Policies

IUC University Press operates under a dual copyright policy depending on the publication model:

• - Open Access Books: Authors/editors retain copyright and grant IUC University Press the right to publish the work under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) 4.0 International License. This allows others to share and adapt the content freely, provided appropriate credit is given.
• - Non-Open Access Books: All rights are reserved, and the material may not be reproduced or distributed without written permission from the publisher.

For all books, a Copyright Agreement and Acknowledgement of Authorship form must be submitted. 

Authors/editors are responsible for obtaining permission to reuse third-party content such as figures, tables, or other previously published materials. Any legal, financial, or ethical issues related to content reuse are the responsibility of the author(s) or editor(s).

Books submitted to IUC University Press will go through a double anonymized peer-review process where both authors and reviewers are anonymous to each other.  Each submission will be reviewed by at least two external, independent peer reviewers who are experts in their fields in order to ensure an unbiased evaluation process. 

Submissions will first go through a technical evaluation process during which the editorial office staff will ensure that the manuscript was prepared and submitted in accordance with the guidelines. Submissions that do not conform to the guidelines will be returned to the submitting authors with technical correction requests. 

For the books that are suitable for the press, The Unit Publication Committee will collaborate with the Publishing Executive Board, will recruit reviewers for the book. Once assigned, Publishing Executive Board can decide to reject a manuscript, continue with the peer review process, or request revisions before further peer-review. 

The Unit Publication Committee will submit their recommendations that are based on reports submitted by the reviewers to the Publishing Executive Board. The Unit Publication Committee and Publishing Executive Board is the final authority in the decision-making process for all submissions.

If it is suspected that a reviewer has appropriated an author’s ideas or data, the Publication Committee, the Publishing Executive Board, and the Unit Publication Committees will handle the matter in accordance with the relevant COPE’s guideline.

Peer reviewers are required to adhere to the principles of COPE's Ethical Guidelines for Peer-reviewers and these guidelines provide a framework for reviewers to follow in order to ensure the integrity and fairness of the peer review process. The Publication Committee, the Publishing Executive Board, and the Unit Publication Committees follows COPE’s relevant flowchart to minimize peer review manipulation. If there is suspicion of peer review manipulation after publication, the Publication Committee, the Publishing Executive Board, and the Unit Publication Committees will follow the appropriate flowchart of COPE.

Potential peer reviewers should inform the Unit Publication Committee of any possible conflicts of interest before accepting an invitation to review a book. Informing the Unit Publication Committee of any potential conflicts of interest allows them to make an informed decision about whether or not to invite the potential reviewer to participate in the review process. It also helps to ensure the integrity and transparency of the review process. Communications between the Unit Publication Committee, peer reviewers, and the Publishing Executive Board, contain confidential information that should not be shared with third parties. IUC University Press will recruit external the Unit Publication Committee to handle peer review processes of manuscripts submitted by members of the Publishing Executive Board. If an book's peer review is an exception to the IUC University Press’s usual policy, the type of the review it received will be displayed on the article to ensure the transparency and accountability of the review process.

IUC University Press aims to adhere to the guidelines and core practices set forth by several organizations, including the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) guidelines, the Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing (joint statement by COPE, DOAJ, OASPA).These guidelines and recommendations are designed to promote transparency, integrity, and best practices in scholarly publishing. By adhering to these standards, the booksaims to ensure that the research it publishes is of high quality and meets the ethical standards of the scientific community.

Medical research involving human subjects including research on identifiable human material and data should follow the WMA Declaration of Helsinki amended in 2013 to provide guidance on issues such as obtaining informed consent from participants, protecting their privacy and confidentiality, and avoiding harm to study participants.

All research involving human subjects, medical records, or human tissues must be reviewed and approved by a reviewer board, such as an institutional review board (IRB) or ethics committee, before it is conducted. This is to ensure that the research has been properly reviewed and approved, and to allow the book to verify that the research meets the ethical standards required for publication. If a study is exempted from the ethics committee approval, the authors must present a statement from the ethics committee explaining the reason for the exemption. This is to ensure that the research was reviewed by an ethics committee and that the decision to exempt the study was made in accordance with the relevant guidelines and regulations.

For submissions without ethics committee approval, the IUC University Press will review the manuscript according to the COPE’s Research, Audit and Service Evaluations guideline. This guideline provides guidance on how to handle submissions that do not have ethics committee approval, and allows the book to assess the risks and potential ethical concerns associated with publishing the research. If the IUC University Press determines that the lack of ethics committee approval is a significant concern, the manuscript may be rejected after editorial review. This is to ensure that the book maintains high ethical standards and only publishes research that has been properly reviewed and approved by an ethics committee.

