For Publishers
Discovery Metadata Peer review Hosting Publishing
For Researchers
Join Publish Review Collect
Blog
About
 Search
Advanced search
Search
For Publishers
For Researchers

Category: About ScienceOpen

In:  About ScienceOpen  

Patient Privacy and Informed Consent

ScienceOpen strives to protect the privacy of patients and research participants by ensuring that their personal information and data are handled responsibly and with due regard for their rights and autonomy. The ScienceOpen Patient Privacy and Informed Consent Policy seeks to ensure that participants have provided informed consent for their data to be used in research publications.

  1. Definition of terms
  • Patient: A person receiving medical treatment or participating in a clinical trial.
  • Research participant: A person participating in a research study, including but not limited to clinical trials, surveys, and interviews.
  • Personal information: Any data that can be used to identify an individual, including but not limited to name, address, email, telephone number, medical record number, and social security number.
  1. Informed consent: Authors submitting research articles must confirm that the research was conducted in accordance with relevant ethical standards and that informed consent was obtained from all research participants. This includes the collection, use, and disclosure of personal information and data. The consent form must clearly state the purpose of the research, how the data will be used, and any risks or benefits associated with participation.
  2. Protection of personal information: Authors must take reasonable steps to protect the personal information and data of research participants. This includes implementing appropriate security measures to prevent unauthorized access, disclosure, or use of personal information.
  3. De-identification of personal information: Authors must de-identify personal information and data to the extent possible before publishing research articles. Any personal information that cannot be de-identified must be removed from the article or masked in a way that ensures the privacy of the research participant.
  4. Retention and disposal of personal information: Authors must retain personal information and data only for as long as it is necessary to fulfill the purposes for which it was collected. At the end of the retention period, authors must dispose of personal information and data securely.
  5. Disclosure of personal information: Authors must disclose the collection, use, and disclosure of personal information and data in a transparent manner. Any third-party access or disclosure of personal information and data must be disclosed to the research participants and authorized by them.
  6. Compliance with laws and regulations: Authors must comply with all applicable laws and regulations, including but not limited to data protection laws, privacy laws, and regulations related to the conduct of research involving human subjects.

Non-compliance with this policy may result in the rejection of the manuscript, retraction of a preprint or article publication, and other disciplinary action as deemed appropriate by the publisher. This policy will be reviewed periodically and updated as necessary to reflect changes in laws and regulations or best practices.

In:  About ScienceOpen  

ScienceOpen’s Policy for Handling Retractions, Withdrawals, and Expressions of Concern

  1. Retractions

a) Circumstances under which ScienceOpen will retract an article

ScienceOpen is committed to playing its part in maintaining the integrity of the scholarly record, therefore on occasion, it is necessary to retract articles. Articles may be retracted if:

  • There is major scientific error which would invalidate the conclusions of the article, for example where there is clear evidence that findings are unreliable, either as a result of misconduct (e.g. data fabrication) or honest error (e.g. miscalculation or experimental error).
  • Where the findings have previously been published elsewhere without proper cross-referencing, permission or justification (i.e. cases of redundant publication).
  • Where there are ethical issues such as plagiarism (appropriation of another person’s ideas, processes, results, or words without giving appropriate credit including those obtained through confidential review of others’ manuscripts) or inappropriate authorship (e.g., “guest” authorship; see COPE discussion document ‘What constitutes authorship?’).
  • Where unethical research has been reported.

b) ScienceOpen’s retraction process

In order to ensure that retractions are handled according to industry best practice, and in accordance with COPE guidelines, ScienceOpen adopts the following retraction process:

  • An article requiring potential retraction is brought to the attention of the journal editor. The retraction request can be brought by the authors, co-authors, related institutions or third-parties.
  • The journal editor should follow the step-by-step guidelines according to the COPE flowcharts (including evaluating a response from the author of the article in question).
  • Before any action is taken, the editor’s findings should be sent to ScienceOpen for review. The purpose of this step is to ensure a consistent approach in accordance with industry best practice.
  • The final decision as to whether to retract is then communicated to the author and, if necessary, any other relevant bodies, such as the author’s institution on occasion.
  • The retraction statement is then posted online with its own DOI and linked to the retracted paper. The title of the article is changed to add the term “RETRACTED:” as a prefix to the title. A cover page with the information RETRACTED is added to the pdf file.

c) Complaints procedure

To challenge to a retraction or a related issue, ScienceOpen’s procedure is as follows:

  • The complaint may be submitted via the journal editor or directly to ScienceOpen at info@scienceopen.com.
  • An independent investigation is then carried out by at least two representatives from ScienceOpen and/or the Editorial Board of the journal (the “investigatory team”).
  • The investigation involves reviewing all correspondence relating to the case in question and, if necessary, obtaining further written responses to queries from the parties involved.
  • The purpose of the investigation is to establish that correct procedures have been followed, that decisions have been reached based on academic criteria, that personal prejudice or bias of some kind has not influenced the outcome, and that appropriate sanctions have been applied where relevant.
  • The investigatory team will then submit its findings to ScienceOpen for further review before any onward communications to the appropriate parties.
  • Complainants may choose to take their complaint to the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

d) Process for issuing a retraction statement

Where the decision is taken to retract and the article to be retracted is the Version of Record (i.e. it has been published as Preprint or within an issue of a journal), ScienceOpen recommends issuing a retraction statement which should be published separately but should be linked to the article being retracted. A “retracted” coverpage will be added to the article pdf; however the article as first published should be retained online in order to maintain the scientific record. Issuing a retraction statement will mean the following:

  • The retraction will be listed in the contents page and the title of the original article will be included in its heading;
  • The text of the retraction should explain why the article is being retracted; and
  • The statement of retraction and the original article must be clearly linked in the electronic database so that the retraction will always be apparent to anyone who comes across the original article.

e) Circumstances under which an article may be deleted

It is ScienceOpen’s policy to strongly discourage withdrawal of the Version of Record in line with the international guidelines on retractions and preservation of the objective record of science. Therefore deletion of the Version of Record is rare and ScienceOpen will only consider it in the following limited circumstances:

  • Where there has been a violation of the privacy of a research subject;
  • Where there are errors to which a member of the general public might be exposed and if followed or adopted, would pose a significant risk to health; or
  • Where a clearly defamatory comment has been made about others in the relevant field or about their work.
  • Where an Accepted Article (which represents an early version of an article) is to be retracted, because for example it contains errors, has been accidentally submitted twice or infringes a professional ethical code of some type, it may be deleted. This is because, whilst an Accepted Article will have been allocated a Digital Object Identifier (DOI), it does not constitute the Version of Record as it will not yet have been formally published and does not yet carry complete bibliographic information.

Even in the above circumstances, bibliographic information about the deleted article should be retained for the scientific record, and an explanation given, however brief, about the circumstances of its removal.

  1. Withdrawals

a) Circumstances under which an article may be withdrawn

It is ScienceOpen’s policy to strongly discourage withdrawal of the Version of Record, whether a preprint or published article, because it has already been assigned a permanent DOI which is immediately shared with many thrid party sercives. Therefore, withdrawal or deletion of the Version of Record is rare, and ScienceOpen will only consider it in limited circumstances, such as the following:

  • Where there has been a violation of the privacy of a research subject;
  • Where there are errors to which a member of the general public might be exposed and if followed or adopted, would pose a significant risk to health; or
  • Where a clearly defamatory comment has been made about others in the relevant field or about their work.
  • There are legal issues around the authorship of the work or plagiarism.

b) Process for issuing a Withdrawal

A withdrawal is usually initiated before the article is published (before or after peer review, during peer review or just before publication). This situation can be more complicated in the case of public preprints. In order for preprints to be considered permanent research objects that are able to be cited and used to demonstrate productivity for grants or job applications, readers must be able to cite them without fear that they will spontaneously become unavailable. Therefore, removal of preprint files is typically reserved for cases where there are significant ethical or legal concerns with the original paper. Where the decision is taken to withdraw and the preprint to be retracted is the Version of Record and has been issued a DOI, ScienceOpen recommends publishing a new version by posting a new version of the paper that is effectively a withdrawal notice published separately but is linked to the article being retracted.

  1. Expressions of Concern

Journal editors may consider issuing an Expression of Concern if they have well-founded concerns and feel that readers should be made aware of potentially misleading information contained in an article. However, Expressions of Concern should only be issued if an investigation into the problems relating to the article has proved inconclusive, and if there remain strong indicators that the concerns are valid. See COPE case 17-02 Data manipulation and institute’s internal review.

On very rare occasions, an Expression of Concern may be issued while an investigation is underway but a judgement will not be available for a considerable time. However, in such cases there must be well-founded grounds to suggest that the concerns are valid.

In all cases, editors should be aware that an Expression of Concern carries the same risks to a researcher’s reputation as a retraction, and it is often preferable to wait to publish a retraction until a definitive judgement has been achieved by an independent investigation. See COPE case 15-10 Handling self-admissions of fraud.

In:  About ScienceOpen  
Job Openings

Job Openings

*

This page lists current job openings at ScienceOpen. Our team is made up of marketing, sales, and technology experts in the industry of scholarly publishing. Follow us on Social Media and on LinkedIn to stay updated with recent developments from ScienceOpen.

  Previous page
12
Join for FREE
and become part of the ScienceOpen network