Ethics and Malpractice
The following Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement aligns with the recommendations of COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics): Archived COPE documents | COPE: Committee on Publication Ethics and The Core Practices.
Open Access Policy
CONCEPT is an open access publication.
All content published in the journal is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial (CC BY-NC) 4.0 International License which allows third parties to use the content for non-commercial purposes as long as they give credit to the original work. This license allows for the content to be shared and adapted for non-commercial purposes, promoting the dissemination and use of the research published in the journal.
All published content is available online, free of charge at https://concept.unatcpress.ro/
Copyright Policy
CONCEPT requires each submission to be accompanied by a Copyright Agreement and Acknowledgement of Authorship form. Authors retain the copyright of their work and agree that the article, if accepted for publication will be licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial (CC BY-NC) 4.0 International License.
Publication Fee Policy
CONCEPT does not charge authors any kind of publication fees or article processing charges.
Rights and Responsabilities of Authors
Authors have an obligation to ensure that the article submitted to the editors contains their own, original work that has not been previously published and is not considered for publication elsewhere. The authors must also ensure that ideas and passages in the manuscript that are not their own have been properly attributed, through appropriate referencing. Situations susceptible to fraud or malpractice, such as: republishing data subsequently analyzed without mentioning the source, plagiarism, publication without the consent of the authors, etc., will be analyzed by the editors and/or the members of the scientific committee; if any of the above violations is discovered, the article will be rejected.
If an author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in an article of his that has been published in the CONCEPT journal, he/she is obliged to immediately notify the situation to the editors and cooperate with them to correct the article or withdraw it, depending on the case.
After the publication of the article in the CONCEPT journal, each author has the right to receive a free copy of the printed journal.
Rights and Responsabilities of the Editorial Board
Editors are responsible for the decision to publish, have the responsibility and authority to accept or reject an article (if it does not meet the ethical and academic standards of the journal, does not fit into its theme and objectives or if it does not follow the instructions for authors).
Editors have the obligation to objectively manage articles submitted for evaluation for publication. The publication decision must be made exclusively on the basis of the academic merit of the submitted papers (importance, originality, clarity, relevance for the profile of the journal, etc.).
Editors are responsible for ensuring the integrity of the review process. The CONCEPT journal uses the "double blind peer-review" system, which implies the anonymity of both authors and reviewers. The editor-in-chief decides to accept/reject the articles based on the reviewers' recommendations.
Editors have the obligation to maintain the confidentiality of the information and ideas contained in the manuscript; access to the manuscript will be allowed only to reviewers and authorized members of the editorial board or of the scientific committee of the journal).
Editors have the obligation to publish clear guidelines for authors on the theme of the journal, preparation rules and issues related to publication, and to regularly update these guidelines. Ethical concerns raised post-publication will be investigated, and errata, corrections, or retractions will be issued as needed in accordance with COPE Retraction Guidelines.
Rights and Responsabilities of the Evaluators
The manuscripts received for publication for the CONCEPT journal are subject to evaluation in a "double blind" peer review system, following the COPE Ethical guidelines for peer reviewers.
Peer reviewers have the obligation to ensure the evaluation process, assisting the editors in the publication decision; the reviewers have the obligation to support the authors in order to improve the quality of the work, objectively analyzing the manuscript. Critical remarks and points of view must be formulated clearly, objectively and reasonably; personal critical comments regarding the author are not allowed.
Peer reviewers have the obligation to signal any conflict of interests resulting from a competitive or collaborative relationship with one of the authors or with the institution associated with the work. Any reviewer who declines his competence in the field of expertise of the article in question or who knows that he cannot ensure a prompt evaluation must notify the editors or withdraw from the evaluation process.
Peer reviewers have the obligation to report to the editorial office regarding any suspicion of fraud and/or malpractice they have identified and of which they are aware (similarity of content between the text of the evaluated manuscript and that of a known text, already published).
Any article sent for evaluation must be treated as a confidential document. The contents of the manuscript must not be disclosed or discussed with persons other than those authorized by the editors; any information obtained as a result of the evaluation process (contained in articles accepted for publication or rejected) must not be used for personal gain without the consent of the authors.
Plagiarism and Ethical Misconduct
All submissions are screened by a similarity detection software during the peer-review and/or production processes.
Authors are strongly recommended to avoid any form of plagiarism and ethical misconduct, including:
- Citation manipulation: manipulating the number of citations received by an author, journal, or other publication through various means, such as self-citation, excessive citation of articles from the same journal, or the inclusion of honorary citations or citation stacking.
- Self-plagiarism (text-recycling): using overlapping sections or sentences from the author's previous publications without proper citation. This is considered a form of plagiarism.
- Data Fabrication/Data Manipulation/Falsification: manipulating images, removing outliers or "inconvenient" results, changing data points, and other forms of manipulation is considered to be a form of research misconduct, as it involves presenting false or misleading information as if it were real data.
In the event of alleged or suspected research misconduct, the Editorial Board will follow the appropriate COPE flowcharts to ensure that the allegations or suspicions are handled in a fair, transparent, and consistent manner.
Complaints and Appeals
The editorial board of the journal is responsible for addressing appeals and complaints in accordance with the guidelines and recommendations of the COPE. If an author has an appeal or complaint, they should contact the editorial office directly to discuss their concerns. The editorial board will review the case and make a decision based on COPE guidelines.
The editor-in-chief has the final authority in the decision-making process for all appeals and complaints. The journal follows a fair and transparent process for handling appeals and complaints, with the goal of preserving the integrity of the scientific record.
Conflicts of Interest
All authors, reviewers, and editors must reveal any relationships or interests that may lead to an inappropriate influence or bias in their work.. Where conflicts are identified, alternative reviewers or editors will be assigned.
Post-Publication Corrections and Discussions
All post-publication correction requests are subject to editorial review to determine whether the correction is necessary and appropriate. The decision to publish a correction will be based on the nature of the error, its potential impact on the article, and the availability of supporting evidence. The editorial board may also consult with the authors, reviewers, and other experts as needed to make its decision.
