The publication process in a peer reviewed scientific journal is not only a simple communication, but a building block in the development of science. Thus, it is important to lay down standards of expected ethical behaviour by all parties involved in the act of publishing: the author, the journal editor, the peer reviewer, the publisher and the audience of Cardiometry journal. To know more, please visit COPE Guidelines
1. Duties of Editors
1.1. Publication decision – The Editor of Cardiometry is solely and independently responsible for deciding which of the articles submitted to the journal should be published. The validation of the work in question and its importance to researchers and readers must always underwrite such decisions. The Editor may be guided by the policies of Cardiometry journal’s editorial board and constrained by such legal requirements as shall then be in force regarding libel, copyright infringement and plagiarism. The editor may confer with other editors or reviewers in making this decision.
1.2. Fair play – An editor should evaluate manuscripts for their intellectual content without regard to race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy of the authors.
1.3. Confidentiality – The editor and any editorial staff of Cardiometry must not disclose any information about a submitted manuscript to anyone other than the corresponding author, reviewers, potential reviewers, other editorial advisers, and the publisher, as appropriate.
1.4. Disclosure and Conflicts of interest
1.4.1. Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in an editor’s own research without the express written consent of the author. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage.
1.4.2. Editors should recuse themselves from considering manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or (possibly) institutions connected to the papers. As for editor’s own submissions, please see Policy for submissions by the editorial team members section for more details. Editors are also asked to declare possible conflict of interest that might interfere with their objective assessment of a manuscript. Any conflict of interest must be available during the editorial process.
1.5. Vigilance over published record – An editor presented with convincing evidence that the substance or conclusions of a published paper are erroneous should coordinate with the publisher to promote the prompt publication of a correction, retraction, expression of concern, or other note, as may be relevant.
1.6. Involvement and cooperation in investigations – An editor should take reasonably responsive measures when ethical complaints have been presented concerning a submitted manuscript or published paper, in conjunction with the publisher. Such measures will generally include contacting the author of the manuscript or paper and giving due consideration of the respective complaint or claims made, but may also include further communications to the relevant institutions and research bodies.
2. Duties of Reviewers
2.1. Contribution to Editorial Decisions – Peer review assists the editor in making editorial decisions and through the editorial communications with the author may also assist the author in improving the paper. Peer review is an essential component of formal scholarly communication, and lies at the heart of the scientific method. Publisher shares the view of many that all scholars who wish to contribute to publications have an obligation to do a fair share of reviewing.
2.2. Promptness – Any selected referee who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should notify the editor of Cardiometry and excuse himself from the review process.
2.3. Confidentiality – Any manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. They must not be shown to or discussed with others except as authorised by the editor. Reviewers are required to treat manuscripts fairly and in confidence.
2.4. Standard and objectivity – Reviews should be conducted objectively. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate. Referees should express their views clearly with supporting arguments.
2.5. Acknowledgement of Sources – Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors. Any statement that an observation, derivation, or argument had been previously reported should be accompanied by the relevant citation. A reviewer should also call to the editor’s attention any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published paper of which they have personal knowledge.
2.6. Disclosure and Conflict of Interest
2.6.1. Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in a reviewer’s own research without the express written consent of the author. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage.
2.6.2. Reviewers should not consider manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers. We ask Reviewers to declare such conflicts of interest that might interfere with their objective assessment of a manuscript. Any conflict of interest must be available to editors during the editorial process.
3. Duties of Authors
3.1. Reporting standards - Authors of reports of original research should present an accurate account of the work performed as well as an objective discussion of its significance. Underlying data should be represented accurately in the paper. A paper should contain sufficient detail and references to permit others to replicate the work. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behaviour and are unacceptable. Reports, Reviews and Original Research articles should also be accurate and objective, and Editorials should be clearly identified as such.
3.2. Data Access and Retention – Authors may be asked to provide the raw data in connection with a paper for editorial review, and should be prepared to provide public access to such data (consistent with the ALPSP-STM Statement on Data and Databases), if practicable, and should in any event be prepared to retain such data for a reasonable time after publication.
3.3. Originality - Authors should ensure that they have written entirely original works, and if the authors have used the work and/or words of others, this has been appropriately cited or quoted.
