Publication Ethics

Publication Ethics and Publication Malpractice Statement for the Creative City Design (CCD) (DOWNLOAD)

Creative City Design (CCD) publishes peer-reviewed journals on a wide range of topics in urban planning & design and architecture and some other interdisciplinary studies. This statement explains ethical behavior of all parties involved in the act of publishing an article for CCD, i.e.: the author, the Editor in Chief, the peer-reviewer and the publisher. This statement is based on internationally accepted Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors.

DUTIES OF EDITORS

Decision on the Publication of Articles

The Editor in Chief of CCD is responsible for deciding which of the articles submitted to the journal should be published. The Editor in Chief may be guided by the policies of the journal's editorial board and subjected to such legal requirements regarding libel, copyright infringement and plagiarism. The Editor in Chief may confer with other editors or reviewers in making this decision.

Fair play

Manuscripts shall be evaluated solely on their intellectual merit without regard to authors’ race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy.

Confidentiality

The Editor in Chief/editors and any editorial staff 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.

Disclosure and conflicts of interest

Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used by anyone who has a view of the manuscript (while handling it) in his or her own research without the express written consent of the author.

DUTIES OF REVIEWERS

Contribution of Peer Review

Peer review assists the Editor in Chief and the editorial board in making editorial decisions while editorial communications with the author may also assist the author in improving the paper.

Promptness

Any selected referee who feels unqualified to review the assigned manuscript or unable to provide a prompt review should notify the editor and excuse himself from the review process.

Confidentiality

Manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. They must not be shown to, or discussed with, others except as authorized by the Editor in Chief.

Standards of Objectivity

Reviews should be conducted objectively. There shall be no personal criticism of the author. Reviewers should express their views clearly with supporting arguments.

Confidentiality

Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage.

Conflict of Interest

Reviewers should not review 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 connected to the papers.

DUTIES OF AUTHORS

Reporting standards

Authors of reports of original research should present an accurate account of the work performed as well as an objective discussion of its significance. Underlying data should be represented accurately in the paper. A paper should contain sufficient detail and references to permit others to replicate the work. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behavior and are unacceptable.

Data Access and Retention

Authors may be asked to provide the raw data in connection with a paper for editorial review, and should be prepared to provide public access to such, if practicable, and should in any event be prepared to retain such data for a reasonable time after publication.

Originality and Plagiarism

Authors should ensure that they have written entirely original works, and if the authors have used the work and/or words of others this must be appropriately cited or quoted.

Multiple Publication

An author should not in general publish manuscripts describing essentially the same research in more than one journal or primary publication. Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal concurrently constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable.

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. Where there are others who have participated in certain substantive aspects of the research project, they should be acknowledged or listed as contributors.

Corresponding Author

Corresponding author is the author responsible for communicating with the journal for publication. The corresponding author should ensure that all appropriate co-authors and no inappropriate co-authors are included on the paper, and that all co-authors have seen and approved the final version of the paper and have agreed to its submission for publication.

Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest

All authors should disclose in their manuscript any financial or other substantive conflict of interest that might 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 to retract or correct the paper.

Plagiarism Policy

All articles submitted will be checked using the iThenticate plagiarism detection software.

 A specific process is followed to manage a case of plagiarism. Creative City Design Journal follows the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE)'s guidelines presented in the  following flowcharts:

• Suspected plagiarism in a submitted manuscript(PDF)
• Suspected plagiarism in a published manuscript(PDF)

 
For other plagiarism issues and scientific misconduct, Creative City Design Journal apply the COPE Guidance on Plagiarism Cases.
 

Types of Plagiarism

We detect and consider the following types of plagiarism in the journal and ‎prevent them to be used:‎

Full Plagiarism: Previously published content without any changes to the text, idea, and grammar is considered as full plagiarism. It involves presenting exact text from a source as one’s own.

Partial Plagiarism: If content is a mixture from multiple different sources, where the author has extensively rephrased text, then it is known as partial plagiarism.

Self-Plagiarism: When an author reuses complete or portions of their pre-published research, then it is known as self-plagiarism. Complete self-plagiarism is a case when an author republishes their own previously published work in a new journal. (Read the COPE guidelines on text recycling)
 
 

Self-plagiarism or Text Recycling Guidelines

(Based on COPE's guideline: Text recycling guidelines for editors)

Self-plagiarism, also referred to as ‘text recycling’, is a topical issue and is currently generating much discussion among editors. Opinions are divided as to how much text overlap with an author’s own previous publications is acceptable, and editors often find it hard to judge when action is required.
 

