Responsible Conduct Regarding Scientific Communication
1. Authors of Scientific Communications
1.1. The SRES expects its members to adhere to high standards when publishing any
scientific communications, whether these are SRES publications or not. Authors are
obliged to conduct research according to ethical precepts; to present an accurate
account of the methods used, the results obtained, and the relevant scientific literature;
and to provide an objective discussion of the significance of the research.
1.1.1. Authors should conform to the Instructions to Authors prepared by the editors
of the journal.
1.1.2. If necessary, authors should seek the assistance of someone with experience
in technical writing in English for the manuscript. However, the authors of the
manuscript retain responsibility for the accuracy of the final manuscript.
1.2. Data must be original and accurate. It is essential that researchers and others
be able to trust the validity of published data. That trust permits researchers
to build on prior observations and thus facilitates the progress of science. It
also allows individuals to form opinions and make policies based on those observations.
Data that have been fabricated or falsified contaminate the scientific literature,
greatly diminishing the value of this resource for researchers and others in the
community. Moreover, such fraudulent actions undermine society’s trust in the scientific
enterprise.
1.2.1. Intentional, knowing, or reckless fabrication or falsification is misconduct
and will lead to action by the Society. No data may be put in a scientific communication
that have not actually been collected or observed (fabrication), nor may data be
altered in any way (falsification) other than by mathematical transformations that
are commonly accepted or clearly explained in the manuscript. This includes numerical
data as well as images.
1.2.2. Data points that clearly deviate from all others of the same type as demonstrated
by an appropriate statistical test or some other generally accepted criterion may
be eliminated from a data set. It is generally appropriate to indicate such deletions
within the manuscript.
1.2.3. All data and analyses for research reported in abstracts, articles, and oral
presentations should be maintained in a retrievable form for as long as required
by the relevant funding source(s) and institutions, typically at least three years
from submission of final grant reports.
1.3. Priority of data and ideas must be respected.
1.3.1. Appropriating of another person’s ideas, processes, results or words without
giving appropriate credit is plagiarism. Plagiarism undermines the system through
which authors receive credit for their work, and in doing so may inhibit authors
from sharing their data and ideas in a timely fashion, activities essential to the
progress of science. In addition to denying scholarly credit, plagiarism also has
potentially important legal implications for commercial development and patenting.
1.3.2. Authors are responsible for consulting and citing relevant work appropriate
to the standards of the field and the restrictions of the journal.
1.3.3. In most instances, the appropriate source will be a peer-reviewed article
rather than a review article, chapter, or book. When a secondary source is used
to supplement a primary source, it should be identified as such. Abstracts, presentations
at meetings or seminars and material placed on a Web site also should be cited appropriately.
1.3.4. Information obtained privately, as in conversation, correspondence, or discussion
with third parties, should not be used or reported in the author’s work without
explicit permission from the source of the information (who should then be cited
as providing a personal communication).
1.4. Any data reported in scientific communications involving human or animal subjects
must have been conducted in compliance with the relevant institutional review boards.
1.5. All data should be presented so as to minimize the possibility of misinterpretation.
The prohibition against misrepresenting observations extends beyond fabrication
and falsification. Data also must be presented in such a form that they will not
be readily subject to misinterpretation.
1.5.1. Data should be presented as clearly as possible. This is particularly important
when data transformations are employed or when graphical illustrations include axes
that do not begin at a standard origin (usually “0,0”).
1.5.2. All statistical tests employed to analyze data must be used knowledgeably,
ensuring that the requirements of the tests are satisfied by the data set to which
they are applied. Authors not well versed in the statistical procedures appropriate
to their research are expected to have consulted an individual with the necessary
expertise.
1.6. Authorship should be based on a substantial intellectual contribution. It is
assumed that all authors have had a significant role in the creation of a scientific
communication that bears their names. Therefore, the list of authors on an article
serves multiple purposes; it indicates who is responsible for the work and to whom
questions regarding the work should be addressed. Moreover, the credit implied by
authorship is often used as a measure of scientists’ productivity in evaluating
them for employment, promotions, grants, and prizes.
1.6.1. The senior author(s) should offer to each individual who has met the first
criterion the opportunity to participate in authoring, drafting, or critically reviewing
the manuscript so as to avoid exclusion from authorship by lack of opportunity.
1.6.2. Although researchers are strongly encouraged to share materials such as reagents,
animals, and tissues, the provision of such materials in and of itself does not
constitute sufficient grounds for inclusion as an author.
1.6.3. In multi-authored papers, the significance of the order in which authors
are listed varies widely according to common practice in the field or to the policy
established by the publisher and the journal and thus cannot reasonably be stipulated
in these Guidelines. However, it is usual in neuroscience and allied fields for
authors to be listed in descending order of their contribution to the paper, with
the exception that the senior author is often listed last.
