The Sri Lankan Journal of Infectious Diseases (SLJID) adheres to COPE core practices and guidance in publication ethics. Authors are encouraged to go through these HERE.
SLJID is run by a group of editors, an editorial board and a panel of international advisors, all of whom work voluntarily. The editorial board consists of a managing editor, two co-editors, a deputy editor, an assistant editor and section editors. Members of the editorial board are appointed for a term of three years by the Sri Lankan Society for Microbiology (SSM). Funding required for journal management is borne by the Sri Lankan Society for Microbiology.
Research involving human participants, human material, or human data, must have been performed in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and must have been approved by an appropriate ethics committee. A statement detailing this, including the name of the ethics review committee and the reference number where appropriate, must appear in all manuscripts reporting such research. Authors should submit copies of relevant ethics certificates on request.
If a study has not been granted ethics review committee approval prior to commencing, retrospective ethics approval usually cannot be obtained and it may not be possible to consider the manuscript for peer review.
SLJID practices a double-blind peer review process where the reviewers do not know the names of the authors, and the authors do not know who reviewed their manuscript. Once a manuscript is submitted, one of the co-editors ensures that the article submission criteria are fulfilled. If the article has not fulfilled the submission requirements (including a signed Author Declaration form and a Title Page), articles are sent back to the authors giving a 2 week time frame to complete the submission.
Once submission is completed, an editorial review process takes place to ascertain if the article fits the scope of the journal. This is done in collaboration by all editors. A section editor is then assigned to the manuscript. The section editor invites reviewers and assigns the article for review. Reviewers are given a period of one month for the initial peer review process.
Once reviewer decisions are available, the editors decide on the submission status, which can be one of the following – accept, revisions requested, re-submit for review or decline submission.
The editors are responsible for deciding which of the articles submitted to the journal should be published. The editors may be guided by the policies of the journal's editorial board and constrained by legal requirements such as libel, copyright infringement and plagiarism. The editors may confer with members of the editorial board in making this decision.
Editorial decisions will not be affected by the origins of the manuscript, including the nationality, ethnicity, political beliefs, race, gender or sexual orientation, or religion of the authors. Decisions to edit and publish will not be determined by the policies of governments or other agencies outside of the journal itself.
Editors and any other 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, as appropriate.
Editorial conflict of interests
Editors will not be involved in decisions about papers where their own interests may impair their ability to make an unbiased editorial decision, if they have commercial interests, or if they have a personal relationship with the authors. When an editor is an author or is acknowledged as a contributor, other editors without consulting or informing the author cum editor will undertake all decisions regarding that manuscript.
SLJID considers the following as scientific misconduct:
1. Falsification of data
2. Data fabrication
4. Improper authorship
5. Ghost writing
6. Use of ideas of others without attribution
7. Failure to comply with legislative and regulatory requirements
8. Image manipulation
Dealing with allegations of misconduct
SLJID follows COPE guidelines and recommendations by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) to deal with scientific misconduct on a case-by-case basis.
All submissions to SLJID are checked for plagiarism through the iThenticate software. A high similarity index may result in rejection of the manuscript. All figures, if reproduced, must have come from an open source with appropriate attribution or the authors need to provide written consent from the original source.
Articles that are found to be arising from work involving any scientific misconduct will be retracted after consulting with the editorial board and appropriate regulatory bodies. Whenever articles are retracted, for any cause, a clear notice regarding the retraction, giving the basic reason for the retraction is to be inserted across the archived electronic copy of the article.
Authors have the right to appeal rejection of their manuscript. Appeals should be based on the scientific content of the manuscript and its suitability for publication rather than concerns about the process. The appeal must reach the Editors (journal email) within two weeks from the date of the communication from the journal conveying a decision which is perceived to be unfavourable by the author or authors. The Editorial Board’s decision regarding the appeal or complaint is final.
Authorship of the Paper
According to the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) authorship should be limited to those who have made
1. Substantial contributions to the conception or design of the work; or the acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data for the work; AND
2. Drafting the work or revising it critically for important intellectual content; AND
3. Actively involved in the preparation and final approval of the version to be published
All authors are required to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved. In addition to being accountable for the parts of the work he or she has done, an author should be able to identify which co-authors are responsible for specific other parts of the work.
In addition, authors should have confidence in the integrity of the contributions of their co-authors.
Where there are others who have participated in certain aspects of the research project, they should be acknowledged.
The corresponding author should ensure that all co-authors have seen and approved the final version of the manuscript and have agreed to its submission for publication. It is his or her responsibility that all appropriate and no inappropriate co-authors are included in the manuscript.
For case reports, authors are encouraged to inform and invite all parties involved in patient diagnosis and management to be part of the writing team.
It is the responsibility of supervisors and senior authors to include student authors as appropriate. This is made by involving them in all aspects of research, including manuscript preparation.
Any potential authorship disputes brought to the editors’ attention will be handled in line with COPE guidelines.
Originality and Plagiarism
Authors should ensure that they have written entirely original work, and if the authors have used the work and/or words of others that this has been appropriately cited or quoted. Plagiarism is not acceptable to SLJID. Plagiarism includes:
1. Directly copying text
2. Text recycling (reusing text from your own previous publications or self-plagiarism). Text recycling is only acceptable in the methods section with appropriate reference to the earlier work.
3. Copying ideas, images, or data without appropriate licences or permissions
4. Using an idea from another source with slightly modified language
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 manuscript should contain sufficient detail and references to permit others to replicate the work. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behaviour and are unacceptable.
All articles must include a statement on the funding source in the acknowledgements section
Acknowledgement of Sources
Proper acknowledgment of the work of others must always be given. Authors should cite publications that have been influential in determining the nature of the reported work.
A manuscript that is found to include citations whose primary purpose is to increase the number of citations to a given author’s work, or to articles published in a particular journal is unacceptable.
Conflicts of interest
SLJID requires authors to declare all conflicts of interests in relation to their work. A statement on conflicts of interest needs to be included at the end of the manuscript. Authors need to declare any financial or non-financial relationships that may have a potential bearing on the findings of the study.
Data Access and Retention
Authors may be asked to provide the raw data in connection with a manuscript for editorial review, and should be prepared to provide public access to such data (consistent with the Association of Learned and Professional Society Publishers and The International Association of Scientific, Technical, & Medical Publishers Statement on Data and Databases) and should be prepared to retain such data for a reasonable time after publication.
Multiple (duplicate), Redundant or Concurrent Publications
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 behaviour and is unacceptable.
Contribution to Editorial Decisions
Peer review assists the editor in making editorial decisions and through the editorial communications with the author may also assist the author in improving the manuscript, whenever this is appropriate.
Selected reviewers who feels unqualified to review the manuscript or knows that review will be delayed should notify the editor and leave the review process.
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.
Standards of Objectivity
Reviews should be conducted objectively. Personal criticism of the author is considered to be inappropriate and unacceptable. Reviewers should express their views clearly with supporting arguments.
Acknowledgement of Sources
Reviewers should also identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors. Any statement that had been previously reported should be accompanied by the relevant citation. A reviewer should also call to the editor's attention any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published paper of which they have personal knowledge.
Disclosure and Conflict of Interest
Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage. Reviewers should not consider 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 manuscripts.