How to deal with text recycling

Introduction

These guidelines are intended to guide editors in dealing with cases of text recycling. Text recycling, also known as self-plagiarism, is when sections of the same text appear in more than one of an author’s own publications.
Editors should consider each case of text recycling on an individual basis as the most appropriate course of action will depend on a number of factors.

When should action be considered?

Text recycling can take many forms, and editors should consider which parts of the text have been recycled.

• Duplication of datais likely to always be considered serious (and should be dealt with according to the COPE guidelines for duplicate publications [1,2].
• Use of similar or identical phrases in methods sectionswhere there are limited ways to describe a common method, however, is not uncommon. In such cases, an element of text recycling is likely to be unavoidable in further publications using the same method. Editors should use their discretion when deciding how much overlap of methods text is acceptable, considering factors such as whether authors have been transparent and stated that the methods have already been described in detail elsewhere and provided a citation.
• Duplication of background ideas in the introductionmay be considered less significant than duplication of the hypothesis, discussion, or conclusions.

When significant overlap is identified between two or more articles, editors should consider taking action. Several factors may need to be taken into account when deciding whether the overlap is considered significant.

Text recycling in a submitted manuscript

Text recycling may be identified in a submitted article by editors or reviewers, or by the use of plagiarism detection software, e.g. iThenticate. Editors should consider the extent of the overlap when deciding how to act.

• Where overlap is considered to be minor, authors may be asked to re-write overlapping sections, and cite their previous article(s).
• More significant overlap may result in rejection of the manuscript.
• Where the overlap includes data, Editors should handle cases according to the COPE flowchart for dealing with suspected redundant publication in a submitted manuscript [1].

Text recycling in a published article

If text recycling is discovered in a published article, it may be necessary to publish a correction to, or retraction of, the original article. This decision will depend on the degree and nature of the overlap, and several factors will need to be considered. As for text recycling in a submitted manuscript, editors should handle cases of overlap in data according to the COPE flowchart for dealing with suspected redundant publication in a published article [2].
Journal editors should consider publishing a correction article when:

• Sections of the text, generally excluding methods, are identical or near identical to a previous publication by the same author(s);
• The original publication is not referenced in the subsequent publication; but
• There is still sufficient new material in the article to justify its publication.

The correction should amend the literature by adding the missing citation and clarifying what is new in the subsequent publication versus the original publication.
Journal editors should consider publishing a retraction article when:

• There is significant overlap in the text, generally excluding methods, with sections that are identical or near identical to a previous publication by the same author(s);
• The recycled text reports previously published data and there is insufficient new material in the article to justify its publication in light of the previous publication(s).
• The recycled text forms the major part of the discussion or conclusion in the article.
• The overlap breaches copyright.

The retraction should be issued in line with the COPE retraction guidelines [3].

How far back should this be applied?

Attitudes towards text recycling have changed over the past decade. Editors should consider this when deciding how to deal with individual cases of text recycling in published articles. Editors should judge each case in line with accepted practice at the time of publication.
In general, where overlap does not involve duplication of results, editors are advised to consider taking no corrective action for cases where the text recycling occurred earlier than 2004. Editors may wish to take corrective action in the case of duplication of data prior to this date and should follow the COPE flowchart for dealing with suspected redundant publication in a published article [2].

Opinion, Review and Commentary articles

Non-research article types such as Opinion, Review and Commentary articles should in principle adhere to the same guidelines as research articles. Due to the critical and opinion-based nature of some non-research article types, action should be considered when text is recycled from an earlier publication without any further novel development of previously published opinions or ideas or when they are presented as novel without any reference to previous publications.
 

