JDSR Ethics Policy

This ethics policy explains how JDSR approaches issues relating to the research ethics of the journal, and the responsibilities of our editors, our reviewers, and authors. It also covers the process for dealing with complaints, retractions and similar matters.

Journal responsibilities

JDSR strives to be a ‘no bullshit’ journal, which implies that we will do our very best to treat authors and their contributions fairly and with care. We are also a young, independent, and constantly developing journal, which means mistakes can be made. Let us know about our mistakes or where we can improve and we will do our very best to be better.

Our editor-in-chief is responsible for all decisions on the publication of submitted articles. The editor will in such decisions be guided by advice from the editorial board and peer-reviewers, with due regard to applicable legal requirements and scientific standards. The editors are responsible for the selection of reviewers and for ensuring, to the best of their abilities, a review process which is unbiased, meets relevant academic standards and can serve to fairly assess the quality of submitted articles.

Decisions by the editorial board on review, publication, revisions and rejections are not subject to appeal by authors, and articles may be rejected at any stage of the publication process. This also applies after a decision to accept an article for publication has been made if new information would call into question the basis for previous decisions. Such late-stage rejections are of course exceptional measures that we do not take lightly.

Contributions to JDSR will be treated confidentially and kept within our editorial board. The exception to this rule is of course external reviewers who will receive anonymized versions of submitted manuscripts. Please note that authors are responsible for submitting fully anonymized versions of their articles by removing identifying information such as name, self-references, metadata, etc. in accordance with our submission guidelines (see also responsibilities of authors below). The exception to the general rule of confidentiality is when disclosures are deemed necessary by our editor to investigate suspected misconduct, such as plagiarism or copyright infringement, or to abide by legal requirements. 

The anonymity of reviewers will be protected unless they have explicitly agreed to exceptions to this policy. Reviewers submitting additional files with their review which are to be made available to authors should however make sure to remove identifying metadata from their files (see responsibilities of reviewers below). 

Editors and authors should disclose any conflicts of interests which could affect a scientifically and ethically sound publication of an article. For example if authors are close collaborators, friends, or relatives of editors that may be responsible for or involved in processing the authors’ article. Articles where such conflicts of interest may arise can still be subject to review and publication, provided they are subject to procedures that avoid such issues and ensure independent review and processing.

JDSR will work to ensure the continued scientific and ethical integrity of the journal by reviewing all suspected misconduct relating to our published work that come to our attention. This includes, for example. reports about falsified research, plagiarism, credit exclusion, copyright infringement or violations of research ethics. The editors will work to the best of their abilities to detect such issues and will act vigilantly on all incoming reports. Concerns of this nature should be reported to the editor through editor@jdsr.se The process for handling such reports will follow applicable COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics) guidelines.

Reviewer responsibilities

Peer-review is a foundational element of scientific publication. Reviewers are selected as experts in their field and as contributors to the quality assurance and scientific soundness of publications. JDSR believes that the reviewers we engage are competent to distill and express the most relevant aspects and issues of any article they are set to review. As such we do not use extensive forms or grading systems but rather rely on reviewers to freely express their informed views. In doing so, we do expect reviewers to abide by the golden rule, to review others as they themselves would like to be reviewed. This implies keeping to relevant and academically sound comments that serve either to evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of the article, or which can assist authors in improving the clarity, scope, sourcing or other relevant aspects of the work. Personal criticism is of course inappropriate. Be fair and honest, criticism is part of the game – but try to avoid becoming the stereotypical "reviewer no. 2”. 

To maintain anonymity, reviewers are responsible for ensuring that information identifying them is not present in their review comments or in the metadata of any files they submit as part of their review. If unsure of how to accomplish this, contact the editor in advance of submitting the review.

Reviewers may submit separate comments to the editors and to authors. While we understand the human instinct to be a bit more polite and civil in the comments to authors (it’s a good instinct), reviewers should in any case ensure that the gist of their critique or comments are made clear in their comments to authors, and that the comments to the authors and editors respectively are not contradictive, as to avoid confusion when the editorial decision is made.

As reviewers are chosen for their competence within the field or specific area of the submitted article, it may be tempting for them to suggest authors to cite the reviewers’ own work or that of their collaborators. While such suggestions can be academically relevant and fair, they should be done cautiously and only when motivated by sound scientific reasons. Such suggestions may otherwise risk revealing the identity of the reviewer, and if done to game citation counts or for self-promotion could be considered ethically questionable. 

