Conflict of Interest Policy
Radiology Science’ COI policy generally follows those of the COPE recommendations. Conflicts of interest (sometimes referred to as competing interests or dual loyalties) are common, some would say almost inevitable. Conflicts of interest are secondary interests (e.g., personal, commercial, political, academic or financial) that may influence judgements on a primary decision, in this case what is published. They have been described as those which, when revealed later, would make a reasonable reader feel misled or deceived. Financial interests may include employment, research funding, sponsorship, stock or share ownership, payment for lectures or travel, consultancies, company support for staff commissioning/ funding/sponsoring of any element of the paper, any financial or potential financial benefit, or PR firm involvement.
Management of conflicts of interest
Radiology Science takes the view that any potential conflicts of interest must be recognised and stated. If there is doubt about the existence of a conflict, it is preferable to err on the side of disclosure. Most conflicts of interest can be managed, as per the following procedures; however, there may be occasions when the conflict of interest is so extreme as to make publication impossible.
This is not an exhaustive list of potential conflicts, rather an indication of the range of potential conflicts of interest:
- Potential Author COIs
Authors are asked to consider conflicts of interest in the instructions to authors.Instructions to authors – includes the following: ‘Authors must declare any competing interests. Conflict of interests/competing interests can be defined as factors which could influence the judgment of an author, reviewer or editors, and may be personal, commercial, political, academic, or financial in nature. Put simply, they are interests which, if revealed later, would make a reasonable reader feel misled or deceived’.
- Potential Reviewer COIs
The journal employs a double-blind review process; however, editors will still try to avoid inviting individuals to review who have potential COIs. Editors will also attempt to honor authors’ requests to exclude potential reviewers, provided that the reason for exclusion is a true COI and that rigorous and comprehensive review is possible if these individuals are excluded. At the time they are invited to review, individuals must disclose any COIs that could bias their opinions, and they must disqualify themselves from reviewing when appropriate. If a COI becomes apparent during the review process, the reviewer must contact the journal office and, when appropriate, ask to be recused. The following situations are considered conflicts and should be avoided:
- Co-authoring publications with at least one of the authors in the past 3 years
- Being colleagues within the same section/department or similar organisational unit in the past 3 years
- Supervising/having supervised the doctoral work of the author (s) or being supervised/having been supervised by the author(s)
- Receiving professional or personal benefit resulting from the review
- Having a personal relationship (e.g., family, close friend) with the author(s)
- Having a direct or indirect financial interest in the paper being reviewed
It is not considered a Conflict of Interest if the reviewers have worked together with the authors in a collaborative project (e.g., EU) or if they have co-organized an event.
- Editorial Board Member COIs
Articles by Editorial Board members will be treated as usual for that category of article and undergo the same peer review process. In this case another editor would be appointed to manage the peer review process. If no editor can be identified who does not have a conflict of interest, then a guest editor may be invited to manage the manuscript. Any guest editor must have a good understanding of the journal.
- Potential Editor COIs
Associate Editors and/or Editorial Board Members will not act as the decision maker in articles with which they feel they have a conflict of interest, such as working with the authors or performing competing research. If the Associate Editor or Editorial Board Member has not worked with the author for more than six months, then they may be eligible to edit an article. Some conflicts will be insurmountable for editors, for example personal friendships, which will not have a time expiry. Knowledge of an author or being an acquaintance is not enough on its own to mean that the editor cannot manage the article. Associate Editors and/or Editorial Board Members should err on the side of not taking articles with which they may have a conflict of interest and discuss with the Editor-in-Chief any concerns about their own conflicts, so a decision can be made about the most suitable editor for the article. Articles from the Editor-in-Chief will be subjected to the journal’s peer review process handled by one of the Associate Editors or/and Editorial Board Members.
Misconduct Handling Policy
Radiology Science is aware of the potential impact an allegation of ethical misconduct can have upon a researcher’s career. All allegations of ethical misconduct are taken seriously, and a full investigation will take place.
- The Editor-in-Chief should always be the first point of contact, and will seek clarification from all affected parties, in accordance with COPE guidelines.
- Where the allegation is made against the Editor-in-Chief, this should be sent to the Publisher for further investigation.
- If Radiology Science is approached by a third party with an allegation of plagiarism, the Editor-in-Chief will always seek a response from the original author(s) or copyright holder(s) before a recommendation is made.
- The Editor-in-Chief will adhere to COPE flowcharts and will not be influenced by other parties. Any decisions made will be formed in an unbiased and objective manner. At all times, the Editor-in-Chief will remain neutral in tone, acting with integrity, and educating where possible.
- The Publisher is not obliged to discuss individual cases of alleged plagiarism with third parties.
- The Publisher reserves the right not to proceed with a case if the complainant presents a false name or affiliation or acts in an inappropriate or threatening manner towards the journal’s editors and staff.
Please refer to the guidelines below and COPE flowcharts for the processes that the journal follows in cases of alleged plagiarism in submitted or published articles.
Guidelines
Radiology Science welcomes submissions which are original, not under consideration by any other publication at the same time, and which contribute to the existing body of knowledge. All authors should be aware of the importance of presenting content that is based on their own research and expressed in their own words. Plagiarism is bad practice and unethical.
The following types of ethical misconduct should be avoided:
Verbatim copying
Verbatim copying of significant passages, or streams of text of another person’s work without acknowledgement, references or the use of quotation marks.
Paraphrasing
Improper paraphrasing of another person’s work is where sentences within a paragraph or a section of text has been rearranged without appropriate attribution. Significant improper paraphrasing without appropriate attribution is treated as seriously as verbatim copying.
Re-using parts of a work without attribution
Reuse of elements of another person’s work, for example a figure, table or paragraphs, without acknowledgement, references or the use of quotation marks. It is incumbent on the author to obtain the necessary permission to reuse elements of another person’s work from the copyright holder
Self-plagiarism
Radiology Science requires that all authors clearly state that their submitted work has not been published before. If elements of a work have been previously published in another publication, the author is required to acknowledge the earlier work and indicate how the subsequent work differs and builds upon the research and conclusions contained in the previous work. Verbatim copying of an author’s own work and paraphrasing is not acceptable, and we recommend that research should only be reused to support new conclusions. Authors should cite all previous stages of publication and presentation of their ideas, that have culminated in the final work, including conference papers, workshop presentations and listserv communications. This will ensure that a complete record of all communication relating to the work is documented.
Republication of original work
Exceptions to the publication of original work includes conference papers, archival papers that are republished in an anniversary or commemorative issue, papers that are of particular merit and that have received only limited circulation (for example through a company newsletter). These papers are republished at the discretion of the Editor-in-Chief. The original work should be fully and correctly attributed and permission from the appropriate copyright holder obtained.