Ethical guidelines for Society for Endocrinology journals

The Society is committed to integrity in scientific research. In order to ensure that our journals’ contribution to the scientific record is reliable and meets the ethical standards expected by the global scientific community, we have developed the following code of ethics to support editors, authors and peer reviewers in understanding the standards of behaviour they should follow in carrying out their roles in the journal publishing process.

All of the Society's journals adhere strictly to the Committee of Publication Ethics (COPE) Guidelines on good publishing practice (http://www.publicationethics.org.uk/guidelines). The Society for Endocrinology is a member of CrossCheck.

Author code of ethics

Authors must

• Present an accurate account of research performed as well as an objective discussion of its significance.
• Accurately represent underlying data in the paper.
• Present sufficient detail and references to permit others to replicate the work.
• Cite all relevant references.
• Identify any hazards inherent in conducting the research.
• Declare any conflicts of interest (see instructions for authors for JOE, JME, ERC).
• Ensure they have written and produced entirely original work and ensure that where they have used the work and/or words of others, this has been properly attributed and accurately quoted.
• Not submit the same or similar article or substantially similar material, concurrently to any other journal or primary publication, nor do so until the outcome of their submission to the Society’s journal is known.
• Avoid self-plagiarism, i.e. not submit the same or substantially similar material (data or text) as contained in any article, including review articles, that the author(s) have published previously.
• Avoid fragmenting research to maximise the number of articles for publication.
• Avoid libellous or defamatory statements in their work.
• Limit authorship to, and include all, those who have made a significant contribution to the conception, design, execution or interpretation of the work.
• Ensure all contributors have approved the final version of the manuscript and its submission to the journal.
• Ensure research involving human subjects complies with the Declaration of Helsinki (http://www.wma.net/en/30publications/10policies/b3/index.html) and, in particular, include a statement in the manuscript itself that the subjects have given their informed, written consent.
• Ensure research involving animal experimentation complies with the Society’s guidelines and those of the Universities Federation for Animal Welfare guidelines (http://www.ufaw.org.uk/public-list.php#pl05).
• Report any significant error or inaccuracy in the work to the publisher as soon as it is discovered.

Research misconduct – definitions

"Research misconduct" means fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism in proposing, performing, or reviewing research, or in reporting research results.

1. Fabrication is making up data or results and recording or reporting them.
2. Falsification is manipulating research materials, equipment, or processes, or changing or omitting data or results such that the research is not accurately represented in the research record.
3. Plagiarism is the appropriation of another person's ideas, processes, results, or words without giving appropriate credit.
4. Research misconduct does not include honest error or differences of opinion.

Source: Dept of Health & Human Services, Office of Research Integrity Annual Report 2006 http://ori.dhhs.gov/documents/annual_reports/ori_annual_report_2006.pdf.

Plagiarism includes self-plagiarism. Self-plagiarism (auto-plagiarism) is the publication of (or submission of) the same content in (or to) different journals.

Policy on misconduct

Should any author be found to be in breach of this code of ethics or guilty of research misconduct, the journal reserves the right to reject/retract or withdraw the paper, decline further submissions from the offending authors for a period of up to five years and inform all interested parties including relevant journal editors and authors, the author’s department head and/or institutional office of scientific misconduct.

Editor code of ethics

The Editor of a peer-reviewed journal is solely and independently responsible for deciding which articles should be accepted for publication. The Editor may be guided by the policies of the editorial board and, while seeking guidance via peer review, may still reject a manuscript without review if considered inappropriate for the journal.

Editors must

• Evaluate each manuscript for its intellectual content without regard to race, gender, age, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, political philosophy, citizenship, domicile or institutional affiliation of the authors.
• Not disclose any information about a submitted manuscript to anyone other than those involved in the publishing process as appropriate.
• Disclose any potential conflict of interest.
• Pass manuscripts in which they have potential conflicts of interests to another member of the editorial board to review and consider.
• Not use privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review for personal advantage.
• On receiving a challenge to the authenticity/integrity of an article, consult the publisher and contribute to the investigation and responsive measures which follow.

Reviewer/referee code of ethics

Peer review process lies at the heart of journal publishing. The Society shares the view of many that all scholars wishing to publish in scholarly journals have an obligation to do a fair share of reviewing of submitted work of others.

Reviewers must

• Evaluate each manuscript for its intellectual content without regard to race, gender, age, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, political philosophy, citizenship, domicile or institutional affiliation of the authors.
• Review manuscripts with reasonable speed and efficiency.
• Treat the manuscript as a confidential document.
• Conduct the review objectively and avoid any personal criticism of the author.
• Express views clearly with supporting arguments.
• Inform the Editor of any substantial similarity between the manuscript and any other published paper of which they have personal knowledge.