Publishing Ethics
Tribology in Industry journal adapts the standards of publication ethics as stated in the Core Practices of the Committee of Publication Ethics (COPE). These include the policies regarding authorship and contributorship, the procedure for handling allegations of misconduct, handling of complaints and appeals, handling of conflicts of interests/competing interests, policies on data and reproducibility, ethical oversight, intellectual property, journal management, peer-review process, and post-publication discussions and corrections.
Duties of Authors
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 significant contributions should be listed as co-authors. Where there are others who have participated in certain substantive aspects of the research project, they should be acknowledged or listed as contributors. The corresponding author should ensure that all co-authors have seen and approved the final version of the paper and have agreed to its submission for publication.
Changes in Authorship
Any changes of authorship such as addition, deletion or rearrangement of author names should be made only before acceptance of the manuscript and only if approved by the Editorial Board. To change authorship, the corresponding author should provide the reason for the authorship change and written confirmation (through e-mail or cover letter) from all authors that they all agree with the authorship change of addition, removal or rearrangement.
Reporting Standards
Authors of reports of original research 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 paper, without fabrication, falsification or inappropriate data manipulation. A paper should contain sufficient detail and references to permit others to replicate the work. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behavior and are unacceptable. Review and professional publication articles should also be accurate and objective, and editorial ‘opinion’ works should be clearly identified as such.
Data Access and Retention
Authors may be asked to provide the raw data in connection with a paper for editorial review, and should in any event be prepared to retain such data for a reasonable time after publication.
Originality and Plagiarism
The authors should ensure that they have written entirely original works, and, if the authors have used the work and/or words of others, that this has been appropriately cited or quoted. Data, text, figures or ideas originated by other researchers should be properly acknowledged. Plagiarism in all its forms constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable.
Plagiarism Screening Policy
Manuscripts accepted for publication are subjected to plagiarism check through iThenticate plagiarism check software. Authors are expected to conform to the originality expectations of the journal. Once an act of over similarity/plagiarism is detected, authors are informed about the incident and their manuscript is rejected. Authors may be allowed to improve their manuscripts within acceptable limits of similarity.
Multiple, Redundant or Concurrent Publication
The authors must guarantee: (1) that the article has not been published elsewhere, (2) it is not being considered for publication elsewhere, and (3) that it has been submitted with the full knowledge and approval of the institution or organization given as the affiliation of the authors. Submission of multi-authored manuscripts implies the consent of each of the authors. If data from the article is used, partially or entirely, in other research articles, or the data and results represent only part of a bigger research project described in multiple publications, these must be clearly presented to the editor.
Acknowledgement of Sources
Proper acknowledgment of the work of others must always be given. Authors should cite publications that have been influential in determining the nature of the reported work.
Hazards and Human or Animal Subjects
If the work involves chemicals, procedures or equipment that have any unusual hazards inherent in their use, the author must clearly identify these in the manuscript. If the work involves the use of animal or human subjects, the author should ensure that the manuscript contains a statement that all procedures were performed in compliance with relevant laws and institutional guidelines and that they have been approved by the appropriate institutional committee(s). Authors should include a statement in the manuscript that informed consent was obtained for experimentation with human subjects. The privacy rights of human subjects must always be observed.
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.
Fundamental Errors in Published Works
When an author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in his/her own published work, it is the author’s obligation to promptly notify the journal editor or publisher and cooperate with the editor to retract or correct the paper. If the editor or the publisher learns from a third party that a published work contains a significant error, it is the obligation of the author to promptly retract or correct the paper or provide evidence to the editor of the correctness of the original paper.
Article Withdrawal Policy
Authors may request the withdrawal of their articles, but such requests are only accepted for early versions containing errors or accidental duplicate submissions. Withdrawing manuscripts from publication wastes the valuable resources and tremendous amount of effort made in processing the manuscripts by the editors, reviewers and the editorial staff.
