively Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate Reviewers should express their views clearly with supporting arguments and references as necessary and not be defamatory or libelous Reviewers should declare any competing interests Reviewers should decline to review manuscripts in which they have a competing interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers Reviewers should respect the confidentiality of material supplied to them and may not discuss unpublished manuscripts with colleagues or use the information in their own work Any reviewer that wants to pass a review request onto a colleague must get the editor’s permission beforehand.
BDS has systems for assessing the performance of reviewers and removing from the database those whose performance is not acceptable.
BDS also has systems in place to ensure that peer reviewers’ identities are protected.
Reviewers will be asked to address ethical aspects of the submission such as:
Has the author published this research before? Has the author plagiarized another publication? Is the research ethical and have the appropriate approvals/consent been obtained? Is there any indication that the data have been fabricated or inappropriately manipulated? Have the authors declared all relevant competing interests?
Reviewers must declare any remaining interests in the ‘Confidential’ section of the review form, which will be considered by the editor.
Institutional review board and written informed consent
For protocols involving the use of human subjects, authors should indicate in their Methods section that subjects’ rights have been protected by an appropriate Institutional Review Board and written informed consent was granted from all subjects. When laboratory animals are used, indicate the level of institutional review and assurance that the protocol ensured humane practices.
