Publishing Ethic Statement
Data Analysis and Knowledge Discovery (DAKD) is a single blind peer-reviewed academic journal with severe peer-review procedure. DAKD is committed to ethical scientific publication to help authors publish ethically. Authors, editors, and reviewers are expected to be aware of, and comply with, best practice in publication ethics. Publishing Ethic Statement of DAKD follows COPE flowcharts and ICMJE Recommendations.
I. AUTHORS′ RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES
1 DEFINING THE ROLE OF AUTHORS AND CONTRIBUTORS
DAKD follows the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) guidelines for authorship criteria.
· Substantial contributions to the conception or design of the work; or the acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data for the work;
· Drafting the work or revising it critically for important intellectual content;
· Final approval of the version to be published;
· Agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved.
Contributors who meet fewer than all 4 of the above criteria for authorship should not be listed as authors, but they should be acknowledged individually. Examples of activities maybe include “acquisition of funding”, “general supervision of a research group or general administrative support”, “writing assistance”, “technical editing”, “language editing”, et al.
2 CONTRIBUTION STATEMENT
Authors submitting to DAKD should list each author at the end of the paper, giving details of who did what in planning, conducting, and reporting the work. Author contributions may involve the following roles or tasks:
· Conception or design of the work;
· Design and implementation of the experiment or the questionnaires;
· Data collection, analysis, and interpretation;
· Drafting the article, critical revision of the article, and final approval of the version to be published.
3 CONFLICTS OF INTEREST STATEMENT
Articles should be published with statements or supporting documents, declaring:
· Authors’ conflicts of interest;
· Sources of support for the work, including sponsor names along with explanations of the role of those sources if any in study design; collection, analysis, and interpretation of data; writing of the report; the decision to submit the report for publication; or a statement declaring that the supporting source had no such involvement; and
· Whether the authors had access to the study data, with an explanation of the nature and extent of access, including whether access is ongoing.
4 CHANGES IN AUTHORSHIP
The journal follows COPE’s Flowcharts when corresponding author requests addition or removal of extra author before publication.
II. Duties of Editors
· The editor should handle submissions in a balanced, objective and fair way, regardless the gender, sexual orientation, religious or political beliefs, ethnic or geographical origin of the authors, so that articles are considered and accepted solely on their academic merit.
· The editor should perform reasonable procedures in the event of complaints of an ethical or conflict nature. To give authors a reasonable opportunity to respond to any complaints. All complaints should be investigated no matter when the original publication was approved. Documentation associated with any such complaints should be retained.
· The editor will be guided by COPE’s guidelines for retracting articles when considering retracting, issuing expressions of concerns, and issuing corrections pertaining to articles that have been published in our journal.
· Editors should preserve anonymity of reviewers.
· Editors and editorial team members are excluded from publication decisions when they are authors or have contributed to a manuscript.
III. PEER REVIEW AND DUTIES OF REVIEWERS
1 THE REVIEW PROCESS
Submitted manuscripts are via an online submission system (http://www.infotech.ac.cn). Articles in DAKD are thoroughly peer reviewed. Generally, a minimum of 2 peer reviewers are chosen for the peer review. DAKD’s review process is as follows:
· The online submission system will automatically send an e-mail to authors if successful submission of a manuscript.
· The review process currently averages at 60 days from submission to acceptance. All submissions to DAKD can be tracked via the online submission system.
· The corresponding author will receive an email from DAKD that asks to revise the manuscript. Authors should be required to submit the revised version and a description document online before the deadline. The description document should address each peer reviews’ comments and specify what corresponding changes you have made in the revised version of your paper.
· Some of the revised version should be double-reviewed.
· As per DAKD policy, no peer review charge to publish your articles in DAKD. Publication fee in DAKD should be full compliance with the National Policy, and it is payable once the article has been accepted for publishing. Meanwhile authors will get paid for the publication.
2 PEER REVIEW STANDARDS
Submitted Manuscripts should comply with DAKD’s Policies and Ethical Guidelines.
DAKD has published the Article Guidelines for Writing and Reviewing Different Article Types.
3 PEER REVIEWERS
· Reviewers should keep manuscripts and the information they contain strictly confidential. Reviewers should declare their relationships and activities that might bias their evaluation of a manuscript and recuse themselves from the peer-review process if a conflict exits. Editors should ask that
· Reviewers decline invitations where circumstances might prevent them writing an unbiased review. Examples of potential conflicts of interest include when they have collaborated with the authors recently, when they are based in the same institution as the authors, when they are in direct competition with the authors, when they have personal conflict or close personal relationship or association with the authors， or when they have a financial interest in the manuscript.
