Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement

The Philippine Review of Economics ethics and publication malpractice statement is primarily based on the Code of Conduct and Best-Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors [Committee on Publication Ethics 2011][1]and the Cambridge Publishing Ethics: Academic Research[2]

 

 

General Principles of Ethics in Publication

 

The Philippine Review of Economics (“the journal”) shall uphold the Mission and Vision of its supporting institutions, the UP School of Economics and the Philippine Economics Society, adhering to the highest standards of professional rigor and ethics, and responding to “important needs for public information, specialized training, and policy advice.”[3]

 

To this end, the journal shall promote integrity, honesty, transparency, excellence, respect for all stakeholders and participants, and accountability.[4] It shall evolve to continually adopt best practices in publication as applicable to it. 

 

1.   Publication Decisions

 

Criteria for publication

 

The editor[5] of the journal is responsible for deciding which of the papers or articles submitted to the journal should be ultimately published. He shall balance stakeholders’ interests such as those of the authors, readers, editorial board members, staff, and owners of the journal. 

 

The editor shall base his decision on relevant factors including but not limited to the following: the paper’s importance, originality, and clarity; the study’s validity and relevance to the journal's scope; and the strength of how it serves the mission and vision of its supporting institutions. The paper should be well justified and planned.

 

Studies reporting negative results, or studies that challenge previously published papers, shall not be excluded from publication solely on that basis, but seriously considered to balance the latter and to promote academic discourse. 

 

The editor shall be guided by the policies of the journal’s editorial board and constrained by such legal requirements as may be in force regarding libel, copyright infringement, and plagiarism. The ditor may confer with other editors, reviewers, or advisors in making this decision.

 

Non-Discrimination

 

The editors and reviewers shall evaluate papers and manuscripts for their intellectual content without regard to race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy of the authors.

 

Multiple, Redundant, or Concurrent Publication

 

An author should not in general, submit for publication, papers describing essentially the same or substantially overlapping research, hypothesis, data, discussion, or conclusions, in more than one journal or primary publication.[6]

 

Submitting the same to more than one journal concurrently, shall, in general, constitute self-plagiarism and unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable unless there is cross reference and citation, and full disclosure of the original source at submission. Authors are responsible for such disclosure, as well as disclosure of related or similar papers, whatever the location or language it was published in. 

 

Nevertheless, the editor of the journal shall require justification and determine that the paper is sufficiently important so that its publication and dissemination directly support the journal’s mission and vision and strengthens academic discourse.[7] The journal may require that the author notify and secure approval from the original publisher. 

 

2.   Duties of Editors 

 

As already stated, the editor shall be primarily responsible for publication decisions and all that may factor into these decisions. 

 

Confidentiality

 

Prior to publication submitted papers shall be treated as confidential. The Editor and any editorial staff shall limit any information about a submitted manuscript to persons necessary to review, evaluate or publish the same, such as the author, reviewers, potential reviewers, members of the editorial board or editorial advisory board, and the publisher, as appropriate.

 

Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in an editor’s or reviewer’s own research without the express written consent of the author.

 

Retractions or Corrections

 

When a publication is found to have flaws, the editor-in-chief is responsible for correcting the record promptly. As far as applicable with its internal processes, the journal shall consider the principles and procedures in COPE’s Retraction Guidelines.[8]

 

Due Process

 

The journal shall formulate a process for considering appeals of its editorial decisions, and shall maintain an open channel for communication with stakeholders, including but not limited to complaints on its editorial decisions, claims of plagiarism, libel, and other ethics violations or matters requiring disciplinary action.

 

3.  Authorship and Contributorship

 

Primary Duties of Authorship

 

Authors shall submit only original work, and properly cite or reference works of others whenever used, in accordance with standards against plagiarism. Authors shall also ensure compliance with the journal’s previously stated policy herein on publication of multiple, redundant or concurrent publication.  

 

Authors should present an accurate account of the work performed and the underlying data. A paper should contain sufficient detail and references to permit others to understand, verify, and replicate the findings.[9]Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behavior and are unacceptable.

 

Authors should be ready to provide the raw data in connection with a paper for editorial review, and should be prepared to provide public access to such data (consistent with the ALPSP-STM Statement on Data and Databases), if practicable and appropriate, and should in any event be prepared to store, deposit or retain such data for a reasonable time after publication, for review, sharing, or further use.[10]

 

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.