3.4 Scientific misconduct
Scientific misconduct is defined as "the violation of the standard codes of scholarly conduct and ethical behavior in professional scientific research". If a substantial doubt arises about the honesty or integrity of the scientific report, the Editor will follow the principles formulated by COPE.
Authors should avoid the following forms of scientific misconduct:
Fabrication is making up primary documentation and study results and recording or reporting them; deceptive selective reporting of findings; omission of conflicting data; or willful suppression and/or distortion of data. A more minor form of fabrication is where references are included to give arguments the appearance of widespread acceptance, but are actually fake, and/or do not support the argument.
Falsification is manipulating research materials, equipment, or processes or changing or omitting data or results such that the research is not accurately represented in the research record. Violations of generally accepted research practices, deceptive statistical or analytical manipulations. Deliberate misinterpretation of qualifications, experience, or research accomplishments in order to advance research program, to obtain external funding, or for other professional advancement. Failure to comply with legislative and regulatory requirements.
Plagiarism is the appropriation of another person's ideas, thoughts, processes, results, or words without giving appropriate credit and representation of them as one's own original work. Plagiarism takes many forms, from ‘passing off’ another’s paper as the author’s own paper, to copying or paraphrasing substantial parts of another’s paper (without attribution), to claiming results from research conducted by others. A subset is citation plagiarism – willful or negligent failure to appropriately credit other or prior discoverers, so as to give an improper impression of priority. Arguably, this is the most common type of scientific misconduct. Self-plagiarism is multiple publication of the same content with different titles and/or in different journals is sometimes also considered misconduct; It is not regarded in the same light as the plagiarism of the ideas and words of other individuals. It is referred to as "salami" (i.e. many identical slices) in the jargon of International Committee of medical journal editors (ICMJE). According to some ICMJE this includes publishing the same article in a different language. Plagiarism in all its forms constitutes unethical publishing behaviour and is unacceptable.
3.5. Overlapping publications - Multiple, Redundant or Concurrent Publication
In the Cover letter, the author(s) should state that neither the manuscript nor a manuscript with similar content has been published or being considered for publication, i.e. inform the Editor about all previous submissions of the manuscript, including:
3.5.1. Duplicate submission. Submission of a manuscript which has already been submitted to or printed in other journals is prohibited.
3.5.2. Redundant publication. An author should not in general publish manuscripts describing essentially the same research and overlapping substantially the previous papers already published in print or electronic media in more than one journal. It constitutes unethical publishing behaviour and is unacceptable.
3.5.3. Publication of some kinds of articles (eg, reprints) in more than one journal is sometimes justifiable, provided certain conditions are met. The authors and editors of the journals concerned must agree to the secondary publication, which must reflect the same data and interpretation of the primary document. The primary reference must be cited in the secondary publication. Further detail on acceptable forms of secondary publication can be found at www.icmje.org.
3.6.1. Authorship should be limited to those who have made a significant contribution to the conception, design, execution, or interpretation of the reported study. All those who have made significant contributions should be listed as co-authors. Where there are others who have participated in certain substantive aspects of the research project, they should be acknowledged or listed as contributors.
3.6.2. The corresponding author should ensure that all appropriate co-authors and no inappropriate co-authors are included on the paper, and that all co-authors have seen and approved the final version of the paper and have agreed to its submission for publication. The corresponding author must sign the Cover letter confirming that all persons who have contributed substantially are identified as authors and that written permission from each author has been obtained. The author information is provided in the Title page of the Manuscript in the format provided in the Template file and contains the following: authors' full names, institutional affiliations, and positions. For corresponding author, the full contact details are specified, including e-mail address, telephone number, and mailing address. The corresponding author will serve on behalf of all coauthors as the primary correspondent with the editorial office during the submission and review process. If the manuscript is accepted, the corresponding author will review an edited typescript and proof and will be identified as the corresponding author in the published article. Each author should have participated sufficiently in the work to take public responsibility for appropriate portions of the content. The corresponding author should take responsibility for the integrity of the work as a whole, from inception to published article.
