Publication Ethics Statement

1. GENERAL PRINCIPLES

Scripta Mechanica is committed to upholding the highest standards of publication ethics and integrity. Our journal adheres to internationally recognized ethical guidelines established by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE), and the World Association of Science Editors (WASE).

We are dedicated to:

  • Ensuring the integrity of the scholarly record
  • Maintaining transparency in all editorial processes
  • Promoting responsible research practices
  • Protecting the rights of authors, reviewers, and readers
  • Preventing and addressing research misconduct

2. RESPONSIBILITIES OF AUTHORS

2.1 Originality and Plagiarism

Authors must ensure that:

  • The submitted work is original and has not been published elsewhere
  • The manuscript is not under consideration by another journal
  • All sources are properly cited and acknowledged
  • No part of the manuscript constitutes plagiarism, including self-plagiarism

Plagiarism Policy:

  • All submissions undergo rigorous plagiarism screening using professional detection software
  • Manuscripts with similarity indices above 15% (excluding references) will be returned for revision
  • Cases of suspected plagiarism are investigated following COPE guidelines
  • Confirmed plagiarism results in immediate rejection and may lead to author sanctions

2.2 Authorship and Contributorship

Authorship Criteria: All listed authors must meet ALL of the following criteria:

  1. Substantial contributions to conception/design of the work OR acquisition/analysis/interpretation of data
  2. Drafting the work OR revising it critically for important intellectual content
  3. Final approval of the version to be published
  4. Agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work

Authorship Changes:

  • Changes to authorship after submission require written agreement from all authors
  • Addition or removal of authors must be justified in writing
  • The corresponding author is responsible for ensuring all authors meet the criteria

Contributors vs. Authors:

  • Individuals who do not meet authorship criteria should be acknowledged
  • Technical assistance, financial support, or general supervision alone do not qualify for authorship

2.3 Conflicts of Interest

Authors must disclose:

  • Financial relationships with organizations that might have interest in the submitted work
  • Non-financial conflicts that could inappropriately influence the research
  • All sources of funding for the research
  • Any relationships that might bias the work

Disclosure Requirements:

  • All conflicts must be declared at submission
  • Updates must be provided if conflicts arise during review
  • Even when no conflicts exist, this must be explicitly stated

2.4 Research Ethics and Compliance

Human Subjects Research:

  • Must comply with the Declaration of Helsinki
  • Institutional Review Board (IRB) or Ethics Committee approval required
  • Informed consent must be obtained when applicable
  • Patient confidentiality must be protected

Animal Research:

  • Must follow institutional and national guidelines
  • Animal care committee approval required
  • Methods must minimize animal suffering
  • Compliance with international standards (e.g., ARRIVE guidelines)

Data Management:

  • Authors should retain raw data for at least 5 years post-publication
  • Data sharing is encouraged when possible and appropriate
  • Data must be collected and analyzed ethically and legally

2.5 Reporting Standards

Authors must:

  • Report research methodology accurately and completely
  • Provide sufficient detail for replication
  • Report all results honestly, including negative or contradictory findings
  • Use appropriate statistical methods and report them correctly
  • Avoid selective reporting or data manipulation

3. RESPONSIBILITIES OF REVIEWERS

3.1 Review Standards

Reviewers must:

  • Provide objective, constructive, and timely reviews
  • Evaluate manuscripts based solely on scientific merit
  • Declare any conflicts of interest
  • Maintain confidentiality of the review process
  • Decline reviews when not qualified or available

3.2 Confidentiality

Reviewers must not:

  • Share manuscript details with unauthorized persons
  • Use information from manuscripts for personal research advantage
  • Retain copies of manuscripts after review completion
  • Engage in discussions about manuscripts on social media or public forums

3.3 Conflicts of Interest

Reviewers must decline when:

  • Financial or personal relationships exist with authors
  • Direct competition with the research exists
  • Previous collaboration with authors within the past 3 years
  • Institutional affiliations create bias
  • Any other circumstances that might compromise objectivity

4. EDITORIAL RESPONSIBILITIES

4.1 Editorial Independence

The Editorial Team:

  • Makes decisions based solely on scientific merit and journal scope
  • Maintains independence from commercial, political, or institutional pressures
  • Ensures fair and timely review processes
  • Protects the confidentiality of authors and reviewers

4.2 Editorial Conflicts of Interest

Editors must:

  • Recuse themselves from manuscripts where conflicts exist
  • Delegate decision-making to other editors when appropriate
  • Disclose any relationships that might influence editorial decisions
  • Maintain transparency in editorial processes

4.3 Quality Assurance

Editorial Oversight:

  • Regular monitoring of review quality and timeliness
  • Training and guidance for editorial board members
  • Continuous improvement of editorial processes
  • Adherence to international publishing standards