1.6.4. Once the list and order of authors has been established, the list and order
of authors should not be altered without permission of all living authors. (Exceptions
to this rule shall be limited to the demonstration of misconduct on the part of
an author or failure to fulfill authorship obligations.)
1.6.5. The role of each author in the work reported should be indicated. Often,
two or more individuals have contributed equally and it is appropriate to share
credit as first author or senior author.
1.6.6. All authors share responsibility for the scientific accuracy of an abstract
for a presentation at a professional meeting or a manuscript, including supplementary
material. Hence, in cases of fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism, all authors
are potentially culpable.
1.6.7. In the case of papers with multiple authors, a “corresponding” author must
be designated as having responsibility for overseeing the publication process and
ensuring the integrity of the final document. The corresponding author accepts the
responsibility for: (a) including as co-authors all persons appropriate and none
inappropriate; (b) obtaining from all co-authors their assent to be designated as
such, as well as their approval of the final version of the manuscript; (c) determining
that permission has been obtained from each individual acknowledged in the manuscript;
and (d) keeping all co-authors apprised of the current status of a manuscript submitted
for publication, including furnishing all co-authors with copies of the reviewers’
comments and a copy of the published version, as appropriate.
1.6.8. If a manuscript is revised and resubmitted to the same journal, co-authors
should be asked to reaffirm their assent to be listed as co-authors and to approve
the revised version. In addition, if the manuscript is rejected or withdrawn from
a journal and then submitted to a different journal, the co-authors should be asked
again to affirm their assent to authorship even if no substantive changes have been
made.
1.6.9. Co-authors have the right to withdraw their names from a manuscript at any
time before acceptance of the manuscript by the editor. However, an author’s name
should not be removed from a manuscript without his or her permission or without
approval of the editor in cases involving possible misconduct. Once a manuscript
has been accepted for publication, no change in authorship should occur without
permission of the editor.
1.6.10. When a study is published under the auspices of a formal group, typically
multicenter, it is appropriate to append “For the xxx Group” at the end of the author
list to indicate the formality of the association without explicitly considering
the group as an author.
1.6.11. Ghostwriting (writing of a manuscript by someone who is not an author and
is not acknowledged) of a scientific publication is unacceptable. However, soliciting
assistance in improving a manuscript’s grammar and style is encouraged.
1.7. “Honorary authorship” is inconsistent with the definition of authorship. An
honorary author is any individual listed as an author who has not made a substantive
intellectual contribution to the work as defined in section 1.6. Among those who
would be considered honorary authors are those whose participation was limited solely
to the acquisition of funding for the research; those who are a chair or director
of department, division, or research group and had no significant role in the planning,
conduct, and review of the research; or those who merely supervised the collection
of data. Honorary authorship is a misrepresentation, implying a substantial intellectual
contribution that was not made. It also distorts the publication record, making
it a less reliable measure of productivity. Moreover, should honorary authors be
unable to adequately discuss the work, this will reflect poorly on them and their
co-authors. Finally, honorary authors risk associating themselves with work that
may later be the subject of a misconduct investigation and about which they have
little knowledge.
1.8. “Acknowledgements” provide an opportunity to note assistance that does not
warrant authorship but does merit recognition. Although only a limited number of
people will qualify as authors of a manuscript (see section 1.6), there are many
other types of contributions that can or even should be acknowledged in other ways.
Acknowledgement of ideas or of comments provided about a draft of a manuscript is
an appropriate indication of assistance provided and also may facilitate such interactions
in the future. However, because acknowledgements of intellectual contributions may
be interpreted by readers as an endorsement of the conclusions of the paper, authors
should offer such individuals the opportunity to decline the acknowledgement. Other
types of acknowledgements that may be appropriate are those for the donation of
a critical reagent or for technical support.
1.8.1. A footnote or the “Acknowledgements” section of a paper should be used to
indicate intellectual, technical, or other contributions that do not merit authorship
but are nonetheless noteworthy.
1.8.2. Individuals should be informed before the publication of any such acknowledgements
and thereby given the opportunity to decline the offer.
1.9. Financial contributions to the work being reported should be clearly acknowledged,
as should any potential conflict of interest. Acknowledgement of financial support
is expected by sponsors and may assist the funding agency in determining the impact
of their contribution. Moreover, financial support from commercial sponsors may
be a potential conflict of interest, which should be disclosed so that editors,
reviewers, and readers can consider this in evaluating the objectivity of the report.
Financial support includes the contribution, free of charge, of products such as
drugs, biological materials, or devices.
1.9.1. All sources of financial support for the work described should be acknowledged
in a footnote or in an “Acknowledgements” section of a manuscript.
1.9.2. Authors should disclose in a cover letter sent to the editor any associations
that represent a potential conflict of interest. These include a current or pending
relationship as a consultant for the company supporting the research or manufacturing
products being tested, a financial or managerial interest in such a company, or
intellectual property rights that might be affected by publication of the results
of the research reported in a manuscript. Upon receipt of this information, an editor
may require that a footnote disclosing the potential conflict be added to the manuscript.
