EFNDT Publication Ethics Statement

EFNDT Publication Ethics and Publication Malpractice Statement

The European Federation of Non-Destructive Testing (EFNDT) (herein referred to as the ‘Publisher’) follows a Code of Conduct and Best Practice Guidelines for its publications, including conference proceedings that are published on its behalf, based largely on those advised by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). 

It is expected of authors, reviewers, editors and members of editorial panels who contribute to EFNDT’s publication processes that they follow the best practice guidelines on ethical behaviour contained herein.

Published Proceedings of European Conferences

Fair play and editorial independence

The Scientific Committee, or those appointed by the conference organiser, will evaluate submitted manuscripts exclusively on the basis of their academic merit (importance, originality, validity of the study, accuracy and clarity) and its relevance to the scope of the conference, without regard to the authors’ race, gender, sexual orientation, ethnic origin, citizenship, religious belief, political philosophy or institutional affiliation. Decisions to edit and publish are not determined by the policies of governments or any other agencies outside of the conference itself. 

Confidentiality

The Scientific Committee, or those appointed by the conference organiser, will 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. The anonymity of reviewers will normally be preserved, except under certain exceptional circumstances and with the express written agreement of the reviewer. 

Disclosure and conflicts of interest

The Scientific Committee, or those appointed by the conference organiser, will not use unpublished information disclosed in a submitted manuscript for their own research purposes without the authors’ explicit written consent. Privileged information or ideas obtained as a result of handling the manuscript will be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage. The Scientific Committee, or those appointed by the conference organiser, will recuse themselves from considering manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative or other relationships/connections with any of the authors, companies or institutions connected to the papers; instead, they will ask another member of the Scientific Committee or editorial panel to handle the manuscript.

Publication decisions

The Scientific Committee, or those appointed by the conference organiser, is responsible for deciding which of the manuscripts submitted to the proceedings will be published, based on the validation of the work in question, its importance to researchers and readers, the reviewers’ comments and such legal requirements as are currently in force regarding libel, copyright infringement and plagiarism. 

Involvement and cooperation in investigations

The Scientific Committee, or those appointed by the conference organiser (in conjunction with the publisher and/or society) will take responsive measures when ethical concerns are raised with regard to a submitted manuscript or published paper. Every reported act of unethical publishing behaviour will be looked into, even if it is discovered years after publication. If, on investigation, the ethical concern is well-founded, a correction, retraction, expression of concern or other note as may be relevant will be published.

Confidentiality

Any manuscripts received for review are confidential documents and must be treated as such; they must not be shown to or discussed with others unless authorised. This applies also to invited reviewers who decline the review invitation.

Standards of objectivity

Reviews should be conducted objectively and observations formulated clearly with supporting arguments so that authors can use them for improving the manuscript. Personal criticism of the authors is inappropriate.

Acknowledgement of sources

Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors. Any statement that is an observation, derivation or argument that has been reported in previous publications should be accompanied by the relevant citation. A reviewer should also notify the Editor of any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other manuscript (published or unpublished) of which they have personal knowledge.

Disclosure and conflicts of interest

Any invited referee who has conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies or institutions connected to the manuscript and the work described therein should immediately declare their conflicts of interest and decline the invitation to review so that alternative reviewers can be contacted.

Unpublished material disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in a reviewer’s own research without the express written consent of the authors. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for the reviewer’s personal advantage. This applies also to invited reviewers who decline the review invitation.

Duties of Authors

Originality and plagiarism

Authors should ensure that they have written and submit only entirely original works, and if they have used the work and/or words of others, that this has been appropriately cited. Publications that have been influential in determining the nature of the work reported in the manuscript should also be cited. Plagiarism takes many forms, from ‘passing off’ another’s paper as the author’s own, to copying or paraphrasing substantial parts of another’s paper (without attribution), to claiming results from research conducted by others. Plagiarism in all its forms constitutes unethical publishing behaviour and is unacceptable.

