Publication Ethics

The Journal of Dynamics, Monitoring and Diagnostics follows the core practices of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and handles cases of research and publication misconduct accordingly.

Ethical Guidelines for Authors

1. The Journal of Dynamics, Monitoring and Diagnostics does not allow dual publication (the same material published twice in the peer-reviewed literature), or dual submission (the same material simultaneously submitted to more than one journal).

2. The Journal of Dynamics, Monitoring and Diagnostics does not tolerate plagiarism, data or figure manipulation, knowingly providing incorrect information, inaccurate author attributions, failures to declare conflicts of interest and fraud. This list is not well-rounded - if there is the uncertainty of what constitutes such actions, then more resources may be found at the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

3. Conflict of Interests

All authors must disclose all relationships or interests that could inappropriately influence or bias their work. Examples of potential conflicts of interest include but are not limited to financial interests (such as membership, employment, consultancies, stocks/shares ownership, honoraria, grants or other funding, paid expert testimonies and patent-licensing arrangements) and non-financial interests (such as personal or professional relationships, affiliations, personal beliefs).

Authors should declare any and all conflicts involving myself or my co-authors in the "Comments for the Editor" field via the online submission system.

If no conflicts exist, the authors should state: the authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Ethical Guidelines for Journal Editors

Journal editors are requested to adhere to the COPE Code of Conduct and Best Practice Guidelines for Journal editors and following ethical guidelines:

Journal editors should:
• strive to ensure that peer review at their journal is fair, unbiased and timely.
• ensure that all published reports and reviews of research have been reviewed by suitably qualified reviewers. 
• make decisions to accept or reject a paper for publication should be based on the paper’s importance, originality and clarity, and the study’s validity and its relevance to the scope of the journal without interference from the journal owner/publisher or other third parties.
• require reviewers to disclose any potential competing interests before agreeing to review a submission.
•  keep the peer-review process confidential, information or correspondence about a manuscript should not be shared with anyone outside of the peer review process.

Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers

Reviewers are strongly recommended to comply with the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers and adhere to the following ethical guidelines: 

Peer reviewers should:
• only agree to review manuscripts for which they have the subject expertise required to carry out a proper assessment and which they can assess in a timely manner.
• respect the confidentiality of peer review and do not reveal any details of a manuscript or its review, during or after the peer-review process, beyond those that are released by the journal.
• not use information obtained during the peer-review process for their own or any other person’s or organization’s advantage, or to disadvantage or discredit others.
• declare all potential conflicting interests, seeking advice from the journal if they are unsure whether something constitutes a relevant interest.
• not allow their reviews to be influenced by the origins of a manuscript, by the nationality, religious or political beliefs, gender or other characteristics of the authors, or by commercial considerations.
• be objective and constructive in their reviews, refraining from being hostile or inflammatory and from making libellous or derogatory personal comments.
• acknowledge that peer review is largely a reciprocal endeavour and undertake to carry out their fair share of reviewing and in a timely manner.
• provide journals with personal and professional information that is accurate and a true representation of their expertise.
• recognize that impersonation of another individual during the review process is considered serious misconduct.