1.9.3. Authors should ensure that no contractual relations or proprietary considerations
exist that would restrict the dissemination of their findings. More fundamentally,
researchers should seek advice from their institutions before entering into agreements
that might prevent or unduly delay publication of their research results. It is
generally accepted that there may be a brief delay (e.g., 30 to 60 days) for the
sponsor to review a manuscript and prepare a patent application. However, it is
not acceptable for an academic scientist to permit an outside organization to hold
veto power over publication. Should any such restrictions exist, however, they should
be disclosed to the editor. Upon receipt of this information, an editor may choose
to return the manuscript.
1.10. Methods and materials should be described in sufficient detail to permit evaluation
and replication. In science it is essential that other researchers be able to evaluate
and, if they wish, to replicate published observations. This enables researchers
to build on the work of each other, thus permitting the efficient use of resources.
1.10.1. A research article should contain sufficient detail and reference to public
sources of information in a format appropriate to the journal’s style and policy
to allow a knowledgeable scientist to evaluate and replicate the work reported.
1.10.2. The source of any materials and equipment thought to be crucial to the replication
of the experiment should be clearly identified, and authors should provide details
on any materials and protocols upon request.
1.10.3. Any known unusual hazards inherent in the chemicals, equipment, or procedures
used in an investigation should be clearly identified in the manuscript reporting
the work.
1.11. Data sharing is encouraged. When data are published in a peer-reviewed journal,
authors should deposit associated data in a suitable publicly accessible repository,
when available. Authors should, when possible, honor requests for access to any
form of published data for appropriate scientific use.
1.12. Unique and propagatable materials used in studies being reported must be made
available to qualified scientists for bona fide research purposes. In some cases,
the replication and extension of published work may require materials that are not
readily available. In such instances, the authors must make every effort to provide
those materials to other qualified scientists. Indeed, the failure of authors to
provide such materials greatly reduces the value of their work. In general, editors
should not accept a manuscript for publication unless the authors agree to the above
conditions.
1.12.1. Once a manuscript has been published, authors must promptly make available
to qualified scientists for bona fide research purposes all materials that were
used in the reported research and are not otherwise readily available. This includes
propagatable research materials (such as monoclonal antibodies, transgenic mice,
and DNA probes and constructs) and, where possible, non-propagatable materials (for
example, serum antibodies). Reasonable costs associated with the production and
transfer of these materials should be provided by the recipient if the authors so
request.
1.12.2. Such materials must be provided without restrictions, such as the requirement
that they not be used for a particular type of experiment. Likewise, the person
providing the materials should not make future authorship a condition for this provision.
Reasonable mutual agreements to avoid unnecessary overlap of research are encouraged.
1.12.3. These guidelines apply equally to those in academia and in the private sector,
except that when an individual in the private sector requests materials that are
intended to be used for commercialization, it is appropriate that the individual
requesting the materials be asked to provide a fee.
1.12.4. Authors should try to arrange to provide these materials for a significant
period of time after a paper has been published, even if the material is not in
current use.
1.12.5. Authors who use materials that they obtain from another source should endeavor
to have those materials made available to other researchers.
1.12.6. In rare instances, considerations of time, money, or personnel may make
sharing of materials impossible. In each such case the authors must explain these
circumstances in a cover letter submitted with the manuscript, indicating that the
authors are prepared to make every effort to assist others in creating their own
materials. The editors of the journal may then determine whether or not to accept
the manuscript for review.
1.12.7. Certain considerations may lead authors, particularly those in the private
sector whose work is not supported by public funds, to wish to delay providing compounds
being developed as therapeutic agents. These instances must be explained and the
period of delay defined in a cover letter submitted with the manuscript. In addition,
the authors might offer to supply closely related materials (e.g., an analog to
a compound). The editors can then determine whether to accept the manuscript for
review.
1.12.8. If it is demonstrated that an author has failed to abide by these guidelines,
SRES will refuse to publish any communication involving that author until the matter
is corrected.
1.13. Authors have an obligation to correct errors promptly. Once an article has
been published, it remains forever within the scientific literature. Thus, care
should be taken to determine that every aspect of a manuscript is correct. Occasionally,
errors are not discovered until after a manuscript has been submitted or even after
it has been published. Every effort should be made to correct such errors as quickly
as possible. It is far preferable to do so before an article is published since
the subsequent publication of corrections — while serving a useful purpose when
required — can never completely eliminate the possibility that individuals will
read the original article and assume it to be accurate, having not read the correction.
1.13.1. Authors must strive to ensure that every aspect of a manuscript is correct.
This responsibility does not end when a manuscript has been submitted for publication.
1.13.2. Should a significant error be discovered after the article has been submitted,
is in press, or has been published, the authors must immediately contact the editor
and establish how the error should best be corrected.