Multiple, duplicate, redundant or concurrent submission/publication

Papers describing essentially the same research should not be published in more than one journal or conference proceedings publication. Hence, authors should not submit for consideration a manuscript that has already been published elsewhere. Submission of a manuscript concurrently to more than one journal or conference is unethical and unacceptable.

The publication of some kinds of article (such as translations) in more than one journal is sometimes justifiable, provided that certain conditions are met. The Scientific Committee, or those appointed by the conference organiser, must agree to the secondary publication, which must reflect the same data and interpretation of the primary document. The primary reference must be cited in the secondary publication.

Authorship of the manuscript

Only persons who meet these authorship criteria should be listed as authors in the manuscript as they must be able to take public responsibility for the content. They must have: (i) made significant contributions to the conception, design, execution, data acquisition or analysis/interpretation of the study; (ii) drafted the manuscript or revised it critically for important intellectual content; and (iii) seen and approved the final version of the paper and agreed to its submission for publication. All persons who made substantial contributions to the work reported in the manuscript (such as technical help, writing and editing assistance, general support) but who do not meet the criteria for authorship must not be listed as an author, but should be acknowledged in the ‘Acknowledgements’ section after their written permission to be named has been obtained. The corresponding author should ensure that all appropriate co-authors (according to the above definition) and no inappropriate co-authors are included in the author list and verify that all co-authors have seen and approved the final version of the manuscript and agreed to its submission for publication.

Disclosure and conflicts of interest

Authors should – at the earliest stage possible (generally by declaring it at the time of submission and including a statement in the manuscript) – disclose any conflicts of interest that might be construed to influence the results or their interpretation in the manuscript. Examples of potential conflicts of interest that should be disclosed include financial ones such as honoraria, educational grants or other funding, participation in speakers’ bureaus, membership, employment, consultancies, stock ownership, or other equity interest, and paid expert testimony or patent-licensing arrangements, as well as non-financial ones such as personal or professional relationships, affiliations, knowledge or beliefs in the subject matter or materials discussed in the manuscript. All sources of financial support for the work should be disclosed (including the grant number or other reference number if any).

Acknowledgement of sources

Authors should ensure that they have properly acknowledged the work of others and should also cite publications that have been influential in determining the nature of the reported work. Information obtained privately (from conversation, correspondence or discussion with third parties) must not be used or reported without explicit, written permission from the source. Authors should not use information obtained in the course of providing confidential services, such as refereeing manuscripts or grant applications, unless they have obtained the explicit written permission of the author(s) of the work involved in these services.

Peer review

Authors are obliged to participate in the peer review process and cooperate fully by responding promptly to requests for raw data, clarifications and proof of copyright permissions. Authors should respond to the reviewers’ comments systematically, point by point and in a timely manner, revising their manuscript accordingly by including any additional explanation or clarification requested in the body text of the paper, and re-submitting their manuscript by the deadline given.

Fundamental errors in published works

When authors discover significant errors or inaccuracies in their own published work, it is their obligation to promptly notify the Scientific Committee, or those appointed by the conference organiser, and cooperate with them to either correct the paper in the form of an erratum or to retract the paper. If the Scientific Committee or those appointed by the conference organiser, learn from a third party that a published work contains a significant error or inaccuracy, then it is the authors’ obligation to promptly correct or retract the paper or provide evidence of the correctness of the paper. 

Duties of the Publisher

Handling of unethical publishing behaviour

In cases of alleged or proven scientific misconduct, fraudulent publication or plagiarism, the publisher, in close collaboration with the Scientific Committee or those appointed by the conference organiser, will take all appropriate measures to clarify the situation and to amend the article in question. This includes the prompt publication of an erratum, clarification or, in the most severe case, the retraction of the affected work. The Scientific Committee, or those appointed by the conference organiser, shall take reasonable steps to identify and prevent the publication of papers where research misconduct has occurred, and under no circumstances encourage such misconduct or knowingly allow such misconduct to take place.

Access to content

The publisher is committed to the permanent availability and preservation of scholarly research and ensures accessibility by partnering with organisations and maintaining its own digital and hard copy archives.