EJES ETHIC CODE

REVIEWING PROCESS All research articles proposed for publishing in EURINT need to undergo a rigorous review. The peer review process respects the originality and personal opinions of the authors, but reserves the editor's right to demand changes, based on reviewers' comments in order to preserve high scientific quality and our readers' interest. The review process consists in an initial editor screening and an anti-plagiarism scan using our specialised software. If the manuscript passes the initial tests, The reviewing process relies on a single-blind peer review. The process respects the originality and personal opinions of the authors, but reserves the editor's right to demand changes, based on reviewers' comments in order to preserve high scientific quality and our readers' interest. After revision, the manuscripts are undergoing a final English proofreading process. EURINT is concerned about assuring a high quality research standard and an ethical behaviour for all the parties involved in publication process (editors, authors and reviewers). Therefore, EURINT adopted an ethic code based on the guidelines developed by the Committee on Publications Ethics (COPE). EDITORS' OBLIGATIONS Review and publication decision | The editor has complete responsibility and authority to accept or reject a submitted manuscript. Based on an initial screening process the editor decides whether the manuscript is suitable for review or not. The reviewing process consists in an initial check for plagiarism using a specialized anti-plagiarism software and requiring opinions from at least two anonymous reviewers. The editor reserves the right to reject the manuscript, considering reviewers' opinions or any concerns relating copyright or plagiarism violations. Furthermore, the editor may refuse to publish future articles from the authors who have committed plagiarism When necessary, editors should be willing to publish corrections, clarifications, retractions and apologies. Discrimination | An editor should evaluate all manuscripts submitted for publication without regard to race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship and respecting the intellectual independence of the authors. Confidentiality | The editor and any editorial staff should treat manuscripts as confidential documents, not providing information about submitted manuscripts, to anyone else except for the corresponding author, reviewers, potential reviewers or other editorial advisers. Privileged information | The editor should not use the information gained from unpublished submitted manuscripts for its own research, unless obtaining the author's consent.   Conflicts of interest | Any potential conflict of interest relating to a manuscript should be disclosed to the editor in chief. Appealing publication decision | An authors may contest the decision of rejecting his submitted manuscript. The final decision is taken by the editor in chief. In order to decide, the editor in chief may consult other editorial members or reviewers. Corrections and retraction | If after publication errors are identified, the editor will ask author to make necessary corrections, mentioning the date when corrections have been made. If these corrections are significant, implying the invalidation of a considerable part of the research, the manuscript should be retracted, indicating the reason for this decision. AUTHORS' OBLIGATIONS* Multiple or concurrent publication | Authors should ensure that they submit original manuscripts, which are not describing essentially the same research as in other manuscripts and which have not previously been published. Authors should not submit the same manuscript to more than one journal at the same time. Originality and plagiarism | Authors should make sure they appropriately cite/quote when using work of other authors. Plagiarism constitutes unethical scientific behaviour and is not acceptable, whether is related to copying or paraphrasing the work of others without mention it or in any other form. Access to manuscript data | Authors must be prepared to provide the raw data for editorial review if requested and should be prepared to retain such data for a reasonable time after publication. Conflicts of interest | Authors should disclose to the editor in chief any financial or other substantive conflict of interest that might influence the results or interpretation of their manuscript. Errors after publication | When an error/inaccuracy is identified after the manuscript has been published, it is authors' responsibility to correct/retract the manuscript. * a publication agreement will be signed by authors REVIEWERS' OBLIGATIONS Objectivity | Reviewing process should be objectively done. Reviewers should complete the evaluation form by providing clear and concise recommendations in order to improve manuscripts, but without knowing any information regarding their authors. If they recommend that a manuscript should not been published they should justify their views. Reviewers may be asked to read the revised manuscript if there are concerns that the paper has not been revised according to their recommendations. If the reviewers consider that they are unqualified in order to evaluate the manuscript or the objectivity/correctness of evaluation is threatened by any reason he should announce the editor. Originality | It is reviewers' responsibility to notify the editor if they consider that the submitted paper is very similar to another paper they have previously read, either as reviewers or in print. Source citations | The reviewers should include in the recommendations they provide to the authors any concerns regarding omitted citations. Privileged information | The reviewer should not use the information gained from reviewing submitted manuscripts for its own research or personal advantage, unless obtaining the author's consent.