1.13.3. If there is a disagreement among the authors about such matters, the editor
of the journal to which the manuscript was submitted must determine the proper course
of action.
1.14. All components of a research article are subject to peer review. Designation
as a peer-reviewed article implies that each substantive component of the published
article, including supplemental material, has received editorial approval. This
includes material that has been modified or added after the initial review process,
as well as the deletion of material. Thus, although it may be necessary to alter
a manuscript after it has been submitted, this should be done only with the consent
of the editor.
1.14.1. If a manuscript has been reviewed, returned to the authors, and is being
sent back to the same journal in a revised form, all substantive changes in any
aspect of that manuscript should be explicitly described in an accompanying note
to the editor. This applies to the list and order of authors, as well as to the
text, data, figures, tables, and references.
1.14.2. All substantive changes made in proofs sent to the authors after a manuscript
has been accepted for publication also must be clearly identified and explained
in a note to the editor.
1.15. Authors should not engage in duplicate publication. Publishing the same finding
based on the same data in two different articles without explicit acknowledgement
of the relationship is duplicate publication and is unacceptable. Any data that
have been previously published should be explicitly labeled as such. Data refers
to the full range of experimental observations, including both numerical values
and images. Once this condition has been satisfied, studies involving data mining
and explicit comparison with pre-existing data sets are appropriate and encouraged.
1.16. Informal communication of results and ideas is encouraged. Presentation of
data and manuscript drafts at conferences or on the Internet is encouraged, because
it enhances the prompt exchange of information and allows for feedback from the
community. Authors should ascertain in advance whether the communication infringes
the policies of the journal targeted for final publication and should be aware that
even informal communication can modify the intellectual property status of the data.
1.17. Authors should not discuss with reviewers any aspect of a manuscript under
evaluation prior to a final decision. In order to maximize the unbiased nature of
the review, the evaluation process should proceed without any interaction between
authors and reviewer except through the editor.
1.17.1. Communications between authors and reviewers should be made only through
the editor or a designated editorial assistant. Authors should not discuss their
manuscript directly with a reviewer while it is under review.
1.17.2. Authors and reviewers should continue to refrain from discussing the review
with each other after a final editorial decision is made.
1.17.3. Under no circumstances should an author allow an opinion rendered by a reviewer
to influence the author's future actions regarding that reviewer except that an
author might choose to request that a given reviewer not be asked to evaluate the
author’s future manuscripts.
1.18. It is improper for authors to submit a manuscript describing essentially the
same research simultaneously to more than one peer-reviewed research journal. To
do otherwise is to overuse valuable editorial and reviewing time. It also risks
the possibility of duplicate publication.
1.18.1. When submitting a manuscript for publication, authors should inform the
editor of any closely related manuscripts under editorial consideration or in press,
and describe the relationships of such manuscripts to the one submitted. A copy
of these manuscripts should also be supplied to the editor.
1.19. When communications will not undergo formal editorial review (e.g., abstracts
for presentations at professional meetings), authors are encouraged to have these
communications reviewed by colleagues.
2. Reviewers of Manuscripts
SRES expects high standards and compliance with these guidelines by all SRES members
who review manuscripts for any journal and for all reviewers of any manuscript submitted
to an SRES publication. Peer review is an essential step in the publication process,
and therefore in research. It helps to ensure that published articles describe experiments
that focus on important issues and that the research is well designed and executed.
In addition, it serves to promote the presentation of methods in sufficient detail
to permit replication, data that are unambiguous and properly analyzed, and conclusions
that are supported by the data. Finally, it promotes the proper citation of prior
literature. In these ways peer review serves as a safeguard for both the authors
and the readers.
2.1. Thorough scientific review is in the interest of the scientific community.
Although readers of the scientific literature must judge the quality of a research
article for themselves, the peer-review system is an extremely valuable safeguard.
First, it allows readers some degree of confidence regarding the quality of the
article, which is particularly important in areas with which they are not familiar.
Second, it reduces the time spent reading a paper that fails to conform to generally
accepted standards. Thus, it is essential that reviewers carefully evaluate a manuscript,
a process that often requires several hours. A thorough review should objectively
judge all aspects of the manuscript.
2.1.1. Agreement to review a manuscript is an implied agreement to carry out a careful,
thorough, and timely evaluation.
2.1.2. A reviewer should consider the quality and significance of the experimental
and theoretical work, the completeness of the description of methods and materials,
the logical basis of the interpretation of the results, and the exposition with
due regard to the maintenance of high standards of communication.
2.1.3. Reviews should include constructive suggestions for revision, including,
if appropriate, indication of where statements may require additional reference
to the published literature.
2.2. A thorough review must include consideration of the ethical dimensions of a
manuscript as well as its scientific merit. It is essential that experiments be
conducted and reported in an ethical manner. Whereas the primary responsibility
for this assurance lies with the authors, the reviewer has a critical role to play
in safeguarding the integrity of the scientific literature.