 

 

Definition of Authorship and Contributorship

 

Authorship shall pertain to those who drafted the paper or article and have made a significant contribution to a paper or work’s intellectual content, conception, or to the design and execution of a study, or interpretation of data.[11]

 

All those who meet these criteria should be listed as co-authors. A corresponding author is that who takes responsibility for communicating with the journal in the submission, review, and publication process, ensures its requirements are met, and responds in a timely manner to the journal during the entire process. Nevertheless, the journal shall endeavor to communicate with or notify all listed authors.[12]

 

The corresponding author should ensure that all appropriate co-authors and no inappropriate co-authors are included 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.[13]

 

Authorship entails taking credit for the work as well as responsibility and accountability for it. It is the role of the primary author or corresponding author to determine who are co-authors which is not the responsibility of the journal. In a large multi-author paper, study or endeavor, it shall be best practice for the group to initially decide who shall be authors.[14]

 

Where there are others who don’t meet the criteria for authorship, but have participated in certain substantive aspects of the research project, they should be acknowledged or listed as contributors[15]. These activities may include but are not limited to review or supervision, writing assistance, technical assistance or editing. [16]

 

Consent or prior notice for acknowledgement shall as far as practicable be obtained by the authors from the contributors; when consent for acknowledgment is withheld, such must be respected.

 

Use of Artificial Intelligence (“AI”) for writing assistance shall be reported and acknowledged.[17]

 

4.  Peer Review and Reviewers

 

Peer reviewers are experts or authorities chosen by the editors to provide written opinions to improve the paper.[18] The peer-review process assists the editor in making editorial decisions; editorial communications with the author may also assist the latter in improving the paper. Any selected reviewer who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a paper or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should notify the editor and excuse himself from the review process.

 

Reviewers and their colleagues consulted on the subject shall maintain and protect the confidentiality of papers or research submitted to them for review, and they shall not use the paper or parts thereof without the author’s permission.[19] Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage.

 

As far as practicable, the journal shall maintain a pool of qualified peer reviewers and provide training and support to ensure rigorous and fair review of papers or research submitted for publication. Peer reviewers should be familiar with best practices on peer review, and shall be instructed to be guided by COPE’s Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers.[20]

 

Reviews should be conducted objectively. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate. Reviewers should express their views clearly with supporting arguments. 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.

 

5.  Conflicts of Interest

 

A relevant conflict of interest occurs when a situation arises so that an editor, author, researcher, contributor, or reviewer’s interests, (including but not limited to professional, financial, commercial, social, or legal interests) could or appear to compromise, bias, or render unreliable, his/her judgment, decision, or action, in the discharge of their duties.[21] Examples of financial interest are “employment, research funding, stock ownership, payment for lectures or travel, consultancies and company support for staff.”[22]

 

All relevant conflicts of interest must be specifically disclosed and declared by editors, researchers, contributors, authors and reviewers.[23] Failure to disclose and declare a relevant conflict of interest shall constitute unethical behavior. If an investigation is opened pertaining to a conflict of interest, the subject shall be given opportunity to explain or justify the non-disclosure or raise relevant exculpatory circumstances.  

 

Editors shall determine when declared or disclosed conflicts of interest preclude the participation of the conflicted subject, or publication of the paper, or whether a failure to disclose or declare a conflict of interest is unintentional, justifiable, or lacks sufficient relevance. If publication had already been made, it shall be determined whether there should be a retraction, or correction. 

 

Editors should not allow reviewers to review manuscripts in which they have irreconcilable conflicts of interest resulting from competition, or collaborative or other relationships with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers.

 

6.  Plagiarism, Fraudulent Research, and Fabrications

 

The journal adopts Oxford University’s definition of plagiarism which is “presenting works or ideas from another source as your own, with or without consent of the original author, by incorporating it into your work without full acknowledgment.”[24] This includes published and unpublished work, use of material generated by AI, re-using one’s own work without citation.[25] It applies to “other media such as computer code, illustrations, graphs, data and text drawn from other publications, lectures, theses or essays.[26]

 

When large amounts of another’s work are used, permission must be sought from the author.[27] All submissions to the journal shall be checked for plagiarism, and the editor shall have the discretion to reject work for publication upon suspicion of plagiarism. It is the obligation of reviewers, co-authors, contributors, and all stakeholders, to report plagiarism or suspected plagiarism to the journal. 