For books concerning research involving human subjects, it is required to include a statement indicating that informed consent was obtained from all participants. Informed consent should be documented in writing, and a copy of the informed consent form should be retained by the researchers for future reference. In the case of research involving children under the age of 18, the parent or guardian of the child must provide informed consent on behalf of the child. This is because children are considered to be a vulnerable population and may not have the capacity to fully understand the risks and benefits of participating in research.

Information on informed consent should be provided along with any other relevant details about how the research was conducted. It is the responsibility of the authors to protect the anonymity of study participants, and to ensure that the research is conducted in a way that respects their privacy and confidentiality. This is especially important for photographs that may reveal the identity of patients, as the publication of such photographs without proper consent could potentially violate the rights of the individuals depicted.

To protect the anonymity of patients in photographs, the authors should obtain signed releases from the patients or their legal representatives. These releases should indicate that the patients have given their consent for the publication of the photographs, and should specify any restrictions or conditions on the use of the photographs. The publication approval form for identifying clinical images must be submitted during the initial submission.

For studies involving animals, it is required to obtain approval of research protocols from an ethics committee. The ethics committee should review the research protocols to ensure that they are in compliance with relevant guidelines and regulations, such as the Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals (8th edition, 2011) and the International Guiding Principles for Biomedical Research Involving Animals (2012). These guidelines provide detailed information on how to conduct research involving animals in an ethical and humane manner, and are widely recognized as the standard for such research.

Authors/editors should provide detailed information on the ethical treatment of animals in their manuscript, including the measures taken to prevent pain and suffering. They can use the ARRIVE checklist, which is designed to help authors provide this information in a clear and comprehensive manner.

In addition to the ethical treatment of animals, authors/editors should also provide information on the measures taken to prevent pain and suffering. This is to ensure that the research is conducted in a humane manner, and to allow readers to verify that the research meets the relevant ethical standards.

Plagiarism and Ethical Misconduct

All submissions are screened by a similarity detection software (Crossref Similarity Check Powered by iThenticate) multiple times during the peer-review and/or production processes.

When you are discussing others' (or your own) previous work, make sure that you cite the material correctly in every instance.

Authors are strongly recommended to avoid any form of plagiarism and ethical misconduct that are exemplified below.

Citation manipulation: The practice of manipulating the number of citations received by an author, book, journal or other publication through various means, such as self-citation, excessive citation of articles from the same journal, or the inclusion of honorary citations or citation stacking.

Self- plagiarism (text-recycling): The practice of using overlapping sections or sentences from the author's previous publications without properly citing them. This is considered to be a form of plagiarism, as it involves using someone else's work (in this case, the author's own work) without proper attribution.

Salami slicing: The practice of using the same data from a research study in several different articles. This is considered to be unethical, as it involves reporting the same hypotheses, population, and methods of a study in multiple papers.

Data Fabrication: The addition of data that never occurred during the gathering of data or experiments. This is considered to be a form of research misconduct, as it involves presenting false or misleading information as if it were real data.

Plagiarism and Ethical Misconduct

All submissions are screened by a similarity detection software (Crossref Similarity Check Powered by iThenticate) multiple times during the peer-review and/or production processes.

When you are discussing others' (or your own) previous work, make sure that you cite the material correctly in every instance.

Authors are strongly recommended to avoid any form of plagiarism and ethical misconduct that are exemplified below.

Citation manipulation: The practice of manipulating the number of citations received by an author, book, journal or other publication through various means, such as self-citation, excessive citation of articles from the same journal, or the inclusion of honorary citations or citation stacking.

Self- plagiarism (text-recycling): The practice of using overlapping sections or sentences from the author's previous publications without properly citing them. This is considered to be a form of plagiarism, as it involves using someone else's work (in this case, the author's own work) without proper attribution.

Salami slicing: The practice of using the same data from a research study in several different articles. This is considered to be unethical, as it involves reporting the same hypotheses, population, and methods of a study in multiple papers.

Data Fabrication: The addition of data that never occurred during the gathering of data or experiments. This is considered to be a form of research misconduct, as it involves presenting false or misleading information as if it were real data.

Data Manipulation/Falsification: The practice of manipulating research data with the intention of giving a false impression. This can include manipulating images, removing outliers or "inconvenient" results, changing data points, and other forms of manipulation. This is also considered to be a form of research misconduct, as it involves presenting false or misleading information as if it were real data.

