Salus Cultura with registered e-ISSN 2807-5447 and p-ISSN 2807-5560 is a peer-reviewed journal published by the Coordinating Ministry for Human Development and Cultural Affairs. This statement clarifies the ethical behavior of all parties involved in the act of posting an article in this journal, including the author, the chief editor, the Editorial Board, the peer-reviewers, and the publisher. This statement is based on COPE’s Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors.
Ethical Guideline for Journal Publication
The publication of an article in a peer-reviewed Salus Cultura is an essential building block in the development of a coherent and respected network of knowledge. It is a direct reflection of the quality of the work of the authors and the institutions that support them. Peer-reviewed articles support and embody the scientific method. It is therefore essential 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.
The Coordinating Ministry for Human Development and Cultural Affairs as the publisher of Salus Cultura takes its duties of guardianship over all stages of publishing seriously, and we recognize our ethical and other responsibilities. We are committed to ensuring that advertising, reprint, or additional commercial revenue has no impact or influence on editorial decisions. Besides, the Coordinating Ministry for Human Development and Cultural Affairs and the Editorial Board will assist in communications with other journals and publishers where this is useful and necessary.
The editor of Salus Cultura is responsible for deciding which of the articles submitted to the journal should be published. The validation of the work in question and its importance to researchers and readers must always drive such decisions. The editors may be guided by the policies of the journal's editorial board and constrained by such legal requirements as shall then be in force regarding libel, copyright infringement, and plagiarism. The editors may confer with other editors or reviewers in making this decision.
An editor at any time evaluates manuscripts for their intellectual content without regard to race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy of the authors.
The editor and any editorial staff must not disclose any information about a submitted manuscript to anyone other than the corresponding author, reviewers, potential reviewers, other editorial advisers, and the publisher, as appropriate.
Disclosure and conflicts of interest
Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not use in an editor's research without the express written consent of the author.
Duties of Peer-Reviewers
Contribution to Editorial Decisions
Peer reviewers assist the editor in making editorial decisions and through the editorial communications with the author may also help the author in improving the paper.
Any selected referee who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should notify the editor and excuse himself from the review process.
Any manuscripts received for review must be considered confidential documents. They must not be shown to or discussed with others except as authorized by the editor.
Standards of Objectivity
The peer-review process should conduct objectively. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate. Referees should express their views clearly with supporting arguments.
Acknowledgment of Sources
Peer-reviewers should identify relevant published work that the authors have not cited. Any statement that an observation, derivation, or argument reported should accompany the appropriate citation. A reviewer should also call to the editor's attention any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published paper of which they have personal knowledge.
Disclosure and Conflict of Interest
Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage. Peer-reviewers should not consider manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers.
Duties of Authors
Authors of reports of original research should present an accurate account of the work performed as well as an objective discussion of its significance. Underlying data should be represented accurately in the paper. A paper should contain sufficient detail and references to permit others to replicate the work. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behavior and are unacceptable.
Data Access and Retention
Authors are asked to provide the raw data in connection with a paper for editorial review, and should be prepared to provide public access to such data (consistent with the ALPSP-STM Statement on Data and Databases), if practicable, and should, in any event, be prepared to retain such data for a reasonable time after publication.
Originality and Plagiarism
The authors should ensure that they have written entirely original actions and if the authors have used the works, or words of others that this has appropriately cited or quoted.
Multiple, Redundant, or Concurrent Publication
An author should not, in general, publish manuscripts describing essentially the same research in more than one journal or primary publication. Submitting the same paper concurrently to more than one journal constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable.
Acknowledgment of Sources
Proper acknowledgment of the work of others must always be provided. Authors should cite publications that have been influential in determining the nature of the reported work.
Authorship of the Paper
Authorship should be limited to those who have made a significant contribution to the conception, design, execution, or interpretation of the reported study. All those who have made significant contributions should be listed as co-authors. Where there are others who have participated in certain substantive aspects of the research project, they should be acknowledged or listed as contributors. The corresponding author should ensure that all appropriate co-authors and no inappropriate co-authors are included in the paper and that all co-authors have seen and approved the final version of the article and have agreed to its submission for publication.
Fundamental errors in published works
When an author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in his/her own published work, it is the author’s obligation to promptly notify the journal editor or publisher and cooperate with the editor to retract or correct the paper.
Research Involving Human Subjects
Authors must state that investigations involving human subjects, human material, human tissues, or human data were conducted in accordance with the rules of the Declaration of Helsinki of 1975 (https://www.wma.net/what-we-do/medical-ethics/declaration-of-helsinki/), which was amended in 2013. Before conducting the research, a clearance from the local institutional review board (IRB) or other suitable ethics committee must be acquired, according to point 23 of this statement, to ensure that the study complies with national and international criteria. The project identification code, date of approval, and name of the ethics committee or institutional review board must all be provided in the article's Section 'Institutional Review Board Statement.'
An ethical statement can look like this: "Before taking part in the study, all subjects expressed their informed agreement to be included. The research was carried out in conformity with the Declaration of Helsinki, and the protocol was approved by the XXX (Project identification code) Ethics Committee."
All participants in non-interventional studies (such as surveys, questionnaires, and social media research) must be thoroughly informed about whether anonymity is guaranteed, why the research is being undertaken, how their data will be used, and whether there are any risks involved. Prior to conducting the study, ethical approval from an appropriate ethics commission must be acquired, as with all human research. If ethical approval is not necessary, authors must either obtain an exemption from the ethics committee or cite local or national legislation stating that this type of study does not require ethical approval. If an exemption has been obtained for a study, the name of the ethics committee that approved it should be listed in Section 'Institutional Review Board Statement,' along with a detailed explanation of why ethical approval was unnecessary.