PUBLICATION ETHICS AND MALPRACTICE STATEMENT
(The publication ethics and malpractice statement are based on COPE’s code of conduct and best practice guidelines for journal editors)
ETHICAL GUIDELINES FOR JOURNAL PUBLICATION
The peer-reviewed Hong Kong Journal of Radiology (HKJR) is the official publication of the Hong Kong College of Radiologists. The publication of an article in the HKJR is a direct reflection of the quality of the work of the authors and the institutions that support them. Peer-reviewed articles support and embody the scientific method. It is therefore important to agree upon standards of expected ethical behaviour for all parties involved in the act of publishing: the author, the journal editor, the peer reviewer, the publisher, the society and the association.
Hong Kong Academy of Medicine Press as publisher of the Hong Kong Journal of Radiology takes its duties of guardianship over all stages of publishing seriously and we recognise our ethical and other responsibilities.
We are committed to ensuring that advertising, reprint or other commercial revenue has no impact or influence on editorial decisions. In addition, the Hong Kong Academy of Medicine Press and Editorial Board of the HKJR will assist in communications with other journals and/or publishers where this is useful and necessary.
DUTIES OF EDITORIAL BOARD
Publication Decisions
The Editorial Board is responsible for deciding which of the manuscripts submitted to the journal should be published. The Editor-in-Chief's decision to accept or reject a paper for publication is based on its importance, originality, clarity, and its relevance to the scope of the journal.
Fair Play
The Editorial Board and the reviewers evaluate manuscripts for their intellectual content without regard to the author’s race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, religious beliefs, citizenship, or political ideology.
Confidentiality
The Editorial Board must ensure that all material submitted to the journal remains confidential while under review. The Editorial Board and the editorial staff must not disclose any information about the submitted manuscript to anyone other than the corresponding author, reviewers, other editorial advisers, and the publisher.
Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest
Unpublished materials disclosed in the submitted manuscript must not be used by the Editorial Board in their own research without the express written consent of the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. Editors should recuse themselves (i.e. should ask a Co-Chief Editor, Editors or other member of the editorial board instead to review and consider) 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. Editors should require all contributors to disclose relevant competing interests and publish corrections if competing interests are revealed after publication. If needed, other appropriate action should be taken, such as the publication of a retraction or expression of concern.
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 (or society). 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, and if the complaint is upheld, the publication of a correction, retraction, expression of concern, or other note, as may be relevant. Every reported act of unethical publishing behaviour must be looked into, even if it is discovered years after publication.
DUTIES OF REVIEWERS
Contribution to Editorial Decisions
The peer review process assists the Editorial Board in making editorial decisions and helps the author to improve their manuscript.
Promptness
Any reviewer who feels unqualified to review the manuscript or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should contact the Editorial Board so as to excuse himself from the review process.
Confidentiality
Any manuscripts received for review should be treated with strict confidentiality. They must not be shown to or discussed with others except when authorised by the Editor-in-Chief.
Standards of Objectivity
Reviews should be conducted objectively. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate. Reviewers should express their views clearly, with supporting arguments.
Acknowledgement of Sources
Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the author. Any similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published paper should be reported to the Editor-in-Chief.
Disclosure and Conflict of Interest
Privileged information or ideas obtained through the peer review process must be kept confidential and must not be used for personal advantage. Reviewers should not consider manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other connection with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the manuscript.
DUTIES OF AUTHORS
Reporting Standards
The authors of manuscripts 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 manuscript. The manuscript should contain sufficient details and references to permit others to replicate the study. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behaviour and are unacceptable.
Data Access and Retention
The authors may be asked to provide the raw data of their investigations for editorial review, and should be prepared to provide public access to such data for a reasonable period of time after the publication of their paper.
Originality and Plagiarism
The authors should ensure that they have written entirely their own original work, and if they have used the work and/or words of others, it needs to be cited or quoted.
Multiple, Redundant or Concurrent Publication
The authors should not submit manuscripts describing essentially the same research in more than one journal or primary publication. Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal concurrently constitutes unethical publishing behaviour and is unacceptable.
Acknowledgement of Sources
The proper acknowledgment of the work of others must always be given. The authors should cite publications that have been influential in determining the nature of the reported work.
Authorship of the Paper
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 contributions should be listed as co-authors. The corresponding author should ensure that all appropriate co-authors and no inappropriate co-authors are listed in 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.
Fundamental Errors in Published Works
When the author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in his/her own published work, it is the author’s obligation to promptly notify the journal as well as to cooperate with the Editor-in-Chief to retract or correct the paper.
Disclosure and conflicts of interest
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. 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 stage possible.
Statement of human and animal rights
When reporting experiments on 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 2000. 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. When reporting experiments on animals, authors should be asked to indicate whether the institutional and national guide for the care and use of laboratory animals was followed.