Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement

The Editorial Board activities depend mainly on recommendations of the Committee of Publication Ethics (http://publicationethics.org) and the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (http://www.icmje.org).

Ethics is an important condition for effective Journal participation in the development of a holistic system of knowledge in a field of neurosurgery and related specialties. The Editorial Board is doing the best to prevent any violations of these rules, as our primary goal is to provide readers with high quality publications.

Duties of Editors

• The editor decides on the publication of submitted articles. It is guided by a journal policy based solely on academic value and the conclusions of the reviewers. The editor adheres to modern rules regarding libel, copyright infringement, and plagiarism. The editor may confer with other editors or reviewers (or society officers) in making these decisions.
• The editor shall ensure that the peer review process is fair, unbiased, and timely. Research articles must typically be reviewed by at least two external and independent reviewers, and where necessary the editor should seek additional opinions.
• The editor should evaluate manuscripts for their intellectual content without regard to race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy of the authors.
• The editor must not attempt to influence the journal’s ranking by artificially increasing any journal metric. In particular, the editor shall not require that references to that (or any other) journal’s articles be included except for genuine scholarly reasons and authors should not be required to include references to the editor’s own articles or products and services in which the editor has an interest.
• The editor must protect the confidentiality of all material submitted to the journal, except in cases of investigation of episodes of research misconduct. Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in an editor's own research without the express written consent of the author. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage.
• The editor should not influence decisions on articles under his own authorship and the authorship of his research group. Any such manuscript must be subject to all normal procedures of the journal and peer review must be conducted independently of the editor concerned and the scientists in his research group.
• The editor must respond to all claims or concerns about misconduct in research or publication made by readers, reviewers, or others. Such action will typically involve contacting the author of the manuscript or article and appropriately addressing the complaint or claims involved, and may also include further notification to appropriate agencies. The editor must also properly use the publisher's systems to detect misconduct such as plagiarism. An editor who is presented with compelling evidence of misconduct should coordinate with the publisher (and/or scientific society) to arrange for prompt publication of a correction, retraction, expression of concern, or other correction to the record.

Duties of Reviewers

• Peer review is an essential component of formal scholarly communication, and lies at the heart of the scientific method. Peer review assists the editor in making editorial decisions and through the editorial communications with the author may also assist the author in improving the paper.
• The reviewer should respect the intellectual independence of the authors, and should treat a manuscript sent for review as a confidential document. It should neither be shown to nor discussed with others except without those authorized by the editor.
• The reviewer should provide unbiased scientific evaluation for the results of the research presented in a manuscript submitted for consideration; in no case is personal criticism appropriate.
• Reviewers should consult the Editor before agreeing to review a paper where they have potential conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers.
• Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in a reviewer’s own research without the express written consent of the author. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage.
• A chosen reviewer who feels inadequately qualified to judge the research reported in a manuscript or cannot be unbiased, particularly in a case of conflict of interests with an author, or knows that his rapid examination will not be possible should return it promptly to the editor advising the editor of excluding him from reviewing the manuscript.

• Authors of reports 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 paper. A paper should contain sufficient detail and references to permit others to replicate the work. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behaviour and are unacceptable. Review and professional publication articles should also be accurate and objective, and editorial ‘opinion’ works should be clearly identified as such.
• Authorship should be limited to those who made a significant contribution to the conception, design, performance, or interpretation of the reported study. Anyone who has made a significant contribution should be credited as co-authors. If there are other individuals who contributed to certain essential aspects of the article (eg, language editing or medical writing), they should be acknowledged in the acknowledgments section. The corresponding author must ensure that all relevant co-authors and no irrelevant co-authors are included in the article, and that all co-authors have seen and approved the final version of the article and consented to its submission for publication.
• An author's central obligation is to present concise and accurate data and account of the research, work, or project completed (not operating erroneous or simulated data).
• An author should guarantee that the presented results of the research are totally original. The author should provide in-text references to data, facts and information sources used for the research. The citation should meet the requirements of the Journal. An author is obliged to provide an outlook of contribution of other scholars to studying the highlighted scientific problem and provide respective references.
• Plagiarism takes many forms: from "passing off" someone else's article as the author's own article, to copying or paraphrasing significant parts of someone else's article (without indicating authorship), to statements about the results of research conducted by others. Plagiarism in all its forms is unethical behavior and is unacceptable.
• If the object of the study were people or animals, the author must ensure that the manuscript stated that the experiment complies with legislation and ethical standards, and is approved by the relevant committees of scientific institutions.
• All authors must disclose in their manuscript any financial or personal relationships with other people or organizations that may be considered to have undue influence (bias) on their work. All sources of financial support for the conduct of the study and/or preparation of the article must be disclosed, as well as the role of the sponsor(s), if any, in the design of the study; in data collection, analysis and interpretation; in writing a report; and in the decision to submit the article for publication. If the source(s) of funding did not participate, this should be noted.
• The author cannot submit manuscripts that are sent to other journals or are under editorial consideration for other publications or are already published.