In the event of alleged or suspected research misconduct such as plagiarism, citation manipulation, or data falsification/fabrication, the Editorial Board will follow the appropriate COPE flowcharts to ensure that the allegations or suspicions are handled in a fair, transparent, and consistent manner.

The practice of manipulating research data with the intention of giving a false impression. This can include manipulating images, removing outliers or "inconvenient" results, changing data points, and other forms of manipulation. This is also considered to be a form of research misconduct, as it involves presenting false or misleading information as if it were real data.

In the event of alleged or suspected research misconduct such as plagiarism, citation manipulation, or data falsification/fabrication, the Editorial Board will follow the appropriate COPE flowcharts to ensure that the allegations or suspicions are handled in a fair, transparent, and consistent manner.

The approved statement by IUC University Press is summarized below. Authorship practices may vary depending on contexts, and deviations from fundamental rules should be limited, often requiring individual discretion.

1. Those who have made substantial intellectual contributions to the work should be acknowledged as authors. Those who have provided other significant contributions should receive appropriate recognition.

2. In cases where research is carried out by specialized teams, individuals' roles and responsibilities may be confined to specific facets of the work.

3. All authors should participate in the manuscript creation process by reviewing drafts and granting approval for the final version.

4. A primary author should assume overall responsibility for the work, even if their understanding of every element may not be exhaustive.

5. This primary author should ensure that all authors adhere to essential authorship standards and must draft a succinct, written account of their contributions to the work, which must be endorsed by all authors. This record should be retained by the hosting department.

SEQUENCE OF AUTHORSHIP

Numerous approaches to determining the sequence of authorship exist across disciplines, research collectives, and nations. Authorship policies range from descending order of contribution to positioning the person who led manuscript composition or research at the forefront and the most experienced contributor at the end, as well as alphabetical or random arrangements. While the significance of a particular sequence might be understood within a specific context, there is no universally accepted meaning to authorship order. Consequently, the order of authorship cannot definitively indicate individual authors' respective contributions. Promotion panels, funding agencies, readers, and others seeking to comprehend authors' roles should refrain from attributing their own interpretations to authorship order, which may not align with the authors' intentions.

1. Authors should collectively determine the authorship sequence.

2. Authors must elucidate in their manuscript the contributions made by each author and the rationale behind the assigned order, enabling readers to accurately comprehend their roles.

3. The primary author should create a concise, documented explanation detailing the process of authorship sequencing.

IMPLEMENTATION

1. Research teams should openly discuss authorship matters at an early stage of their collaboration.

2. Disagreements about authorship are best resolved locally, either among the authors themselves or under the guidance of the laboratory head. If local efforts prove ineffective, the Faculty of Medicine can facilitate conflict resolution through its Ombuds Office.

3. Laboratories, departments, educational programs, and other entities endorsing scholarly endeavors should display both this statement and their customary practices for determining authorship and sequence, both on their platforms and within their operational guidelines. These entities should also include authorship guidelines in their orientation for new members.

4. Authorship should constitute a component of the mandatory research ethics course for all research fellows at authors’ universities.

5. Regular review of these policies is advisable due to the evolving nature of scientific inquiry and authorship conventions.

Declaration of Interests

Authors and editors must reveal any relationships or interests that may lead to an inappropriate influence or bias in their work. This should be done by disclosing any possible conflicts of interest through the online submission system while submitting their manuscript.

IUC University Press also requires and encourages individuals involved in the peer review process of submitted books to disclose any existing or potential competing interests that might lead to potential bias.

The Publishing Executive Board and the Publication Committee will handle cases of potential competing interests of editors, authors, or reviewers within the scope of relevant COPE flowcharts.

Financial Disclosure

IUC University Press requires authors to disclose any financial support they received to conduct their research. This information should be provided with submission.

The funding statement should include the name of any granting agencies, the grant numbers, and a description of each funder's role in the research. If the funder had no role in the research, this should be stated in the funding statement as well. This information is important for readers to understand the potential biases and conflicts of interest that may exist in the research.

Appeals and Complaint

The Publishing Executive Board and the Publication Committee is responsible for addressing appeals and complaints in accordance with the guidelines and recommendations of the COPE. If an author has an appeal or complaint, they should contact the editorial office directly to discuss their concerns. The Publishing Executive Board and the Publication Committee will review the case and make a decision based on COPE guidelines.

The Publication Committee have the final authority in the decision-making process for all appeals and complaints. In some cases, an ombudsperson may be assigned to resolve claims that cannot be resolved internally. It is important to note that the IUC University Press follows a fair and transparent process for handling appeals and complaints, with the goal of preserving the integrity of the scientific record.