Providing Authors' Contributions information is strongly recommended. Ghost or guest authorship should be avoided. The contributions of authors to the manuscript should be specified in the Authors' Contributions section in the body of the Manuscript. (Suggestion: AB carried defined the aim of research and the design of experiment. CD carried out the experiments. EF participated in the design of the study and performed the statistical analysis. GH coordinated and helped to draft the manuscript. IJ contributed to the writing of the manuscript. KL read and met the ICMJE criteria for authorship. All authors read and approved the final manuscript). When the manuscript is authored by a group of authors, all the group members should fully qualify for the authorship. Authorship credit could be based on: 1) contributions to conception and design of the study, or analysis and interpretation of the data; 2) drafting the article or revising it critically for important intellectual content; 3) final approval of the version to be published.
Cardiometry follows the ICMJE's Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts Submitted to Biomedical Journals. You may get more information on authorship criteria.
The minimum requirement for authorship should accord with the "Vancouver Protocol" as set out in the fifth edition of the Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts Submitted to Biomedical Journals.
Cardiometry follows the COPE guidelines covering changes in authorship. Please note that if any changes to the list of authors of a manuscript are necessary after the initial submission of a manuscript but before its publication, the corresponding author must first contact the Editorial board and provide a clear reason and written confirmation for the change(s).
3.7. Acknowledgement of Sources – Proper acknowledgment of the work of others must always be given. Authors should cite publications that have been influential in determining the nature of the reported work. Information obtained privately, as in conversation, correspondence, or discussion with third parties, must not be used or reported without explicit, written permission from the source. Information obtained in the course of confidential services, such as refereeing manuscripts or grant applications, must not be used without the explicit written permission of the author of the work involved in these services. Please acknowledge all contributors (individual/company/institution) who do not meet the criteria for authorship, but provided purely technical help, financial and material support, assisted with study design, data analysis, or manuscript preparation. Their function or contribution should be described – for example, "served as scientific advisors", "critically reviewed the study proposal", "collected data", or "provided and cared for study participants". These persons should give written permission to be acknowledged. Acknowledgement section should be included in the Manuscript after the Conflict of interest statement. The corresponding author is responsible for ensuring that the Acknowledgment section of the manuscript is complete.
3.8. Hazards and Human or Animal Subjects
3.8.1. If the work involves chemicals, procedures or equipment that have any unusual hazards inherent in their use, the author must clearly identify these in the manuscript.
3.8.2. If the work involves the use of animal or human subjects, the author should ensure that the manuscript contains a statement that all procedures were performed in compliance with relevant laws and institutional guidelines and that the appropriate institutional committee(s) have approved them. Authors should include a statement in the manuscript that informed consent was obtained for experimentation with human subjects. Authors should indicate whether the procedures followed were in accordance with the ethical standards of the responsible committee on human experimentation (institutional and national) and with the Helsinki Declaration of 1975, as revised in 2008. If doubt exists whether the research was conducted in accordance with the Helsinki Declaration, the authors must explain the rationale for their approach and demonstrate that the institutional review body explicitly approved the doubtful aspects of the study. Authors should be able to submit, upon request, a statement from the research ethics committee indicating the approval of the research. We also encourage authors to submit a sample of patient consent form as supplementary material. Patients have a right to privacy that should not be infringed without informed consent. Identifying information should not be published in written descriptions, photographs, and pedigrees unless the information is essential for scientific purposes and the patient (or parent or guardian) gives written informed consent for publication. Informed consent must be obtained (or the reason for lack of consent explained, e.g. the data were analyzed anonymously). If data is changed to protect anonymity, authors should provide assurance that alterations of the data do not distort scientific meaning. The use of informed consent must be stated in the Material and Method section. If informed consent was oral the following information must be provided in the Material and Method section: the reason for the impossibility to obtain the written consent; the committee board approved the use of oral consent; the method used to document the consent. If necessary, the journal may request this written informed consent from the authors.
When reporting experiments on animals, Authors must include in Material and Method section details of animal welfare and steps taken to ameliorate suffering whenever animals were studied. The institution that approved the study must be named, and it must be stated in the paper that the study was conducted adhering to the institution's guidelines for animal research.
Cardiometry adheres to ethical standards of publishing medical research. Our requirements are based on the relevant Russian standards (if the studies were fully or partly performed in Russia), Good Clinical Practice principles, Declaration of Helsinki, Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts Submitted to Biomedical Journals.
3.9. Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest – Cardiometry uses COI ICMJE standard form, authors should download and fill it in.