2.2.1. A reviewer must consider the ethical dimensions of a manuscript and should
advise the editor of any suspicions of violations of ethical standards in the research
or the reporting. The editor should then relay appropriate questions to the authors
in a timely manner.
2.2.2. The issues for consideration include but are not limited to the following:
the unethical treatment of animals and human subjects, fabrication or falsification,
the improper analysis of data, the use of misleading graphics, duplicate publication,
and improper or omitted citation of the work of others (including plagiarism).
2.3. All scientists are encouraged to participate if possible when asked to review
a manuscript. Each year, many thousands of manuscripts that are related to neuroscience
are submitted to journals for consideration. Distributing the responsibility for
reviewing these manuscripts as broadly as possible helps to provide expertise in
a variety of areas and a diversity of opinion; it also minimizes the burdens assumed
by diligent individuals.
2.4. Anonymity of reviewers should be preserved unless otherwise stated in the guidelines
for authors and for reviewers, or unless a reviewer requests disclosure. Both authors
and reviewers should observe the policies for confidentiality as set by the journal
concerned, noting that such policies can differ significantly among journals. Most
journals in neuroscience and related fields do not identify reviewers to the authors
of manuscripts because it is felt that disclosure might inhibit adequate review.
However, those journals usually reveal the identity of the authors to the reviewer
because it is assumed that this information assists in evaluating a manuscript’s
quality. For example, it may be important to know whether a given author has experience
with a particular technique. When such imbalance in information exists, it should
not be permitted to affect either the quality or the confidentiality of the review
process.
2.4.1. Reviewers should not communicate with authors about a manuscript under consideration.
Likewise, authors should not initiate such a communication with a reviewer but instead
should communicate only with the editor. If an author persists in attempting to
communicate with a reviewer, that reviewer should notify the editor.
2.5. Reviewers should be chosen for their high qualifications and objectivity regarding
a particular manuscript. Individuals who are active in the area of research addressed
in a manuscript may often be the most qualified reviewers. However, for the peer
review process to work effectively, authors and editors also must be assured that
reviewers are impartial. For these reasons, reviewers should be sensitive to any
conflict of interest or appearance of such conflict in regard to a particular manuscript
that they are asked to review.
2.5.1. An individual who is asked to review a manuscript and who feels inadequately
qualified to judge that manuscript should return the manuscript promptly without
review and advise the editor of the circumstances.
2.5.2. Individuals must inform the editor of any potential conflict of interest
regarding a manuscript, and should decline to review the manuscript if they believe
that the conflict of interest might impair their objectivity. Examples of a conflict
of interest might include but are not limited to: (a) a manuscript that is so closely
related to the potential reviewer’s work in progress that it would be difficult
to ensure that the reviewer would not be influenced by reading the manuscript; (b)
a manuscript that strongly supports or refutes the potential reviewer’s opinions;
(c) an author who has recently been associated with the potential reviewer as a
mentor, student, collaborator, or protagonist; or (d) a manuscript that discusses
an issue or an organization in which the potential reviewer has a financial interest.
If in doubt on this issue, a prospective reviewer should (a) return the manuscript
promptly without review and advise the editor of the circumstances, (b) contact
the editor and defer to the editor's judgment with regard to the appropriateness
of serving as a reviewer, or (c) explain to the editor the possible conflict of
interest in a confidential comment that accompanies the review.
2.6. Reviews should not contain harsh language or personal attacks. Reviewers need
not refrain from rendering a critical judgment; indeed, this is in the best interest
of science. However, reviewers should comment tactfully. Harsh language and personal
attacks on the authors are unacceptable; they also may call into question the validity
of the reviewer's comments. Editors may choose to modify a review if necessary to
ensure that civility is preserved.
2.7. Reviews should be prompt as well as thorough. Objectivity and thoroughness
are essential qualities of a review; so is promptness. Authors profit from timely
feedback, as when an additional experiment or modification of a method is recommended.
Moreover, priority — publishing a finding before others do so — is often an important
criterion in the evaluation of an author’s productivity.
2.7.1. Reviewers must be allowed and should take the time necessary to provide a
thorough review. They also should submit their evaluation of the manuscript in a
timely manner. SRES considers that two weeks is usually an adequate period of time
to complete the review of a full-length manuscript.
2.7.2. Should a reviewer receive an invitation to review a manuscript at a time
when circumstances preclude prompt attention to it, the reviewer should decline
the invitation in a timely manner. Alternatively, the reviewer may notify the editor
of probable delays, propose a revised deadline for the review, and defer to the
editor’s judgment regarding the acceptability of a delay.