References/further reading

1. COPE flowchart for suspected redundant publication in a submitted manuscript http://publicationethics.org/files/u2/01A_Redundant_Submitted.pdf
2. COPE flowchart for suspected redundant publication in a published article http://publicationethics.org/files/u2/01B_Redundant_Published.pdf
3. COPE guidelines for retracting articles https://publicationethics.org/files/retraction-guidelines.pdf

Allegations of misconduct

Definitions of Misconduct

Deception may be deliberate, by reckless disregard of possible consequences, or by ignorance. Since the underlying goal of misconduct is to deliberately deceive others as to the truth, the journal’s preliminary investigation of potential misconduct must take into account not only the particular act or omission but also the apparent intention (as best it can be determined) of the person involved. Misconduct does not include unintentional errors. The most common forms of scientific misconduct include:

• Falsification of data: ranges from fabrication to deceptive selective reporting of findings and omission of conflicting data, or willful suppression and/or distortion of data.
• Plagiarism: The appropriation of the language, ideas, or thoughts of another without crediting their true source, and representation of them as one’s original work (see prior section).
• Improprieties of authorship: Improper assignment of credit, such as excluding others, misrepresentation of the same material as original in more than one publication, the inclusion of individuals as authors who have not contributed to the work published; or submission of multi-authored publications without the concurrence of all authors.
• Misappropriation of the ideas of others: an important aspect of scholarly activity is the exchange of ideas among colleagues. Scholars can acquire novel ideas from others during the process of reviewing grant applications and manuscripts. However, improper use of such information can constitute fraud. Wholesale appropriation of such material constitutes misconduct.
• Violation of generally accepted research practices: Serious deviation from accepted practices in proposing or carrying out research, improper manipulation of experiments to obtain biased results, deceptive statistical or analytical manipulations, or improper reporting of results.
• Material failure to comply with legislative and regulatory requirements affecting research: Including but not limited to serious or substantial, repeated, willful violations of applicable local regulations and law involving the use of funds, care of animals, human subjects, investigational drugs, recombinant products, new devices, or radioactive, biologic, or chemical materials.
• Inappropriate behavior in relation to misconduct: this includes unfounded or knowingly false accusations of misconduct, failure to report known or suspected misconduct, withholding or destruction of information relevant to a claim of misconduct, and retaliation against persons involved in the allegation or investigation. This includes qualifications, experience, or research accomplishments to advance the research program, to obtain external funding, or for other professional advancements.

Responses to Possible Misconduct

A committee consisting of the editor-in-chief and editorial board members, as determined by the editor-in-chief, who has specific expertise in the area being investigated, will investigate misconduct allegations. The suitable actions were taken based on the recommendations of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

The journal follows the policies and guidelines of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and abides by its Code of Conduct in dealing with potential cases of misconduct.

 

Allegations of misconduct

The editorial board will incessantly work towards observing publication misconduct such as redundant (duplicate) publication, plagiarism, fraudulent or fabricated data, changes in authorship, undisclosed conflict of interest, ethical problem with a submitted manuscript, a reviewer who has appropriated an author’s idea or data, complaints against editors, and etc. When the journal faces suspected cases of research and publication misconduct, the resolving process will be followed by guidelines provided by the "Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE)". The complete guidelines appear on COPE website: http://www.publicationethics.org.

 

Dealing with possible misconduct

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

 

Appeals process

The journal follows the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) guidelines on appeals.

the Journal welcome genuine appeals to editor decisions. However, the corresponding author will need to provide strong evidence or new /WebUsers/information in response to the editor’s and reviewers’ comments. For scholarly articles of an opinion nature an appeal is less likely to overturn an editor’s decision. These include, viewpoints, commentaries, and book reviews, where editorial judgment about readability and relevance weighs most heavily. In any case, all opinion-led articles should be evidence-based and fully referenced.

For opinion-led articles, the corresponding author should always present the evidence and explain how it led this to form the opinion. Editors don’t expect frequent appeals and they rarely reverse their original decisions. Therefore, if the corresponding author received a decision to reject manuscript, the journal strongly advise that manuscript to submit to another journal. The decision to reject a manuscript for publication will often involve the editor’s judgment of priority/importance. These are things which authors usually cannot address through an appeal.

 

Complaints process

The authors have the right to complain and ask explanation if they perceive any misconduct in any applicable policies and ethical guidelines. The authors can raise their complaints by submitting a letter to: ccd@mshdiau.ac.ir. We follow the COPE guidelines on responding to whistleblowers, which includes protecting anonymity. All the complaints regarding delinquencies in the work processes are investigated according to the prevailing publication ethics practices. An author or any other scholar may submit their complaints about any issues related to:

- Authorship issues;

- Bias in the review process;

- Copyright violation;

- Deceiving in research results or wrong research results;

- Manuscript processing time is unusually late;

- Plagiarism;

- The peer-review comments are unsatisfactory;

- Unrevealed conflicts of interest; and  

- Violations of the research ethics and integrity.