Publication Ethics and Publication Malpractice Statement

Publishing in the peer-reviewed journal QELJ strengthens the standard, respected knowledge-transfer network. Our publication ethics and publication malpractice statement is mainly based on the Code of Conduct and Best-Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors (Committee on Publication Ethics, 2011), which includes

General duties and responsibilities of editors.
 - Relations with readers.
 - Relations with authors.
 - Relations with editors.
 - Relations with editorial board members.
 - Relations with journal owners and publishers.
 - Editorial and peer review processes.
 - Protecting individual data.
 - Encouraging ethical research (e.g., research involving humans or animals).
 - Dealing with possible misconduct.
 - Ensuring the integrity of the academic record.
 - Intellectual property.
 - Encouraging debate.
 - Complaints.
 - Conflicts of interest.

Reference:
Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). (2011, March 7). Code of Conduct and Best-Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors. Retrieved from http://publicationethics.org/files/Code_of_conduct_for_journal_editors_Mar11.pdf


Multiple and Simultaneous Submission/Publication
The practice of duplicate submission/publication is considered unethical because it exaggerates findings, wastes the time of editors, peer reviewers, and readers, and undermines the integrity of science. In the case of multiple submissions/publications, we will contact the author(s), inform them that the submitted work has already been published elsewhere, and request an explanation. If the author gives a sufficient and reasonable explanation, we reject the submission without penalties. However, if the author does not respond, the explanation is unsatisfactory, or the author admits guilt, we will reject the submission with penalties, including sending a letter of warning, putting the authors in the authors' blocklist, writing to the journal that published the paper, imposing the authors to pay $200 as the fee for reviewing, and informing the author's superior about the misconduct.