2.8. Reviewers must not use non-public information contained in a manuscript to
advance their own research or financial interests. The resources necessary for research
are scarce and are awarded in large part to those individuals who are credited with
the best ideas and the highest productivity. Yet, authors willingly submit manuscripts
for review before receiving credit for their work. Thus, it is essential that reviewers
not abuse their privileged positions by attempting to benefit from their advanced
access to new ideas, methods, or data.
2.8.1. Reviewers should not use any information, arguments, or interpretations contained
in a manuscript under consideration to advance their research unless the information
has been made publicly available through another source, such as an abstract or
a presentation at a meeting, a stock offering, or a new article.
2.8.2. There is one exception to this rule: If information obtained during the review
of a manuscript indicates that some of the reviewer’s own research is unlikely to
be successful, it would be ethical for the reviewer to discontinue the research.
2.8.3. Individuals should not buy or sell stock in a company whose product figures
prominently in a manuscript they are reviewing until after the manuscript is published
or the information contained in the manuscript becomes publicly available through
some other means. Neither should they buy or sell stock in a competitor based upon
non-public information in a manuscript they have reviewed.
2.9. Information contained in a manuscript under review is confidential and must
not be shared with others. The rationale prohibiting reviewers from profiting from
their advanced access to a manuscript also dictates that reviewers treat the document
as confidential. If it is in the best interests of the review process to obtain
additional advice, this must be done with careful attention to matters of conflict
of interest and confidentiality, and in conformity with the journal’s policies.
2.9.1. Reviewers, as well as their administrative staff who deal with the manuscript,
should neither share nor discuss a manuscript with others, except in special cases
when additional specific advice is necessary to provide a thorough review, and then
only if consistent with instructions from the editor.
2.9.2. In the event that outside advice is deemed necessary and requires that confidential
information be revealed, the reviewer should request permission from the editor
if journal instructions so indicate. This will allow the editor to determine whether
the authors of the manuscript have requested that the individual in question not
be assigned as a reviewer.
2.9.3. If the designated reviewer does consult additional colleagues, the number
of such individuals should be kept to a minimum. Moreover, it is the reviewer’s
responsibility to ensure that each such individual is aware of all relevant aspects
of these Guidelines and other pertinent policies for the journal concerned, especially
those dealing with conflict of interest and confidentiality.
2.9.4. An exception is made for reviewers to instruct their trainees in the process
of peer review. A reviewer may bring an immediate lab member with appropriate expertise
into the process for training purposes. In such situations, the reviewer is responsible
for ensuring that the trainee fulfills all obligations for confidentiality, and
the reviewer must report to the journal the identity of the trainee. The reviewer
remains fully responsible for the content and quality of the review.
2.9.5. Unless otherwise agreed upon by the editor or indicated in the instructions,
the person to whom the manuscript was originally sent bears ultimate responsibility
for the accuracy of the review and for ensuring that additional readers do not compromise
the integrity of the review process.
2.9.6. The reviewer should identify all individuals who contributed to the confidential
review.
2.9.7. Reviewers should be mindful of the fact that unpublished manuscripts remain
the property of the authors until a copyright agreement between the authors and
the publisher has been signed.
3. Editors of Scientific Journals
All SRES members who serve as editors on any journal and all editors of SRES publications
are expected to maintain the highest ethical standards and to comply with these
Guidelines. The review process needs a director, such as an editor (or editors)
charged with ensuring the high quality of all manuscripts accepted for publication,
and with maintaining the objectivity and confidentiality of the process used to
make that determination.
3.1. The sole responsibility for acceptance or rejection of a manuscript rests with
the editor. The primary task of the editors of any journal is to ensure that all
manuscripts are evaluated primarily with regard to the importance and quality of
the work reported, and its relevance to the journal’s mission.
3.1.1. An editor may reject a manuscript without additional opinions if it is deemed
to be (a) inappropriate as to subject matter or format; (b) of poor quality; or
(c) of inadequate significance. This decision, based primarily on the manuscript
as submitted, should take into account the editor’s assessment of the possible impact
of revisions by the author.
3.1.2. In the case where authors have a conflict of interest, an editor may request
that the authors include a statement to this effect in the manuscript before it
can be reviewed or accepted for publication.
3.1.3. For manuscripts that pass this initial screening, responsible and prudent
exercise of editorial responsibilities normally requires that the editor seek advice
from reviewers as to the appropriateness of the manuscript for publication in the
journal for which it is being considered.
3.1.4. Editors should endeavor to select reviewers who possess appropriate expertise
and exercise sound judgment. Editors then should ensure that the reviewers understand
their responsibilities, including those regarding confidentiality and the timely
preparation of an unbiased review.
3.1.5. Editors are under no obligation to reconsider a manuscript they have rejected.
However, an editor may offer the authors an opportunity to respond to criticisms
and/or to prepare a revised version. In this case, the editor should permit the
authors a reasonable but limited period of time in which to do so.
