Publication Ethics
The publication of an article in this peer-reviewed journal is aimed to contribute to disseminate investigations, developments, theoretical reflections and knowledge with the aim to contribute for the scientific development. We expect from all parties that the rigor of scientific publication is observed in the course of evaluating papers that are submitted. Therefore, ethical behavior is expected for all parties involved during the publishing process: the author, the journal editor, the peer reviewer and the publisher.
We see it as our duty to ensure a professional evaluation and a respective publication of articles according to their scientific and practical merits and values and such contribute to the raise of a culture in the field of psychotherapy. We established these rules and codes of conducts for all parties involved to assure as much as possible a fair treatment in every step of the process of publishing.
We are not charging a publication fee to the authors, since out interest is endorse and foster scientific publications in the field of psychotherapy and such promote the investigation and development of the field.
Duties of Authors
Reporting standards
Originality and plagiarism
Redundant or concurrent publication
Acknowledgement of sources
Authorship of the paper
Disclosure and conflicts of interest
Fundamental errors in published works
Duties of editors
General duties
Providing basis for peer-review
Collaboration of the editorial board members
The editors are providing clear guidance to editorial board members about their expected functions and duties, which might include:
acting as ambassadors for the journal
supporting and promoting the journal
seeking out the best authors and best work (e.g. from meeting abstracts) and actively encouraging submissions
reviewing submissions to the journal
accepting commissions to write editorials, reviews and commentaries on papers in their specialist area
attending and contributing to editorial board meetings
The editors are consulting editorial board members periodically (several times a year) to gauge their opinions about the running of the journal, informing them of any changes to journal policies and identifying future challenge establishing mechanisms to handle disagreements between themselves and the journal owner/publisher with due process.
Connection with the journals owner
The editors are communicating regularly with their journal’s owner and publisher. They are referring troubling cases to COPE, especially when questions arise that are not addressed by the COPE flowcharts, or new types of publication misconduct are suspected considering the appointment of an ombudsperson to adjudicate in complaints that cannot be resolved internally.
Publication decisions
The editors are publishing submission and acceptance dates for articles. The editors are sending reviewers’ comments to authors in their entirety unless they contain offensive or libellous remarks.
Fair play
Confidentiality
In addition to that he editors should always protect the confidentiality of individual information obtained in the course of research or professional interactions (e.g. between psychotherapists and patients). It is therefore almost always necessary to obtain written informed consent for publication from people who might recognize themselves or be identified by others (e.g. from case reports or photographs). It may be possible to publish individual information without explicit consent if public interest considerations outweigh possible harms, it is impossible to obtain consent and a reasonable individual would be unlikely to object to publication.
Disclosure and conflicts of interest
Open to discussion and critique
Authors of criticised material should be given the opportunity to respond. Studies reporting negative results are not excluded. The journal line is open to research that challenges previous work published in this (or other) journals. The editors will not simply reject papers that raise concerns about possible misconduct. They see them ethically obliged to pursue alleged cases.
In case of a suspected misconduct editors should first seek a response from those persons involved. If they are not satisfied with the response, they should ask the relevant employers, or institution, or some appropriate body (the national ethic commission at the ministry of health) to investigate. The editors will make all reasonable efforts to ensure that a proper investigation into alleged misconduct is conducted; if this does not happen, the editors will make all reasonable attempts to persist in obtaining a resolution to the problem. Errors, inaccurate or misleading statements will be corrected promptly and with due prominence. The editors follow the COPE guidelines on retractions.
The editors are supporting authors whose copyright has been breached or who have been the victims of plagiarism.
Complaints
Unresolved matters will be referred to COPE.
Duties of reviewers
Contribution to editorial decisions
Promptness
Confidentiality
Standards of objectivity
Acknowledgement of sources
Disclosure and conflict of interest
References
COPE (2011) – Committee on Publication Ethics Code of Conduct and Best Practice.
Guidelines for Journal Editors. publicationethics.org. Version 4 [2015-3-27] http://www.omniascience.com/?page_id=3911&lang=en and Publication Ethical Guidelines of Academy Publisher and Elsevier) as well as from Publication Ethics and Publication Malpractice Statement (based on Elsevier recommendations and COPE’s Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors). Retrieved from academypublisher.com/ethics.html [2014-12-27]