Publishing Ethics

The journal of BER is always devoting itself to publish original contributions in its field in order to propagate knowledge amongst its readers and to be a reference, of which, the articles submitted to this journal take a vital part in the spread of knowledge.
It is therefore important to agree upon standards of expected ethical behavior for all parties involved in the act of publishing: the author, the journal editor, the peer reviewer, the publisher and the society of society-owned or sponsored journals.
1. Authorship and Contributorship
Authorship should be limited to those who have made a significant and substantial contribution to the conception and design, acquisition, analysis or interpretation of data, drafted the article or revised it critically or final approved the version. All those who have made significant contributions should be listed as co-authors. Others who have participated in certain substantive aspects of the research project should be acknowledged or listed as contributors only.
2. Editorship
Editor-in-chief has full authority over the editorial content of the journal and the timing of publication of that content. Editors are ultimately responsible for the acceptance of submitted manuscripts. Editors should base decisions on the validity of the work and its importance to the journal’s readers without any bias to race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy of the authors. Editors are free to express critical but responsible views about all aspects of medicine without fear of retribution, even if these views conflict with the commercial goals of the publisher.
3. Peer Review
All submitted paper will undergo a double blind peer-review. Reviewers involved in the peer-review assist plays an important role in assisting the editors in making editorial decisions and helping the author to improve the paper. Thus, selected referees should conduct reviews in an objective and prompt manner and express their views clearly with supporting arguments. No personal criticism of the author is allowed.
4. Conflicts of Interest
To avoid the conflicts of interest between author (or the author’s institution), reviewer, or editor that has financial or personal relationships which may inappropriately influence (bias) his or her actions, all participants in the peer-review and publication process must disclose all relationships that could be viewed as potential conflicts of interest.
When authors submit a manuscript, they are responsible for disclosing all financial and personal relationships that might bias their work. To prevent ambiguity, authors must state explicitly whether potential conflicts do or do not exist.
Editors should avoid selecting external peer reviewers with obvious potential conflicts of interest--for example, those who work in the same department or institution as any of the authors.
Reviewers must disclose to editors any conflicts of interest that could bias their opinions of the manuscript, and they should recuse themselves from reviewing specific manuscripts if the potential for bias exists.
Editors who make final decisions about manuscripts must have no personal, professional, or financial involvement in any of the issues they might judge.
5. Privacy and Confidentiality
Proper acknowledgment of the work of others must always be given. Authors should cite publications that have been influential in determining the nature of the reported work. Information obtained privately, as in conversation, correspondence, or discussion with third parties, must not be used or reported without explicit, written permission from the source. Information obtained in the course of confidential services, such as refereeing manuscripts or grant applications, must not be used without the explicit written permission of the author of the work involved in those services.
Identifying information, including names, initials, or hospital numbers, should not be published in written descriptions, photographs, or pedigrees unless the information is essential for scientific purposes and the patients or the participants give written informed consent for publication.
All manuscripts in the review process are to be treated as confidential and not be shown to or discussed with others except as authorized by the editor.
6. Statement of Human and Animal Rights
When reporting experiments on human subjects, authors should indicate whether the procedures followed were in accordance with the ethical standards of the responsible committee on human experimentation. If doubt exists, the authors must explain the rationale for their approach, and demonstrate that the institutional review body explicitly approved the doubtful aspects of the study. When reporting experiments on animals, authors should be asked to indicate whether the institutional and national guide for the care and use of laboratory animals was followed.