Ethics Code

Publication Ethics and Publication Malpractice Statement

February 2023

Publication Ethics and Publication Malpractice Statement

The ESG Law Review its publisher, Editora Alumni, have applied to join the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). As a result, the journal adheres to COPE's Code of Conduct and guidelines for journal editors and publishers. Additionally, being a journal that follows the ICMJE's recommendations for conducting, reporting, editing, and publishing scholarly work in medical journals, authors, reviewers, and editors are expected to follow the ethical behavior guidelines outlined in these recommendations. The following is a brief summary of important points, but for complete information, refer to the three documents mentioned.

Duties of Editors

Fair play and editorial independence

The editors assess submitted manuscripts solely based on their academic value (significance, creativity, accuracy, and clarity) and its alignment with the journal's scope, ignoring the authors' demographic characteristics such as race, gender, sexual orientation, ethnicity, citizenship, religion, political views, or institutional affiliation. The publication choices are not influenced by the policies of external governments or organizations and are solely under the control of the Editor-in-Chief, who has complete authority over the journal's editorial content and its publication schedule.

Confidentiality

Editors and editorial team members will maintain confidentiality and not reveal any details about a submitted manuscript to anyone except the corresponding author, reviewers, potential reviewers, other editorial consultants, and the publisher as necessary.

Disclosure and conflicts of interest

Editors and members of the editorial board will not use any confidential information revealed in a submitted manuscript for their own research without obtaining written permission from the authors. They will keep private any privileged information or concepts gained through handling the manuscript and will not use it for personal gain. If editors have a conflict of interest with the authors, companies, or institutions related to the paper due to competition, collaboration, or other connections, they will recuse themselves and ask another member of the editorial board to review the manuscript.

 Publication decisions

The editors make sure that all manuscripts under consideration for publication undergo a peer-review process conducted by at least two experts in the field. The Editor-in-Chief is responsible for determining which submitted manuscripts will be published, taking into account the validity of the work, its significance to researchers and readers, the reviewers' feedback, and any relevant legal requirements such as libel, copyright infringement, and plagiarism. The Editor-in-Chief may seek advice from other editors or reviewers when making this decision.

Involvement and cooperation in investigations

Editors, in collaboration with the publisher and/or society, will take appropriate action when any ethical concerns are raised regarding a submitted manuscript or published paper. Any reported unethical behavior in publishing will be thoroughly investigated, even if it is discovered years after publication. The editors of this journal follow the COPE Flowcharts when handling cases of suspected misconduct. If the investigation confirms the ethical issue, a correction, retraction, expression of concern, or other necessary statement will be published in the journal.

Duties of Reviewers

Contribution to editorial decisions

Peer review helps editors make decisions about what to publish and, through communication with authors, can help authors improve their manuscripts. It is a critical component of scholarly communication and a key aspect of scientific research. ESG Law Review, like many others, believes that all scholars who want to participate in the scientific process have a responsibility to contribute to the review process fairly.

Promptness

If an invited reviewer feels they are not qualified to assess the research in a manuscript or knows they will not be able to review it promptly, they should immediately inform the editors and decline the invitation to review so that alternative reviewers can be found.

Confidentiality

Manuscripts received for review are confidential documents and must be handled as such. They should not be shared or discussed with others unless explicitly authorized by the Editor-in-Chief, who will only do so in exceptional and specific circumstances. This also applies to invited reviewers who decline to review the manuscript.

 Standards of objectivity

Reviews should be impartial and provide clear and well-supported feedback so that authors can use it to improve their manuscript. Personal attacks on the authors are not acceptable.

Acknowledgement of sources

Reviewers should point out any relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors. Any information, calculation, or argument that has been previously published should be accompanied by the relevant citation. They should also inform the editors if the manuscript under review is substantially similar to another manuscript (published or unpublished) of which they have knowledge.

Disclosure and conflicts of interest

Any reviewer who has a conflict of interest due to competitive, collaborative, or other relationships with the authors, companies, or institutions related to the manuscript should immediately inform the editors and declare their conflict of interest before declining the invitation to review. Reviewers should not use any unpublished information disclosed in the manuscript for their own research unless they have obtained the authors' written consent. Information and ideas obtained during the peer review process must be kept confidential and not used for personal gain, even if the reviewer declines the invitation to review.

Duties of Authors

Reporting standards

Authors who submit original research must provide a truthful representation of their work and results, along with an impartial evaluation of the work's importance. The manuscript must have enough details and references to allow others to duplicate the work. Reviews should be precise, neutral, and comprehensive, while editorials or opinions should be clearly labeled as such. Making false or deliberately misleading statements is unethical and not acceptable.

