Ethical standards and procedures
Ethical consideration
The authors are required to follow the ethical principles for clinical research based on the Declaration of Helsinki. The Methods section in original articles and research-in-progress should clearly state that the study was approved by an appropriate institutional review board or ethics committee and that patients provided written informed consent to participate in the study. All personal details of patients must be kept confidential.
Papers describing animal experiments can be accepted for publication only if the experiment conforms to the legal requirements in Poland as well as with the European Communities Council Directive as of November 24, 1986 or the National Institute of Health Guide (National Institute of Health Publications No. 80-23, Revised 1978) for the care and use of Laboratory Animals for experimental procedure. Authors must provide a full description of their anesthetics and surgical procedures.
Duties and responsibilities of authors
The Authors are obliged to prepare and send the article in accordance with the requirements set out in Instructions for Authors. Moreover, the Authors are obliged to submit statements which will include: a statement about the originality of the content of the article (work not yet published anywhere), the integrity of the copyrights of others, no conflict of interest or its application, as well as the superior permission to publish an article in the journal. Authors are obliged to participate in peer review process. The Authors are obliged to provide retractions or corrections of mistakes, they also should provide a list of references following AMA style guide.
Authors are responsible for disclosing all financial and personal relationships that might bias or be seen to bias their work. Authors may, at any time before accepting the article for publication, withdraw the article by submitting a statement in the Editorial System.
Should any conflict of interest arise, it should be reported while submitting the manuscript in a dedicated section of the submission procedure in our Editorial System. More on conflict of interest:
Complaints
If concerns are raised regarding scientific soundness or originality of a published manuscript, or figure manipulation or other forms of misconduct are alleged in a direct email to the editor or publisher, supported by sound evidence, the editor/publisher responds to the person who raised concerns saying that they are going to investigate and will let them know the outcome but will not necessarily be in contact regularly before then. If the evidence is not provided in the initial communication, the editor/publisher requests it. Based on the evidence material, the editor/publisher investigates according to the appropriate COPE flowchart. If there is an outcome to the investigation, such as a correction or retraction, the person who originally raised the concern is informed about the outcome of the case. Concerns raised via social media are treated in the same way as raised directly if evidence is provided in the initial claim or after a request.
Plagiarism and duplicate publications
All manuscripts submitted to Advances in Clinical and Experimental Medicine are checked for plagiarism using Similarity Check, a service enabling editors to screen published and submitted content for originality by providing access to the iThenticate software. Cases of suspected scientific misconduct, including plagiarism and duplicate publications, are handled according to the Committee on Publication Ethics’ Core Practices guidance.
Duties and responsibilities of reviewers
Articles are selected for publication in double-blind selection system and published in open access mode. Reviewers review manuscripts via Editorial System on the basis of questions prepared by journal’s Editorial Board. It is also possible for a reviewer to send individual comments to be published in the article content. All judgements and findings in the peer-review process should be objective. Reviewers should have no conflict of interest (they make a statement before proceeding to review). Reviewers - if there is a legitimate need - should point out relevant published work which is not yet cited. The articles reviewed by them should be treated confidentially prior to their publication.
Duties and responsibilities of editors
Editors are responsible for deciding which articles are accepted for publication. Editors act in a balanced, objective and fair way while carrying out their expected duties, without discrimination on grounds of gender, sexual orientation, religious or political beliefs, ethnic or geographical origin of the authors. Publisher and Editors are always ready to publish corrections, clarifications, withdrawals and apologies if there is a legitimate need. In the situation when there is a suspicion that an inappropriate research procedure described in the work sent by authors has taken place, the authors are obliged by the Editorial Office - if not yet submitted - to submit information regarding the approval of the described research procedure by a properly established ethics committee to conduct clinical trials.
San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment (DORA)
ACEM is a signatory of San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment (DORA), which intends to halt the practice of correlating the journal impact factor to the merits of a specific scientist's contributions. Such practice creates biases and inaccuracies when appraising scientific research. It also states that the impact factor is not to be used as a substitute measure of the quality of individual research articles, or in hiring, promotion, or funding decisions. It has become a worldwide initiative covering all scholarly disciplines and all key stakeholders including funders, publishers, professional societies, institutions, and researchers. We encourage all individuals and organizations who are interested in developing and promoting best practice in the assessment of scholarly research to sign DORA.
Its objectives are:
1. Raise awareness
To call attention to new tools and processes in research assessment and the responsible use of metrics that align with core academic values and promote consistency and transparency in decision-making.
2. Facilitate implementation
To aid development of new policies and practices for hiring, promotion, and funding decisions.
3. Catalyze change
To spread research assessment reform broadly by working across scholarly disciplines and globally.
4. Improve equity
To call for broader representation of researchers in the design of research assessment practices that directly address the structural inequalities in academia.
How Journals and Publishers Can Help to Reform Research Assessment?