The Use of AI Technologies in Scientific Writing
This policy addresses the use of AI and AI-assisted technologies in the writing process and emphasizes that authors are ultimately responsible and accountable for the contents of their work. The use of these technologies should be limited to improving readability and language and not used to replace key researcher tasks such as producing scientific insights, analyzing and interpreting data, or drawing scientific conclusions. Authors must disclose the use of these technologies in their manuscript and should not list them as authors or co-authors, as authorship implies responsibilities and tasks that can only be attributed to and performed by humans. Finally, authors are responsible for ensuring the originality of their work, and compliance with third-party rights, and should familiarize themselves with the Ethics in Publishing policy.
Duties of Editor
Publication Decisions
The editor ensures that all submitted manuscripts considered for publication undergo peer review by at least two expert reviewers in the relevant field. The Editor-in-Chief is responsible for the final decision on the publication of submitted manuscripts. This decision is based on the validation of the work's quality, its significance to researchers and readers, feedback from reviewers, and adherence to current legal requirements related to issues like libel, copyright infringement, and plagiarism. The Editor-in-Chief may seek input from other editors or reviewers in making this determination.
Fair Play
An editor will at any time evaluate manuscripts for their intellectual content without regard to race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy of the authors.
Confidentiality
The editor and any editorial staff must not disclose any information about a submitted manuscript to anyone other than the corresponding author, reviewers, potential reviewers, other editorial advisers or the publisher, as appropriate.
Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest
Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in an editor’s 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 (should ask a co-editor, associate editor 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 institutions connected to the papers.
Involvement and Cooperation in Investigations
The publisher shall take appropriate measures to respond in the event of an ethical complaint concerning a submitted manuscript or a published article. Such measures shall include assessment of the complaint or complaint filed, contacting the author of the manuscript, and if the complaint is admitted, publication of a correction or retraction. In certain cases, the relevant institutions and research bodies may be informed of the outcome of such a request. Each notified act of unethical behaviour will be examined even if it is discovered years after its publication.
Response to Ethical Issues
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.
Retractions
Sometimes a paper needs to be retracted from the body of research literature. This could be due to inadvertent errors made during the research process, gross ethical breaches, fabrication of data, large amounts of plagiarism, or other reasons. Such articles threaten the integrity of scientific records and need to be retracted.
Tribology in Industry follows the recommendations of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) for retraction.
If a Retraction is published, the original publication is amended with a “RETRACTED” watermark, but will still be available on the journal’s website for future reference. However, retracted articles should not be cited and used for further research, as they cannot be relied upon. Retractions are published using the same authorship and affiliation as the paper being retracted, so that the notice and the original retracted paper can be properly found by readers within indexing databases. The Retraction notice will also be published in the current Issue of the journal. Partial Retractions might be published in cases where results are only partially wrong.
A paper will only be completely removed from Tribology in Industry website and relevant indexing databases in very exceptional circumstances, where leaving it online would constitute an illegal act or be likely to lead to significant harm.
Duties of Reviewers
Contribution to Editorial Decisions
Peer review assists the editor in making editorial decisions and the editorial communications with the author may also assist the author in improving the paper. Peer review is an essential component of formal scholarly communication and lies at the heart of the scientific method. In addition to the specific ethics-related duties described below, reviewers are asked generally to treat authors and their work as they would like to be treated themselves and to observe good reviewing etiquette.
Promptness
Any selected referee who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should notify the editor and excuse himself from the review process.
Confidentiality
Any manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. They must not be shown to or discussed with others except as authorized by the editor.
Standards of Objectivity
Reviews should be conducted objectively. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate. Referees should express their views clearly with supporting arguments.
Acknowledgement of Sources
Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors. Any statement that an observation, derivation, or argument had been previously reported should be accompanied by the relevant citation. A reviewer should also call to the editor’s attention any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published paper of which they have personal knowledge.
Disclosure and Conflict of Interest
Reviewers and editors are required to declare any and all potential conflicts of interest. Reviewers should not consider manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers.