Data access and retention

Authors may be requested to submit the raw data from their study for editorial review along with the manuscript and should be willing to make the data publicly accessible if possible. Regardless, the authors should ensure that the data is available to other qualified professionals for a minimum of 10 years following publication, through an institutional or subject-based data repository or data center if possible, as long as the confidentiality of participants can be safeguarded and any legal restrictions on proprietary data do not prevent its release.

Originality and plagiarism

Authors must make sure that the work they submit is entirely original and if they have used any work or words from others, they must give proper credit through citation. They should also mention any publications that have been important in shaping the work they are reporting in their manuscript. Plagiarism comes in various forms, from pretending someone else's work as one's own to copying or rephrasing a significant portion of someone else's work without giving credit, to presenting research results from someone else as their own. Plagiarism of any kind is unethical behavior in publishing and is not acceptable.

Multiple, duplicate, redundant or concurrent submission/publication

Authors should not publish the same research in multiple journals. Submitting the same manuscript to multiple journals at the same time is unethical and not allowed. In some cases, secondary publication of certain types of articles (such as clinical guidelines or translations) may be acceptable if certain conditions are met. Both the authors and editors of the involved journals must give their approval and the secondary publication must accurately reflect the primary document, including its data and interpretations, and must properly cite the primary reference.

Authorship of the manuscript

Only persons who meet these authorship criteria should be listed as authors in the manuscript as they must be able to take public responsibility for the content: (i) made significant contributions to the conception, design, execution, data acquisition, or analysis/interpretation of the study; and (ii) drafted the manuscript or revised it critically for important intellectual content; and (iii) have seen and approved the final version of the paper and agreed to its submission for publication. All persons who made substantial contributions to the work reported in the manuscript (such as technical help, writing and editing assistance, general support) but who do not meet the criteria for authorship must not be listed as an author, but should be acknowledged in the "Acknowledgements" section after their written permission to be named as been obtained. The corresponding author should ensure that all appropriate coauthors (according to the above definition) and no inappropriate coauthors are included in the author list and verify that all coauthors have seen and approved the final version of the manuscript and agreed to its submission for publication.

Disclosure and conflicts of interest

Authors should not publish the same research in multiple journals. Submitting the same manuscript to multiple journals at the same time is unethical and not allowed. In some cases, secondary publication of certain types of articles (such as clinical guidelines or translations) may be acceptable if certain conditions are met. Both the authors and editors of the involved journals must give their approval and the secondary publication must accurately reflect the primary document, including its data and interpretations, and must properly cite the primary reference.

Acknowledgement of sources

Authors should make sure to give proper credit to the work of others and must also reference any publications that played a significant role in shaping the research being reported. Private information obtained through communication, correspondence, or discussions with others should not be used or reported without obtaining written consent from the source. Additionally, authors should not use information obtained through confidential services, such as evaluating manuscripts or grant applications, unless they have received written permission from the authors of the relevant work.

Hazards and human or animal subjects

If the research involves chemicals, procedures, or equipment that pose any significant dangers, the authors must clearly indicate these dangers in the manuscript. If the research involves the use of animals or human subjects, the authors should make sure that all procedures were carried out in accordance with relevant laws and institutional guidelines, and that the appropriate institutional committee(s) have approved them. The manuscript should include a statement to this effect. Additionally, authors must provide a statement in the manuscript that informed consent was obtained from human participants, and their privacy rights must be respected.

Peer review

Authors have a responsibility to actively participate in the peer review process by promptly responding to requests from editors for additional information, such as raw data, clarifications, proof of ethical approval, patient consent, and copyright permission. If the initial decision is to revise the manuscript, the authors should carefully consider the reviewer's comments and make necessary changes, submitting a revised version within the specified timeframe.

Fundamental errors in published works

Authors have the responsibility to inform the journal's editors or publisher if they discover significant errors or inaccuracies in their published work, and to work with them to correct the paper through an erratum or to retract it. If a third party informs the editors or publisher that a published work has significant errors or inaccuracies, it is the authors' duty to promptly correct or retract the paper, or provide evidence of its accuracy to the journal's editors.

Duties of the Publisher

Handling of unethical publishing behaviour

The publisher and editors will take necessary action if there are allegations or proof of scientific misconduct, fraudulent publication, or plagiarism. This may include publishing an erratum, clarification, or retracting the affected work. The publisher and editors have a responsibility to prevent the publication of papers that involve research misconduct, and will not knowingly allow such misconduct to occur.

Access to journal content

The publisher is committed to the permanent availability and preservation of scholarly research and ensures accessibility by partnering with organizations and maintaining our own digital archive. For details on Editora Alumniin’s archiving policy.