3.1.6. Editors should hold authors to a high standard with regard to the citation
of appropriate literature, emphasizing the use of initial, peer-reviewed references
whenever possible. However, editors should not encourage authors to cite the editors’
journal merely to enhance that journal’s reputation.
3.2. Editors should generally grant the request of an author who asks that an individual
be excluded from the review of a particular manuscript. There are legitimate reasons
for authors to request that particular individuals not review their manuscripts.
For example, the individual may be a competitor in a rapidly moving field, or may
have previously demonstrated an inappropriate bias against the author.
3.2.1. Authors may request that the editor not involve certain individuals in the
review of their manuscript. The editor should generally grant this request. However,
the editor may decide to use one or more of these reviewers if the editor believes
that their expertise is critical to the fair consideration of the manuscript. If
an editor does use a reviewer despite an author's objection, the editor should seek
the opinions of additional reviewers.
3.2.2. Authors may indicate in their cover letter that the manuscript should be
returned to them rather than be reviewed by a particular individual. An editor should
respect this request.
3.3. Editors should establish a review process that minimizes bias. Science flourishes
best when publication in peer reviewed journals is based solely on the quality and
scientific importance of manuscripts and their relevance to the mission of those
journals. This applies to all journals, regardless of whether they are published
by a nonprofit scientific organization, academic institution, or commercial firm.
3.3.1. Editors should avoid conflict of interest by recusal when appropriate.
3.3.2. An editor should give unbiased consideration to all manuscripts offered for
publication, judging each on its merits without regard to any personal characteristic
of the authors. Such irrelevant characteristics include, but are not limited to,
age, ethnicity, gender, institutional affiliation, nationality, race, religion,
seniority, and sexual orientation.
3.3.3. Editors should urge reviewers to be objective in their evaluation of a manuscript.
3.3.4. Except in the case of signed editorials, editorial responsibility for any
manuscript with which the editor has a potential conflict of interest should be
delegated to another qualified person, such as another member of the editorial board
or senior editorial staff of that journal. This may be necessary, for example, when
a manuscript under review is authored by the editor or someone at the editor’s institution
or a present student or collaborator; closely overlaps with ongoing work in the
editor’s laboratory; or may be related to an editor’s financial interests.
3.3.5. Editors should ensure that throughout the review process the intellectual
independence of authors is respected and room is left for well-reasoned differences
in opinion.
3.4. Editors should subject all manuscripts of a given form to the same type of
review. If readers are to assume that publication indicates a manuscript has achieved
the standards set by a given journal, then all articles within that journal (or
a particular section of the journal) must receive an equivalent review. Moreover,
because special credit is provided to the individual who publishes a finding first,
editors should endeavor to have all manuscripts reviewed and published with the
same degree of promptness.
3.4.1. Editors should consider manuscripts submitted for publication with all reasonable
speed. Likewise, editors should strive to publish manuscripts in chronological order
of acceptance.
3.4.2. Authors should never be given any assurance of a positive outcome of the
review process until that process has been completed. This requires complete and
thorough evaluation of the submitted manuscript and usually involves input from
two or more reviewers other than the editor.
3.5. Editors should provide to the authors a written rationale for editorial decisions
regarding a manuscript submitted for publication. It is essential that the scientific
community, including each individual author, have as much confidence in the editorial
process as possible. Thus, a written explanation of an editorial decision — usually
including the comments of reviewers — is essential. Moreover, such feedback can
play an important role in encouraging good science and manuscripts of high quality
in the future.
3.5.1. Editors should provide the corresponding author with a copy of the reviewers’
comments regarding a manuscript.
3.5.2. Before forwarding a reviewer’s comments to an author, the editor may delete
any inappropriately harsh language or personal attacks included in the review. The
need for these deletions should be brought to the attention of the reviewer. Such
language or attacks should not influence the editor's decision regarding the manuscript,
although it may require the editor to seek input from an additional reviewer.
3.6. Everyone involved in the editorial process must treat unpublished manuscripts
as confidential documents. Until a manuscript is published, editors and members
of their editorial staffs are expected to treat it as a privileged document.
3.6.1. Unpublished research ideas, information, arguments, or interpretations disclosed
in a submitted manuscript should not be used in an editor’s own research or for
the personal financial gain of an editor or anyone associated with a journal. However,
if information obtained during the review of a manuscript indicates that some of
the editor’s own research is unlikely to be successful, it would be ethical for
the editor to discontinue the research.
3.6.2. The editor, the editor’s staff, and the journal’s staff should not disclose
information about a manuscript under consideration to anyone other than those from
whom professional advice is sought or as part of the normal editorial process.
3.6.3. However, an editor who solicits or otherwise arranges beforehand for the
submission of manuscripts may need to disclose to prospective authors the fact that
a relevant manuscript by another author has been received or is in preparation.
This may occur, for example, during development or production of a special issue.
