Publication Ethics and Publication Malpractice Statement


The Journal of Facility Management follows the TU Wien ‘Code of Conduct’[1]. Authors are themselves responsible for the scientific reliability of their publications.

The journal is indexed in DOAJ. As such, it follows the COPE Code of Conduct and Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors[2].

In addition, as a journal follows the COPE Code of Conduct for Journal Publishers[3]. It is expected of authors, reviewers and editors follow the best-practice guidelines on ethical behaviour contained therein.

A selection of key points is included below, but you should always refer to the three documents listed above for full details:

Scientific publication1

Authors are themselves responsible for the scientific reliability of their publications.

Publications reporting on new scientific results should describe those results and the methods applied completely and comprehensibly and account completely and correctly for prior work by the relevant scientist and by others. Results already published earlier should only be repeated in clearly disclosed form and only where it is necessary for contextual understanding.

Where several persons are involved in research work or in publications based on it then only such persons may be cited as authors and co-authors as have themselves significantly contributed to the design of the studies or experiments, to elaboration, analysis or interpretation of data or to production of the manuscript and have consented to its publication. Management of an organisational unit, of a research project or a working group is no more to be considered authorship than participation in data collection or in financing of the research project. So-called "honorary" authorship is expressly barred.

All co-authors should confirm clearance of a manuscript for publication with their signatures. Where the nature and scope of the research activity or the number of contributing authors so permits it should also be clarified what contribution each individual person has made.

If unpublished observations of other persons are cited in the manuscript, or if findings by other institutions are used then, with reservation made for other recognised practices specific to a particular discipline, their written consent must be obtained in advance.

By consenting to be cited as co-authors, the latter assume a share of responsibility that the co-authored publication meets the requirements of scientific standards. This applies especially to the field to which the co-authors have contributed; they are responsible both for the correctness of their own contribution as well as responsible for the fact that that contribution has been incorporated in the publication in a scientifically defensible manner.

Publications on the Internet and the use of Internet sources are subject to the same regulations as other publications and sources.

Duties of Editors2

Conflicts of interest

The defined processes make sure that editors have systems for managing their own conflicts of interest as well as those of their staff, authors, reviewers and editorial board members.. Editors publishes lists of relevant interests (academic and other kinds) of all editorial staff and members of editorial boards (which will be updated at least annually).

Fair play and editorial independence

Editors evaluate submitted manuscripts exclusively on the basis of their academic merit (importance, originality, study’s validity, clarity) and its relevance to the journal’s scope, without regard to the authors’ race, gender, sexual orientation, ethnic origin, citizenship, religious belief, political philosophy or institutional affiliation. Decisions to edit and publish are not determined by the policies of governments or any other agencies outside of the journal itself. The Editor-in-Chief has full authority over the entire editorial content of the journal and the timing of publication of that content. 

Confidentiality

Editors and editorial staff will 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.

Publication decisions

The editors ensure that all submitted manuscripts being considered for publication undergo peer-review by at least two reviewers who are expert in the field. The Editor-in-Chief is responsible for deciding which of the manuscripts submitted to the journal will be published, based on the validation of the work in question, its importance to researchers and readers, the reviewers’ comments, and such legal requirements as are currently in force regarding libel, copyright infringement and plagiarism. The Editor-in-Chief may confer with other editors or reviewers in making this decision.

Involvement and cooperation in investigations

Editors (in conjunction with the publisher and/or society) will take responsive measures when ethical concerns are raised with regard to a submitted manuscript or published paper. Every reported act of unethical publishing behaviour will be looked into, even if it is discovered years after publication.

Duties of Reviewers

Contribution to editorial decisions

Peer review assists  in making editorial decisions and, through editorial communications with authors, may assist authors in improving their manuscripts. Peer review is an essential component of formal scholarly communication and lies at the heart of scientific endeavour.

Promptness

Any invited referee who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should immediately notify the editors and decline the invitation to review so that alternative reviewers can be contacted.

Confidentiality

Any manuscripts received for review are confidential documents and must be treated as such; they must not be shown to or discussed with others except if authorized by the Editor-in-Chief (who would only do so under exceptional and specific circumstances). This applies also to invited reviewers who decline the review invitation.

Standards of objectivity

Reviews should be conducted objectively and observations formulated clearly with supporting arguments so that authors can use them for improving the manuscript. Personal criticism of the authors is inappropriate.

Duties of the Publisher3

Handling of unethical publishing behaviour

In cases of alleged or proven scientific misconduct, fraudulent publication or plagiarism, the publisher, in close collaboration with the editors, will take all appropriate measures to clarify the situation and to amend the article in question. This includes the prompt publication of an erratum, clarification or, in the most severe case, the retraction of the affected work.  The publisher, together with the editors, shall take reasonable steps to identify and prevent the publication of papers where research misconduct has occurred, and under no circumstances encourage such misconduct or knowingly allow such misconduct to take place.

 

[1] TU Wien Code of Conduct: https://www.tuwien.at/index.php?eID=dms&s=4&path=Richtlinien%2520und%2520Verordnungen/Code%2520of%2520Conduct%2520fuer%2520wissenschaftliches%2520Arbeiten.pdf

[2] COPE Code of Conduct and Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors: https://publicationethics.org/files/Code_of_conduct_for_journal_editors_Mar11.pdf

[3] COPE Code of Conduct for Journal Publishers: https://publicationethics.org/files/Code%20of%20conduct%20for%20publishers%20FINAL_1_0.pdf