5. PEER REVIEW PROCESS

5.1 Review Philosophy

Scripta Mechanica employs a rigorous single-blind peer review process to ensure:

  • Objective evaluation of scientific content
  • Anonymity of both authors and reviewers
  • Fair and unbiased assessment
  • Constructive feedback for authors

5.2 Review Criteria

Manuscripts are evaluated on:

  • Scientific rigor and methodology
  • Originality and significance of findings
  • Clarity of presentation
  • Relevance to journal scope
  • Ethical compliance
  • Statistical validity (where applicable)

5.3 Review Timeline

  • Initial screening: 5-7 business days
  • Peer review: 4-6 weeks
  • Editorial decision: Within 1 week of receiving reviews
  • Revision period: 30 days for authors
  • Final decision: Within 2 weeks of revision submission

6. MISCONDUCT PROCEDURES

6.1 Suspected Misconduct

Types of misconduct include:

  • Plagiarism and duplicate publication
  • Data fabrication or falsification
  • Undisclosed conflicts of interest
  • Inappropriate authorship
  • Ethical violations in research conduct

6.2 Investigation Process

Upon receiving allegations:

  1. Initial Assessment: Editorial team evaluates the allegation
  2. Investigation: Formal investigation following COPE guidelines
  3. Institution Contact: Relevant institutions are notified when appropriate
  4. Decision: Action determined based on investigation findings
  5. Appeals: Process available for disputed decisions

6.3 Sanctions

Possible actions include:

  • Manuscript rejection
  • Request for correction or retraction
  • Author sanctions (temporary or permanent submission bans)
  • Notification to institutions and funding bodies
  • Public notices of misconduct

7. POST-PUBLICATION ETHICS

7.1 Corrections and Retractions

Corrections are issued for:

  • Minor errors that do not affect conclusions
  • Missing acknowledgments or author information
  • Typographical or formatting errors

Retractions are issued for:

  • Serious errors that invalidate conclusions
  • Research misconduct
  • Duplicate publication
  • Unethical research practices

7.2 Expressions of Concern

Issued when:

  • Evidence suggests research misconduct but investigation is ongoing
  • Questions arise about research integrity
  • Institutions are investigating allegations

7.3 Post-Publication Monitoring

Continuous oversight includes:

  • Monitoring for post-publication corrections
  • Tracking citation patterns for anomalies
  • Responding to reader concerns
  • Regular audits of published content

8. APPEALS AND DISPUTES

8.1 Editorial Decisions

Authors may appeal:

  • Rejection decisions based on procedural errors
  • Concerns about reviewer bias or misconduct
  • Technical issues affecting fair review

Appeal Process:

  1. Submit written appeal within 30 days
  2. Provide specific grounds for appeal
  3. Editorial review of appeal
  4. Independent assessment if warranted
  5. Final decision communicated

8.2 Authorship Disputes

Resolution process:

  • Internal mediation attempt
  • Institution involvement when appropriate
  • Independent arbitration if necessary
  • Potential withdrawal of manuscript

9. TRANSPARENCY AND ACCOUNTABILITY

9.1 Publication Records

We maintain:

  • Complete records of editorial decisions
  • Reviewer reports and author responses
  • Correspondence related to ethical issues
  • Post-publication correction history

9.2 Annual Reporting

Annual ethics report includes:

  • Summary of ethical issues handled
  • Correction and retraction statistics
  • Review process metrics
  • Continuous improvement initiatives

9.3 Training and Development

Ongoing commitments:

  • Regular ethics training for editorial board
  • COPE membership and guideline adherence
  • Professional development for staff
  • Best practice implementation

10. CONTACT AND REPORTING

10.1 Ethics Concerns

Report ethical concerns to:

10.2 Confidential Reporting

  • Anonymous reporting system available
  • Whistleblower protection assured
  • Confidential investigation procedures
  • Safe reporting environment maintained

10.3 External Resources

Additional guidance available from:

  • Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE): publicationethics.org
  • International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE): icmje.org
  • World Association of Science Editors (WASE): wame.org

11. POLICY UPDATES

This ethics statement is reviewed annually and updated as needed to reflect:

  • Changes in international standards
  • Emerging ethical challenges
  • Lessons learned from case handling
  • Community feedback and input

Last Updated: [Date]
Next Review: [Date]
Version: 1.0

12. COMMITMENT STATEMENT

Scripta Mechanica pledges to:

  • Maintain the highest ethical standards in all operations
  • Provide transparent and fair editorial processes
  • Support responsible research practices globally
  • Contribute to the integrity of the scientific record
  • Serve the international mechanical engineering community with distinction

By submitting to Scripta Mechanica, authors, reviewers, and editors agree to uphold these ethical standards and contribute to the advancement of ethical scientific publishing.