 

The journal shall correct or retract any paper or work found to contain fraudulent research. Furthermore, when data is collected and presented as images, authors shall refrain from presenting these in a manner that misrepresents the results or the significance of the results.[28]

 

 7. Unethical Conduct and other Misconduct

 

The journal is not an investigative body nor does it have the resources or mandate for investigating serious misconduct. However, it shall act and investigate not to mete punishment per se but to preserve its academic and intellectual integrity and fulfill its mission and vision. The party accused must be given the opportunity to respond to accusations of misconduct or unethical behavior. 

 

When accusations or suspicions of misconduct arise, the same must be examined as a whole, including the intention of the person accused or suspected, their direct participation or acts, whether there was intention to deceive or mislead, or whether it was a misunderstanding of principles, ignorance, or negligence. 

 

The journal and all involved shall be mindful that mere accusations can have serious consequences for the party involved, and therefore must act with utmost discretion and confidentiality warranted by the circumstances. 

 

The journal partially adopts sanctions recommended by the COPE Guidelines, and enforces the same as appropriate, allowing due process for all. These include the following: (i) a letter of explanation (and education) to the authors, where there appears to be a genuine misunderstanding of principles; (ii) a letter of reprimand and warning as to future conduct; (iii) a formal letter to the relevant head of institution or funding body; (iv) publication of a notice of redundant publication or plagiarism; (v) refusal to accept future submissions from those responsible for the misconduct for a stated period.

 

When there is any doubt as to the adequacy of the guidance in this section, or there are more serious matters outside its scope, the journal, if necessary and appropriate, shall engage the services and advice of legal counsel as to the proper remedies and course of action. 

 

References

 

Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). [2011]. “Code of Conduct and Best-Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors”. Retrieved from http://publicationethics.org/files/Code_of_conduct_for_journal_editors_Mar11.pdf

 

International Committee of Medical Journal Editors “Defining the Role of Authors and Contributors”. Retrieved from https://www.icmje.org/recommendations/browse/roles-and-responsibilities/defining-the-role-of-authors-and-contributors.html

 

Cambridge Publishing Ethics: Academic Research Retrieved from https://www.cambridge.org/core/services/aop-file-manager/file/5b44807ace5b3fca0954531e/CUP-Research-Publishing-Ethics-Guidelines-2019.pdf



[1] Hereinafter referred to as ‘COPE Guidelines”.

[2] Referring to “Version 4.0 Last Updated September 2021” retrieved last February 06, 2024 from https://www.cambridge.org/core/services/aop-file-manager/file/5b44807ace5b3fca0954531e/CUP-Research-Publishing-Ethics-Guidelines-2019.pdf hereinafter “Cambridge Guidelines”

[3] Reference to the Mission and Vision of the UP School of Economics was retrieved from https://econ.upd.edu.ph/about-upse/intro-history/mission-and-vision/.

[4] See Cambridge Guidelines.

[5] “The editor” shall refer to the journal’s editor-in-chief. “The editors” refers collectively to members of the editorial board (i.e., associate editors) and the editorial advisory board.

[6] See No. 6 in the COPE Guidelines.

[7] See “Duplicate and Redundant Publication” in the Cambridge Guidelines. 

[8] See the guidelines retrieved on February 7, 2024: https://publicationethics.org/retraction-guidelines .

[9] See “Data and Supporting Evidence” in the Cambridge Guidelines. 

[10] Ibid.

[11] See “Authorship and Contributorship” in the Cambridge Guidelines.

[12] See International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (“ICMJE”) on defining the Role of Authors and Contributors retrieved on February 7, 2024: https://www.icmje.org/recommendations/browse/roles-and-responsibilities/defining-the-role-of-authors-and-contributors.html .

[13] Ibid.

[14] Ibid.

[15] Ibid.

[16] Ibid.

[17] Ibid.

[18] See “Peer Review” in the COPE Guidelines. 

[19] Ibid.

[21] See also Chapter 4 of Stanley Korenman’s “Teaching the Responsible Conduct of Research in Humans” on definitions of conflict of interests retrieved from: https://ori.hhs.gov/education/products/ucla/chapter4/default.htm .

[22] Under the heading “Conflicts of Interest” in the COPE Guidelines. 

[23] Ibid

[24] See Oxford Definition of plagiarism retrieved from: https://www.ox.ac.uk/students/academic/guidance/skills/plagiarism .

[25] Ibid

[26] Ibid.

[27] See subheading “action” under “Plagiarism” of COPE Guidelines. 

[28] See “ Image Manipulation, Falsification and Fabrication” in the Cambridge Guidelines.