ACS Publisher

Code of Ethics

General Guidelines for Handling Allegations

Introduction

At ISRR, maintaining the highest standards of integrity in research and publication is of paramount importance. To ensure that all allegations of misconduct are handled promptly, fairly, and transparently, we have established comprehensive guidelines for addressing such complaints.

Reporting Allegations

If you suspect any form of misconduct related to a publication in ISRR, you are encouraged to report your concerns to our Managing Editor team or the Senior Editorial Office's Ethics Committee. The Managing Editor team consists of:

Alternatively, complaints can be directed to the Senior Editorial Office's Ethics Committee at:

Initial Assessment

Receiving the Allegation

Upon receiving an allegation, the editorial office will conduct an initial assessment process to determine whether the concern relates to issues of publishing ethics. This process involves:

  1. Reviewing the Nature of the Allegation: Identifying if the concern involves authorship disputes, plagiarism, duplicate publication, misappropriation of research data or results, research errors, falsification, image manipulation, violations of research standards, conflicts of interest, or reviewer misconduct.

  2. Collecting Preliminary Information: Gathering preliminary information provided by the complainant to understand the context and specifics of the allegation. This may include copies of relevant documents, communications, and any supporting evidence.

Confidentiality and Anonymity

The editorial office will maintain confidentiality throughout the process to protect the identities of all parties involved. Should the complainant wish to remain anonymous, the editorial office will respect this preference while ensuring that a fair and thorough investigation can be conducted.

Formal Investigation

Notification and Response

If the initial assessment indicates that the allegation warrants further investigation, the following steps will be implemented:

  1. Notification of Relevant Parties: The corresponding author of the publication in question will be notified by the editorial office and requested to provide a response within a specified timeframe.

  2. Formation of an Investigation Committee: An investigation committee composed of experts with no conflicts of interest regarding the case will be formed to conduct a thorough investigation.

Evidence Collection

The investigation committee will gather all relevant documents, communications, and data related to the allegation. This may involve:

  • Reviewing Submitted Materials: Examining the manuscript, data, images, and any supplementary materials associated with the publication.
  • Conducting Interviews: Speaking with the complainant, the accused, and any other relevant individuals to gather additional information and perspectives.

Decision-Making Process

The investigation committee will review all collected evidence and statements to determine the validity of the allegation. The decision-making process includes:

  1. Evaluation of Evidence: Assessing the credibility and weight of the evidence presented.
  2. Consensus Building: Reaching a consensus on whether the allegation is substantiated or unsubstantiated.
  3. Recommendation of Actions: Recommending appropriate actions based on the findings, which may include corrections, retractions, or other measures.

Communication of Findings

The findings of the investigation will be communicated to all relevant parties, including the complainant and the accused. This communication will include:

  1. Summary of Findings: Providing a detailed summary of the investigation's findings and the rationale for the decision.
  2. Recommended Actions: Describing any recommended actions and the steps that will be taken to implement them.
  3. Appeal Process: Informing about the process for appealing the decision, if applicable.

Implementation of Actions

The recommended actions will be implemented promptly to address the issue and prevent future occurrences. This may involve:

  • Corrections or Retractions: Issuing corrections or retractions in the journal as necessary.
  • Policy Changes: Implementing changes to editorial policies or procedures to prevent similar issues in the future.
  • Disciplinary Actions: Taking disciplinary actions against individuals found to have committed misconduct, which may include a ban on future submissions.
  • Public Notification: Notifying the academic community about the misconduct through a notice in an appropriate section of the journal.
  • Institutional Notification: Informing the institution(s) affiliated with the author(s) involved in the misconduct.

Documentation and Reporting

All steps of the investigation process will be thoroughly documented to ensure transparency and accountability. This documentation includes:

  • Records of Communication: Keeping detailed records of all communications related to the allegation.
  • Investigation Reports: Maintaining comprehensive reports of the investigation findings and decisions.
  • Annual Reporting: Including summaries of misconduct cases and their resolutions in annual reports to the journal's editorial board.

By adhering to these guidelines, ISRR aims to uphold the integrity of the research and publication process, ensuring that all authors, reviewers, and editors are held to the highest ethical standards.

Types of Allegations and Their Handling

For specific types of allegations, please refer to the following pages: