Publication ethics and malpractice statement

home > publication ethics

Versus (VS) ISSN 0393-8255

Authors, journal directors, editorial staff, peer reviewers and all parties involved in the act of publishing must agree upon the following ethical standards. The "Publication ethics and malpractice statement" of Versus (VS) is based on the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) guidelines available at


Authors who submit papers to VS attest that:
- Their manuscript is entirely original and unpublished, it has not been copied or plagiarized and that other author works have been appropriately cited or quoted.
- Their manuscript is not under consideration for publication elsewhere.
- They have not described essentially the same research in already published works.
- Authorship has been 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 have been listed as co-authors. Other researchers who have participated in certain substantive aspects of the research project have been acknowledged or listed as contributors. All co-authors have been clearly indicated at the time of paper submission. - They have disclosed in their manuscript any conflict of interest that could bias the work and they have declared all sources of financial support for the project.
Authors reporting results 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 manuscript. 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.
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's editor or publisher and cooperate with them to either retract the paper or to publish an appropriate correction statement or erratum.


Editors of each single issue
- Are responsible for deciding which submitted articles should be published.
- Must take in account the evaluation made by the reviewers.
- May confer with the directions and the editorial staff.
- May be guided by the policies of the journal"s editorial board and constrained by the legal requirements regarding libel, copyright infringement and plagiarism.
- Must evaluate manuscripts for their intellectual content without regard to race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy of the author(s).
- Must not disclose any information about a submitted manuscript to anyone other than the corresponding author, reviewers, potential reviewers, other editorial advisers, and the publisher, as appropriate.
- Must not use in their own research unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript without the express written consent of the author.


Peer review assists the editor in making editorial decisions and, through the editorial communication with the author, may also assist the author in improving the paper.
Any selected referee agrees with the following statements:
- If a reviewer feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that it is not possible to meet the deadline, he/she must immediately notify the editor so that the paper can be sent to another reviewer.
- Manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. They must not be shown to or discussed with others except if authorized by the editor.
- Reviews must be conducted objectively. Personal criticism of the author(s) are not acceptable. Referees must express their views clearly with supporting arguments.
- Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors. Any statement that had been previously reported should be accompanied by the relevant citation. A reviewer should also call to the Editor in Chief's attention any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published paper of which he/she have personal knowledge.
- Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage. 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.