Reviewers are responsible for keeping the manuscripts they review confidential during and after the review process. Reviewers are also not allowed to use unpublished materials they have accessed in their role as reviewer in their own research or for personal gain.  

Reviewers should bring to the attention of the journal any potential ethical issues in the articles under their review. This includes, but is not limited to, issues of research ethics (including the risk for identifying individual research subjects), uncredited overlap with existing research, plagiarism, suspected falsification or embellishment of data or results etc.

Reviewers should alert the editors of any potential conflict of interest relating to the author or the reviewed article. We realize that in double blind review systems this may be difficult, but reviewers should report such issues if they become apparent to them.

Author responsibilities

Summarizing the applicable standards of academic research is almost impossible, but the main responsibility of authors is to follow the best applicable standards of research within their field, and to represent their research in the article in a fair, honest and accurate way. This implies, among other things, to present research and associated data with clarity, transparency, and with sufficient detail to allow for accurate peer-review. Authors should also present the research of others with the same clarity, fairness and transparency that applies to their own research. 

Authors should submit only their own original works, and clearly state where/if this is not the case as well as acknowledging the research or writing of others which is used in the submission. Acknowledging the work of others should be done fairly, which includes referencing those works which have influenced the article, and to cite correctly, transparently and precisely, the work of others.

Authors must ensure that submitted articles do not include plagiarism or other forms of credit-misappropriation. This includes but is not limited to making the work of others appear as your own, or taking credit for research results of others.

Authorship credits implies significant material contribution to the article, either in the conception, design, execution or interpretation of the research, or the writing of the article as such. Lab-owners, research leaders not contributing to the article as such, or other figureheads should not be listed as authors unless having contributed to the article in question. Conversely, you should ensure that all contributors are listed as authors, and in the order you have agreed upon. JDSR is a cross-disciplinary journal, and each discipline may have differences in the approach to the ordering of author names. This means that the editors will assume the order listed in the original submission is correct. Peripheral contributions to the article, such as advice, proof-reading or similar should be listed as acknowledgements. 

JDSR require original and exclusive submission. The former means that the research in question has not been previously published in its finished form (though it may have been presented as a conference paper, workshopped or made available as a draft or pre-print), the latter that it may not be simultaneously submitted to any other journal. As part of the submission process you will be asked to confirm that your contribution is original and exclusive.   

Authors should ensure a correct citing of sources in their articles, including the provision of DOI-numbers in the bibliography when available. As stated in our submission guidelines, pinpoint references should be used when referring to specific parts of works.

Figures, images and graphs provided by authors should be accurate, of sufficient quality for publication, and not misrepresent the underlying data. Authors should ensure that the publication of illustrations provided to JDSR as part of a submission are not in violation of  intellectual property rights. 

Authors should ensure that their submitted articles do not include research which has been conducted in violation of applicable standards of research ethics or applicable laws. This includes regulations relating to data protection and the processing of personal data such as the GDPR. Authors are responsible for ensuring that their submission does not infringe on the intellectual property rights of others, taking into account of course applicable fair use norms or right to citation and scientific critique.

Authors should disclose any potential conflicts of interest or financial interests which may impact the integrity of the work, or the appearance of integrity from the viewpoint of reasonable observers. This means authors should consider not only their own view, but that of outside observers. This is best illustrated through examples. Let’s assume the author works for EvilCorp and want to publish a study about EvilCorp, the author should of course disclose this connection to the company. The same goes if the author’s collaborator, partner, close relative, close friend or mortal enemy works there or is dependent on the company (or their competitors) in some way. Has EvilCorp (or their competitors) funded the authors position, study or in some way influenced the conception, design, execution or interpretation of the research? These are all examples of disclosures that should be made. The same goes for research which the author(s) stand to gain from financially.

Author affiliations should be provided, if funding for the research has been provided by a party which is not included in the author affiliations (i.e. beyond the salary which is connected to the author’s employment with the affiliated institution), this should be acknowledged. Examples of this is when research is funded by research grants, stipends or through generous contributions by the authors parents who wants the author to get a real job and move out of their basement already.

We all make mistakes. Should you discover or be made aware of a mistake or inaccuracy in the work you have published in JDSR you should let us know promptly and help us correct or retract the published work. We aim to follow relevant COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics) guidelines for reports from third parties about issues with research published with JDSR. Authors should cooperate with our editors in addressing such reports and, where necessary, in the correction or retraction of published work. Relevant COPE processes for such matters are available here: https://publicationethics.org/guidance/Flowcharts