Code of Ethic

AUTHORS

Research reported should have been conducted in an ethical and responsible manner and should comply with all relevant legislation.

Presented results should be clear, honest and without fabrication, falsification or inappropriate data manipulation.

Research methods should be clear and unambiguous so that findings can be confirmed by others.

Adhere to publication requirements that submitted work is original, is not plagiarised, and has not been published elsewhere.

Take individual and collective responsibility for submitted and published work.

Accurately reflect individuals’ contributions to the work and its reporting.

Disclose funding sources and relevant conflicts of interest when exist.

Check manuscripts for possible breaches of copyright law (e.g. where permissions are needed for quotations, artwork or tables taken from other publications) and secure the necessary permissions before submission.

Avoid anything in the text of the manuscript that might be legally actionable, such as defamation.

Avoid sexist and biased language that could be interpreted as denigrating to others; e.g. use plural rather than single pronouns (“they” rather than “he”) are recommended.

Be prompt with manuscript revisions. If an Author cannot meet the deadline given, the Author should contact the Executive Editor as soon as possible to determine whether a longer time period or withdrawal from the review process should be chosen.


EDITORS
Adopt peer-review methods best suited for the journal and the research community it serves.

Ensure that all published reports of research have been reviewed by suitably qualified reviewers.

Ensure that non-peer-reviewed sections of the journal are clearly identified.

Encourage reviewers to ensure the originality of submissions and be alert to redundant publication and plagiarism.

Ensure that appropriate reviewers are selected for to review each submission.

Encourage reviewers to comment on ethical questions and possible research misconduct raised by each submission.

 

REVIEWERS
Inform editors of possible fabrication, falsification, misconduct or inappropriate data manipulation.

Explain accurately the reasons why a submission is declined.

Conduct reviews objectively. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate.

Identify and suggest key research publications not cited by the authors, if this is the case.

Refuse to review a manuscript if there is a potential conflict of interest.

If asked to review a manuscript they have previously reviewed, reviewers should make that prior review known to the MAJ, unless it is clear that they are being asked to provide a reappraisal.

Evaluate manuscripts objectively, fairly and professionally. Reviewers should avoid personal biases in their comments and judgments.

Be prompt with reviews. If a reviewer cannot meet the deadline given, the reviewer should contact the Executive Editor as soon as possible to determine whether a longer time period or a new Reviewer should be chosen.

Peer Review Process | Author Guidelines