We at BOHR Publishing are committed to upholding standards of ethical behavior at all stages of the publication process and we recommend the guidelines of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) to follow. We expect strict adherence to standards of ethical practices from all the parties involved, i.e., expert reviewers, editors, and authors. Our prime objective is to educate researchers, authors, contributors, reviewers, and editors on understanding and delivering those standards, in partnership with others.

We follow all ethical standards to ensure scholarly integrity in a responsible manner so as to maintain public trust in the research published for public benefit and research development. We at BOHR Publishing are striving to be a member of the COPE.

Authorship

By an author we mean an individual who has made considerable academic contributions to a scientific investigation. For example, one who contributes significantly to the conception, design, execution, analysis and interpretation of the data, participates in drafting, reviewing or revising the manuscript for intellectual content and approves the manuscript for publication.

Corresponding Author

One author should be designated as a corresponding author if there are multiple authors in a research paper. The corresponding author assumes overall responsibility for the manuscript by providing significant contribution to the research effort, and may not necessarily be the principal investigator or project leader.

Co-authors

All the coauthors of a research paper are responsible for providing consent authorship to the corresponding author. They should contribute to the research work, take responsibility for appropriate portions of the content, acknowledging that they have reviewed and approved the manuscript. They are also responsible for the content of all appropriate portions of the manuscript including the integrity of any applicable research.

Conflict of Interest

• The editor should have systems for managing his own conflicts of interest as well as those of his staff, authors, reviewers and editorial board members.
• Journals should have a declared process for handling submissions from the editors, employees or members of the editorial board to ensure unbiased review.

Dealing with possible misconduct

• The editor has a duty to act if he/she suspect misconduct or if an allegation of misconduct is brought to him. This duty extends to both published and unpublished papers.
• The editor should not simply reject papers that raise concerns about possible misconduct. He/she is ethically obliged to pursue alleged cases.
• The editor should first seek a response from those suspected of misconduct. If he/she is not satisfied with the response, he/she should ask the relevant employers, or institution, or some appropriate body (perhaps a regulatory body or national research integrity organization) to investigate.
• The editor should make all reasonable efforts to ensure that a proper investigation into alleged misconduct is conducted; if this does not happen, the editor should make all reasonable attempts to persist in obtaining a resolution to the problem. This is an onerous but important duty.

Intellectual property

The editor should be alert to intellectual property issues and work with his publisher to handle potential breaches of intellectual property laws and conventions.

Best practice for the editor would include:

• adopting systems for detecting plagiarism (e.g. software, searching for similar titles) in submitted items (either routinely or when suspicions are raised)
• supporting authors whose copyright has been breached or who have been the victims of plagiarism CODE OF CONDUCT AND BEST PRACTICE GUIDELINES FOR PUBLISHING BOHR.
• being prepared to work with his publisher to defend authors’ rights and pursue offenders (e.g. by requesting retractions or removal of material from websites) irrespective of whether his journal holds the copyright

Funding

BOHR Publishers’ Books division is funding for this journal from the revenue of Books.

Plagiarism

BOHR Publishing is committed to publish original and unpublished material to maintain the integrity of the scientific record. The corresponding author must affirm that all of the other authors have read and approved of the manuscript. All research papers submitted to BOHR Publishing are screened for plagiarism. If a research paper contains traces of plagiarism, BOHR Publishing will lead an investigation on the matter and will take further action depending on the type of plagiarism. Further, authors must assure that the manuscript is not being considered for publication in whole or in part elsewhere. Processing on manuscripts found to have been published elsewhere or under review will be suspended and authors will consequently suffer sanctions.

Citation Manipulation

Citation manipulation refers to the publication of a research paper primarily to increase an author's number of citations. This is against our ethical guidelines and we strongly advise authors not to indulge in similar activities.

Sanctions

In the case of a complaint of misconduct, BOHR Publishing will carry out an investigation following the COPE guidelines. All stakeholders will be given an opportunity to share their views on the matter. If the complaint raises valid concerns, the journal will implement sanctions on authors according to the severity of the breach.

BOHR Publishing might find it compulsory in some cases to rectify certain pieces of literature. In such cases, BOHR Publishing will abide by the COPE retraction guidelines.

An erratum, or correction of an article, should be issued if:

1. A small portion of an otherwise reliable publication proves to be misleading (especially because of an honest error)
2. The author/contributor list is incorrect (i.e., a deserving author has been omitted or somebody who does not meet authorship criteria has been included)

Manuscripts should be retracted if:

1. Journal editors have clear evidence that the findings are unreliable, either as a result of misconduct (e.g., data fabrication) or an honest error (e.g., miscalculation or an experimental error)
2. The findings have previously been published elsewhere without proper cross-referencing, permission, or justification (i.e., cases of redundant publication)
3. It constitutes plagiarism
4. It reports unethical research

Journal editors should consider issuing an expression of concern if:

1. They receive inconclusive evidence of research or publication misconduct by the authors
2. There is evidence that the findings are unreliable but the authors' institution will not investigate the case
3. They believe that an investigation into alleged misconduct related to the publication either has not been, or would not be, fair and impartial or conclusive, or an investigation is underway but a judgment will not be available for a considerable period of time.

Data Repository of BOHR Journals

We at BOHR encourage authors to select a data repository that issues a persistent identifier, preferably a digital object identifier.

We follow an open-access data repository mode. Furthermore, we follow a double-anonymous peer review policy and a data policy that mandates sharing. Hence, we request that you deposit your data in a repository that preserves anonymity, i.e., blinds the details of the authors

As an example, you may use the repository Figshare to generate a “private sharing link” for free. As this feature is especially for anonymous peer review, you can generate a private sharing link to anonymize data for reviewers.

Code of Conduct

The editor should ensure that all articles accepted for publication have been assessed by two reviewers. The editor should not make decisions regarding manuscripts about which they may have a conflict of interest.

In such instances, a senior member of the Editorial Board should be assigned to assume responsibility for overseeing peer review and making decisions regarding acceptance or rejection. All of the responsibilities should be carried out precisely within the time frame. In the event of any delays, there should be an immediate consultation with the authors. The entire process should be transparent and follow a structured flow. Although the editor may publish in his/her own journal, a senior member of the Editorial Board will be assigned to assume the responsibility of overseeing the peer-review process.

Editors should provide a professional service to authors. Correspondence should be handled in a timely and respectful manner, and an efficient and thorough peer review carried out. Systems should be in place to ensure editorial staff absences do not result in a reduced service to authors. A professional service for authors is expected.