Ethics and malpractice statement
Publication ethics and publication malpractice statement
For all parties involved in the act of publishing (the author(s), the journal editor(s), the peer reviewers and the publisher) it is necessary to agree upon standards of expected ethical behavior.
The ethics statements for this journal is based on the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) Code of Conduct guidelines available at http://publicationethics.org/resources/guidelines.
The full set of standards applicable for GBM is presented in the
GBM Publication Ethics and Publication Malpractice Statement
1. Publication Decisions
The editors of GBM are responsible for deciding which of the manuscripts submitted to the journal
should be published. The Editor in Chief ensures that each manuscript is initially evaluated by an
editor, who may make use of appropriate means, to examine the originality of the contents of the
manuscript. After the manuscript passes this test, it is forwarded to the reviewers for double-blind
peer review, and each of whom will make a recommendation to publish the manuscript in its
present form or to modify or to reject it. In evaluating the submitted works, the editors should limit
themselves solely to the scientific quality, originality, clarity, and validity of the study. The editors
will evaluate manuscripts without regard to the authors' race, gender, sexual orientation, religious
belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy. The editors can choose to ignore any
material that breaks legal requirements regarding copyright infringement and plagiarism.
The editors and any editorial staff must ensure the confidentiality of the submitted works until they
are published. They 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.
3. Disclosure and conflicts of interest
In case the editors decide not to publish a material, the manuscript should not be used for other
purposes without the express written consent of the author. The Editors of GBM recommend the
following article: http://www.sciencemag.org/content/342/6154/60.full.
1. Contribution to editorial decisions
The peer-reviewing process assists the editor and the editorial board in making editorial decisions
regarding a submitted manuscript. Also, by formulating suggestions to the authors, the reviewers
can contribute to the improvement of submitted works. In order to achieve these goals, the
reviewers are to evaluate objectively the submitted manuscript and to clearly present their views
regarding the manuscript.
Any selected reviewer 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 withdraw from the
The reviewers are bound to treat the manuscript received for peer reviewing as a confidential
document. They must not be disclosed to or discussed with others except as authorized by the
editor. As GBM employs the double-blind peer review system, the communication regarding the
submitted manuscript would be made exclusively between the reviewers and the editors of GBM.
4. Standards of objectivity
Reviewers should be conducted objectively. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate.
Reviewers should express their views clearly with supporting arguments.
5. Disclosure and conflict of interest
Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used
for personal advantage. 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 associated with the papers.
The authors submitting articles to GBM should draft their works in accordance with GBM Author
Guidelines. (See Author Guidelines)
Originality, plagiarism, and acknowledgment of sources
The authors should ensure that they have written entirely original works. When the authors use
other materials, sources should be appropriately cited. Any attempt at plagiarism should be
followed by the rejection of the submitted manuscript.
Multiple, redundant or concurrent publication
Authors should not submit the same work or describe essentially the same research in more than
one journal. Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal concurrently constitutes
unethical publishing behavior.
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. The corresponding author ensures that all contributing
co-authors and no uninvolved persons are included in the author list. The corresponding author will
also verify that all co-authors have approved the final version of the paper and have agreed to its
submission for publication.
Disclosure and conflicts of interest
All authors should include a statement disclosing any financial or other substantive conflicts of
interest that may be construed to influence the results or interpretation of their manuscript. All
sources of financial support for the project should be disclosed.
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
in correcting the material.
Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). (2011, March 7). Code of Conduct and Best-Practice
Guidelines for Journal Editors. Retrieved from