3.9.1. All authors should disclose in their manuscript any financial or other substantive conflict of interest that might be construed to influence the results or interpretation of their manuscript. All sources of financial support for the project should be disclosed.
3.9.2. Examples of potential conflicts of interest which should be disclosed include employment, consultancies, stock ownership, honoraria, paid expert testimony, patent applications/registrations, and grants or other funding. Potential conflicts of interest should be disclosed at the earliest possible stage. Authors must state all other relationships that might lead to bias or a conflict of interest and constitute an embarrassment to any of the authors if it were not to be declared and were to emerge after publication. Such conflicts might include, but are not limited to, shareholding in or receipt of a grant or consultancy fee from a company whose product features in the submitted manuscript or which manufactures a competing product.
If there is no conflict of interest, this should also be explicitly stated as none declared. All relevant conflicts of interest and sources of funding, generated by COI form, will be included in the appropriate section of the manuscript with the heading “Conflicts of Interest” and reflected in the manuscript. For example: Conflicts of Interest: A has received honoraria from Company Z. B is currently receiving a grant (#12345) from Organization Y, and is on the speaker’s bureau for Organization X – the CME organizers for Company A. For the remaining authors none were declared.
The corresponding author must ensure in the Cover letter that the conflict of interest disclosures reported in the COI form are accurate, up-to-date, and consistent with the information provided for each author. Cardiometry Cover letter is an adopted version of ICMJE Form for Disclosure of Conflicts of Interest. Please download and fill in the COI form, Cover letter, sign it and submit with the Manuscript
3.10. Fundamental errors in published works – When an author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in a published work, it is the author’s obligation to promptly notify the editor of Cardiometry journal and cooperate with Publisher to retract or correct the paper, If the editor or the publisher learn from a third party that a published work contains a significant error, it is the obligation of the author to promptly retract or correct the paper.
4. Duties of the Publisher
4.1. Publisher has a supporting, investing and nurturing role in the scholarly communication process but is also ultimately responsible for ensuring that best practice is followed in its publications.
4.2. Publisher takes its duties of guardianship over the scholarly record extremely seriously. Our journal programs record «the minutes of science» and we recognize our responsibilities as the keeper of those «minutes» in all our policies not least the ethical guidelines that we have here adopted.
4.3. Publisher should adopt policies and procedures that support editors, reviewers and authors of Cardiometry in performing their ethical duties under these ethics guidelines. The publisher should ensure that the potential for advertising or reprint revenue has no impact or influence on editorial decisions.
4.4. The publisher should support Cardiometry journal editors in the review of complaints raised concerning ethical issues and help communications with other journals and/or publishers where this is useful to editors.
4.5. Publisher should develop codes of practice and inculcate industry standards for best practice on ethical matters, errors and retractions.
4.6. Publisher should provide specialised legal review and counsel if necessary.
Cardiometry adheres to ethical standards formulated by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), World Association of Medical Editors (WAME), recommendations of Elsevier publisher, ICMJE, EASE, EQUATOR, Singapore statement on research integrity
Responses to possible misconduct
Cardiometry staff investigates all allegations of scientific misconduct and reserves the right to contact all interested parties if needed. If we find conclusive evidence of misconduct we will take steps to correct the scientific record, which may include issuing a correction or retraction.
All allegations of misconduct will be addressed to the Editor-In-Chief. Initial fact-finding should include a written request to all the interested parties and explain the circumstances. All allegations should be kept confidential. The Editor-In-Chief may confidentially consult experts who are blinded to the identity of the individuals. If allegations concern authors, the peer review and publication process for the manuscript in question will be halted while the process above is carried out. The investigation will be completed even if the authors withdraw their paper. In the case of allegations against reviewers or editors, they will be replaced in the review process while the matter is investigated. Editors or reviewers who are found to have engaged in scientific misconduct should be removed from further association with the journal.
If the inquiry concludes there is a reasonable possibility of misconduct, responses should be undertaken and their implementation should depend on the circumstances of the case and severity of misconduct. For example, a letter of explanation can be sent only to the person against whom the complaint is made, or the paper can be withdrawn or retracted from the journal, informing readers and indexing authorities. It’s up to the Editor-In-Chief’s final decision.