3.7. A limited amount of information regarding a manuscript accepted for publication
may be disclosed by an editor to the public prior to publication. In certain cases,
it may be of value to hasten the dissemination of some or all of the contents of
the article. This might occur, for example, if the article contains information
important to public health.
3.7.1. After a manuscript has been accepted for publication, it is reasonable for
the editor and members of the editor’s staff to release to the press, under embargo,
information about or from the manuscript before publication.
3.7.2. With the exception of the title and authors’ names, the contents of a manuscript
should not normally be disclosed prior to publication without the authors’ permission
unless such disclosure is part of the published policy of the journal.
3.8. Editors should correct errors in a manuscript if they are detected before publication
or publish corrections if they are detected afterward. Honest errors can escape
detection until after a manuscript has been submitted or even published, as when
a reagent subsequently proves to be less specific than originally believed or a
measuring device is later shown to have been inaccurate. Occasionally, calculations
are incorrect or a critical paper is discovered late. An author, a reviewer, an
editor, or any other individual may raise the possibility of error. In each case,
it is imperative that the editor carefully investigates the possible error once
it has been pointed out. When errors significantly alter some aspect of an article,
the editor and publisher should provide a means by which a correction or retraction
can be made.
3.8.1. If someone other than an author brings an error or apparent error to an editor's
attention the editor should notify all authors as soon as possible and request correction.
3.8.2. If an error may significantly affect a manuscript or published article, then
corrective action should be taken. If a manuscript has not yet been published, the
errors should be corrected before publication or else publication should be delayed
or revoked. If the article has been published, then a report about the error should
be published in the journal in which the original article appeared.
3.8.3. In the case of errors in reports that have already been published, the authors
should always be given the opportunity to respond to and report the error. If the
authors do not do so in a timely manner, then the editor of the journal should publish
a notice of correction, or in more serious cases retract the article.
3.8.4. All notices of correction or retraction must be published prominently in
the journal in which the original report appeared and contain the full bibliographic
reference to the original article or abstract. It should also be listed in the contents
page and be prominently labeled.
4. Communications Outside the Scientific Literature
Communication with the lay public through publication of research results and discussions
is encouraged. Such communications help to disseminate knowledge to the general
community and can promote an appreciation of research, much of which is supported
with public funds. However, these communications must be made responsibly, staying
within the boundaries set by the level of understanding of the audience and the
need for accuracy and responsibility. In most instances, research findings should
be published or accepted for publication in a peer-reviewed journal before being
announced to the public.
4.1. Research scientists should seek to communicate their ideas and results to the
general public. Researchers are encouraged to discuss their ideas and their results
with the public. This might occur through oral presentations, press releases, or
articles written for the lay community or assistance and advice to those producing
public communication in science. SRES maintains a staff to assist its members in
this regard.
4.2. Material prepared for the popular literature should be accurate and be given
previous review by peers. Scientific terminology provides the precision essential
to the conduct of science, yet may be unintelligible or unnecessarily complex for
communicating with the general public. Scientists are encouraged to use language
appropriate to their audience, even though this may result in some loss of precision.
The scientist should, however, strive to keep public writing, remarks, and interviews
as accurate as possible, given the constraints of effective communication, the particular
medium, and the extent to which the scientist is able to control the final product
or communication.
4.2.1. When communicating outside the scientific literature, researchers should
adhere to the same general ethical principles that apply to research articles. This
includes giving appropriate credit to others; the prohibitions against fabrication,
falsification, and plagiarism; the principles that define authorship; and the requirement
that potential conflicts of interest be disclosed.
4.2.2. A scientist should not publicly announce a discovery unless the experimental,
statistical, and theoretical support for it is of sufficient strength to warrant
publication in the scientific literature.
4.3. Communication outside the scientific literature is not a substitute for publication
within the scientific literature. Although communication of ideas and results to
the lay public is strongly encouraged, this does not substitute for publication
of those ideas and results in a peer-reviewed journal. Moreover, public trust in
the scientific endeavor can be greatly harmed through the premature release of findings
that are called into question or disproved shortly thereafter. Thus, it generally
is best if the initial public announcement of a scientific finding occurs after
acceptance by a peer-reviewed journal.
4.3.1. In most instances it is in the best interest of science that a finding be
reviewed and accepted for publication in a peer-reviewed journal before it is announced
to the public.
4.3.2. Under certain circumstances an author may conclude that the public good is
best served by more rapid dissemination of research findings. In such circumstances,
special care must be taken to ensure that the conclusions presented to the public
are well supported. If the work has not yet been subjected to formal editorial or
peer review, the proposed communication should be reviewed by knowledgeable colleagues.
4.3.3. When publication of a result in the popular press precedes publication in
a peer reviewed journal, an account of the experimental work and results should
be submitted as quickly as possible for publication in such a journal.
4.3.4. Researchers are cautioned that extensive disclosure of research results in
the public press may preclude publication in some peer-reviewed journals.