Publication Ethics Policy

Basis of this policy

BORJSS follows the COPE Core Practices and the principles of transparency and best practice set out jointly by COPE, the Directory of Open Access Journals, the Open Access Scholarly Publishers Association and the World Association of Medical Editors.

Those documents describe the standards. This policy describes how the journal applies them in practice: who is responsible for what, and what procedure follows an allegation. Where a situation arises that this policy does not cover, COPE guidance and its published flowcharts apply.

Duties of authors

By submitting a manuscript, every listed author confirms the following. These are conditions of submission, not aspirations.

• The work is original. It has not been published elsewhere and is not under consideration at another journal. Text and ideas taken from other sources are attributed. See the plagiarism policy.
• The data are real and reported honestly. Results have not been fabricated, and images or figures have not been manipulated in a way that misrepresents what was observed.
• Authorship is accurate. Everyone listed meets the criteria in the authorship policy, and nobody who meets them has been left off.
• Competing interests are declared. Financial and non-financial interests that a reader might reasonably consider relevant are disclosed at submission — see the conflict of interest policy.
• Human and animal research was approved. Where the research involved participants, their data, or animals, ethics approval and consent are documented under the research ethics policy.
• Errors are reported. An author who discovers a significant error in their own published work must tell the editorial office promptly so it can be corrected or retracted.

Duties of reviewers

Reviewers hold unpublished work in confidence and advise the editor honestly. In summary, a reviewer must:

• Decline an invitation where they have a competing interest, or where they cannot review within the agreed timeframe;
• Treat the manuscript as confidential — not sharing it, citing it, or entering any part of it into a generative AI service;
• Comment on the work rather than the author, and support criticism with reasons;
• Tell the editor of any substantial similarity to published work, or of any suspicion of misconduct, rather than acting on it themselves.

These duties are set out in full in the peer reviewer ethics policy.

Duties of editors

Editors decide what the journal publishes, and that authority carries corresponding obligations.

• Judge the work, not the author. Decisions rest on scholarly merit and fit with scope, without regard to the author’s nationality, institution, gender, seniority, religion or politics.
• Stand back where interested. An editor with any competing interest in a submission — including one authored by a colleague or collaborator — hands it to another editor and takes no part in the decision.
• Keep submissions confidential. A manuscript is disclosed only to those involved in handling it.
• Act on concerns. A credible allegation is investigated, whether it arrives before or after publication, and however long ago the article appeared.
• Correct the record. Where something published is wrong, the journal publishes a correction or retraction promptly and visibly.

Editorial decisions are not subject to commercial or institutional influence — see editorial independence.

Duties of the publisher

The publisher supports editorial independence rather than directing it. It is responsible for maintaining the published record, ensuring that articles remain accessible under the journal’s open access policy, and ensuring that a change of editor, ownership or funding does not affect decisions already taken or the availability of what has been published.

What counts as misconduct

The journal treats the following as publication misconduct. The list is illustrative rather than exhaustive.

Honest error is not misconduct. A mistake found and reported in good faith is corrected, and the author is thanked rather than sanctioned. The distinction the journal draws is intent and candour, not the size of the error.

How concerns are handled

Every credible concern follows the same procedure, whatever its source and whoever it concerns.

1. Assessment. The editorial office establishes whether the concern is specific enough to act on. Anonymous allegations are considered, but only where they present evidence that can be checked independently of the person raising it.
2. Author response. The corresponding author is told what has been alleged and given a fair opportunity to respond, usually within 21 days. The identity of the person raising the concern is not disclosed.
3. Review. An editor with no involvement in the original decision examines the response, and may seek independent expert advice.
4. Institutional referral. Where the allegation concerns research conduct rather than publication conduct — fabrication or ethics breach, for instance — the matter is referred to the author’s institution, which is the body able to investigate it. The journal does not attempt to run that investigation itself.
5. Outcome. A decision is taken, recorded, and communicated to the author and to the person who raised the concern.

Where an article is under investigation and the concern is serious, the journal may publish an expression of concern while the matter is resolved, so that readers are not misled in the meantime.

Outcomes and sanctions

The response is proportionate to what is established. Depending on severity, the journal may:

• Take no action, where the concern is not substantiated;
• Ask the author to correct the manuscript before publication;
• Publish a correction, an expression of concern, or a retraction under the retraction and correction policy;
• Reject the manuscript under consideration;
• Inform the author’s institution and any funder;
• Decline further submissions from the author for a stated period, where misconduct was deliberate and serious.

An author may appeal any of these outcomes through the complaints and appeals policy.

Raising a concern

Concerns about a published article or a manuscript under consideration should be sent to the editorial office at ceoborjss@gmail.com. Include the article title or manuscript ID, what specifically is alleged, and any evidence — a comparison of passages, a source, or a figure.

Concerns are acknowledged within five working days. Everyone involved is treated as acting in good faith until the evidence shows otherwise, and the confidentiality of both parties is maintained throughout.