Ethics

This section provides brief guidelines and publication ethics code for the International Journal of Prognostics and Health Management


              Download Code
Editorial Board Responsibilities
The Editors (chief and associate editors) of the journal are responsible for all content published in journal archives during their reigns. While associate editors help determine the technical quality and merits to qualify for publication in the journal, the ultimate control to publish a paper resides with chief editors. The Editors together with the members of the editorial board continuously strive to maintain a high technical quality through thorough and unbiased peer reviews.
A single-blind peer review process is followed where the reviewers are never known to the authors, but the authors are always known to the reviewers. In this way, the paper does not hide relevant aspects (e.g., references to other papers by the same authors) that may be helpful for a balanced and fully informed review. Upon completion of the review process of a paper, access to the Editor’s decision will be available to all anonymous reviewers through online review system for paper review.

The journal encourages authors to publish corrections, clarifications, retractions, and apologies when needed. Such changes and/or addenda may be facilitated through revised manuscripts for original submissions or new submissions as communications as appropriate. Revised manuscripts may or may not require additional peer review depending upon the nature of correction or addendum. The requirement for additional reviews is determined by the editors.

Author Responsibilities
Contributions to IJPHM must report original research and will be subjected to review by reviewers at the discretion of the Editor. IJPHM considers only manuscripts that have not been published elsewhere (including at conferences), and that are not under consideration for publication or in press elsewhere. Moreover, it is the responsibility of the author to ensure that any data or information submitted complies with the export-control regulations of the author’s home country (e.g., International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) in the United States). Likewise, authors should ensure that data and information submitted complies with internal IP and proprietary guidelines of their respective companies.
If authors choose to disclose and acknowledge the supporting organization and the program under which the research was conducted, this information will be visible to the reader. Authors can choose to provide this information on the submission page or as suggested in the manuscript templates under the acknowledgement section.
Authors must follow detailed guidelines provided in For Authors section and should comply with code of conduct provided by the Committee of Publication Ethics (COPE).

Decisions and Appeals
Decisions to accept or reject a submission for publication are solely based on the paper’s importance, originality, and clarity, and the study’s relevance to the topics related to prognostics and health management as outlined here. Determination of these merits in a paper is largely based on reviewer recommendations. Decisions are based on consensus of two or more reviews. In cases where a clear consensus is not reached in the first round editors generally request additional reviews until a decision is possible. All reviews are made available to the authors, without revealing reviewer names, regardless of what decision is made. For authors’ and reviewers’ reference detailed review process is explained here.

  • Acceptance
    A paper may be accepted as is, with minor revisions, or with major revisions. If the paper is recommended as is it is immediately published and authors are accordingly notified. However, if a paper is recommended for publication after revisions the paper is first accepted conditionally and authors are requested to revise their paper within 3-4 weeks timeframe, unless additional time is requested. A paper requiring minor revisions is reviewed by the Review manager to determine if the revisions are satisfactory before it is recommended for publication. At that point the paper is accepted and published and the authors are notified. However, if a paper needs major revisions, the revised paper is sent for a re-review to the reviewer(s) requesting major revisions. The paper is not finally accepted until the reviewers are satisfied with the revised versions. A paper may be re-reviewed up to a maximum of two times and if a consensus is still not reached between the reviewer(s) and the authors, editors intervene and make a final decision to accept or reject that paper.
  • Rejection
    In case a paper is rejected the authors are notified of the decision along with a clear reason compiled by review manager and the editors based on reviewer recommendations. Authors are suggested to look at the reviews and report back, within two weeks of the decision notification, if for some reason they do not concur with any of the reviews or the overall decision. They are asked to provide a response to review document clearly explaining their points with clear references to the points of disagreement in the review recommendations. At that point Editors reserve the rights to determine whether author concerns are valid or not, depending upon which, reviewers may be asked to re-review the paper in light of author explanations or additional reviews may be requested. If the two week period for appeal is over without any response or an appeal from the authors the paper is finally rejected. Once rejected, the decision cannot be reversed in normal circumstances. The authors will need to create a new submission if they wish to revise their paper to accommodate reviewer recommendations without appealing the decision.
  • Submission Withdrawal
    Authors have a right to withdraw their submissions before any of the reviews are completed. Upon such withdrawals the manuscripts are no longer available to any of the reviewers and the editorial board members. The PHM Society does not retain a copy of a withdrawn manuscript in its database. However, the submission information with metadata and abstract, provided at the time of submission, is retained for the records. This information is not made public and is only available to the submitting author and the journal editors. Once the reviews are completed the paper cannot be withdrawn by the authors. If they still wish to retract their submission the editorial office will reject that paper to exclude from publication. This is done out of respect for the time and effort reviewers have already put in and also to track duplicate submissions on the same subject at which point the original reviewers, if available at that time, will be called upon.

Reviewer Guidelines
IJPHM follows a single blind review process where reviewer identities are never revealed to the authors. Only review managers and the journal editors have access to the reviewer identities. Furthermore, review managers are requested to rate the review quality from each reviewer. This serves as a knowledgebase for review managers as a means to access past records for all reviewers. This ensures maintaining a high quality reviewer pool. Again this information is kept confidential and not revealed to anybody except the review managers and the editors.
Detailed review process and guidelines are listed here. Additionally reviewers must observe the code of conduct provided by the Committee of Publication Ethics (COPE).

Complaints
For any complaints made regarding violation of publication ethics the editors will follow COPE guidelines and try to resolve the matter at the earliest.

Conflicts of Interest
Conflicts of interest may arise when reviewers and Editorial board members themselves author or co-author a manuscript or any of the review managers and/or the reviewers are associated with the work by way of authoring or supporting the research. At the editorial level such cases are handled by assigning other editors to oversee review process for such submissions. At the reviewer level the editorial office relies on the diligence of review managers to ensure avoiding any conflicts of interest and an honor system from requested reviewers to notify of their conflicts of interest to the editorial office.

Integrity of the Academic Record
The PHM Society and IJPHM take the integrity of the academic record very seriously. If at any point it is found that a significantly inaccurate, misleading statement, or distorted report has been published, it will be corrected promptly and with due prominence. If, after an appropriate investigation, an item proves to be fraudulent, it will be immediately retracted and immediately notified to all members of the PHM Society and indexing systems.

Last Updated: 2012-11-12 22:42:24 -0700
AttachmentSizeTimestamp
IJPHM Publication Ethics.pdf553.85 KBAugust 15, 2013 - 12:03pm
  
 
 
 

follow us

PHM Society on Facebook Follow PHM Society on Twitter PHM Society on LinkedIn PHM Society RSS News Feed