· Reviewers should destroy submitted manuscripts and all related materials after they have reviewed them.
· Reviewers should agree only to peer review manuscripts within their expertise and within a reasonable timeframe.
· Reviewers should not delegate peer review without the permission of the editorial offices.
· Reviewers should not allow their decision on a manuscript to be influenced by its origin or authorship.
· Avoid requesting that the author cites the peer reviewer’s own paper, unless there is a strong scholarly rationale for this.
· Reviewers should not use insulting, hostile, or defamatory language.
IV. Data and Supporting Evidence
All authors are expected to submit supplementary materials (supporting data) to DAKD and provide access to this evidence on reasonable request.
Authors should list supplementary items after the references, and deposit data in a suitable repository or storage location, for sharing and further use by others. We recommend following the Format and style of supporting data for DAKD.
V. SCIENTIFIC MISCONDUCT
Scientific misconduct includes but is not necessarily limited to Plagiarism, Fabrication and Falsification, Duplicate Submission, Redundant Publication, and Undeclared Conflict of Interest. When scientific misconduct is alleged in submitted or published papers, the editor should initiate appropriate procedures in accordance with the guidelines of COPE.
Plagiarism is a form of piracy that involves the unauthorized use or close imitation of the language (figures images or tables) and thoughts of others and the representation of them as one’s own original work without permission or acknowledgment by the author of the source of these materials.
Action for dealing with suspect plagiarism:
· Suspected plagiarism in a submitted manuscript (Link)
· Suspected plagiarism in a published article (Link)
2 FABRICATION AND FALSIFICATION
Fabrication refers to the invention, recording, or reporting of data. Falsification refers to the alteration of research materials, equipment, protocols, data, or results.
Action for dealing with suspect fabricated data
· Suspected fabricated data in a submitted manuscript (Link)
· Suspected fabricated data in a published article (Link)
3 DUPLICATE SUBMISSION AND REDUNDANT PUBLICATION
Duplicate submission refers to the practice of submitting the same manuscript, in the same or different languages, simultaneously to more than one journal. Redundant publication refers to the situation that one study is split into several parts and submitted to two or more journals. Or the findings have previously been published elsewhere without proper cross-referencing, permission or justification. “Self-plagiarism” is considered a form of redundant publication. It concerns recycling or borrowing content from previous work without citation.
Recommended action for dealing with suspect redundant (duplicate) publication
· Suspected redundant publication in a submitted manuscript (Link)
· Suspected redundant publication in a published article (Link)
4 UNDECLARED CONFLICT OF INTEREST
Authors and reviewers should declare all conflicts of interest relevant to the work under consideration (i.e. relationships, both financial and personal, that might interfere with the interpretation of the work) to avoid the potential for bias.
Recommended action for dealing with undeclared conflict of interest
· What to do if a reviewer suspects undisclosed conflict of interest in a submitted manuscript (Link)
· What to do if you suspect a reviewer has appropriated an author’s idea or data (Link)
· What to do if a reader suspects undisclosed conflict of interest in a published article (Link)
DAKD has established and published a mechanism for authors to appeal editorial decision，to facilitate genuine appeals, and to discourage repeated or unfounded appeals.
· Editors should allow appeals to override earlier decisions only when new information becomes available (for example, additional factual input by the authors, revisions, extra material in the manuscript, or appeals about conflicts of interest and concerns about biased peer review). Author protest alone should not affect decisions. Reversals of decisions without new evidence are avoided.
· Editors should mediate all exchanges between authors and peer reviewers during the peer-review process. Editors may seek comments from additional peer reviewers to help them make their final decision.
DAKD encourage readers and authors to notify them if they find errors, especially errors that could affect the interpretation of data or information presented in an article. When an error is identified:
· Journal should work with authors to correct important published errors.
· Journal should publish corrections when important errors are found, and should consider retraction when errors are so fundamental that they invalidate the work.
VIII. RETRACTIONSRetractions publish when errors could affect the interpretation of data or information, or if work is proven to be fraudulent, or in other cases of serious ethical misconduct (for example, duplicate or redundant publication, failure of all authors to agree to publication, or plagiarism). DAKD follow the COPE Guidelines for Retracting Articles.