Our editorial ethics are based on internationally recognised standards. As a foundation, the journal Regional Synergies in Engineering & Society adopts the principles outlined in the document “International Standards for Editors”, developed at the 2nd World Conference on Research Integrity, Singapore, July 22–24, 2010.
1. Introduction
As guardians and stewards of the research record, the editors of Regional Synergies in Engineering & Society are committed to encouraging authors to strive for, and themselves to adhere to, the highest standards of publication ethics. Editors occupy a unique position within the academic community, allowing them to foster responsible conduct of research through transparent policies and rigorous editorial processes.
To ensure maximum impact within the scholarly community, editors are expected to follow universal standards and best practices in academic publishing. While recognising that differences exist between disciplines and that not all areas are equally relevant to every research community, there are nevertheless core editorial principles and policies that should be applied consistently to preserve the integrity of the research record.
These editorial guidelines are designed specifically for scholarly journals and serve as a foundation for fostering research and publication integrity. Editors are encouraged to view themselves as part of the broader international editorial community, to remain informed about evolving publishing standards, and to ensure that their editorial staff is properly trained and updated on emerging issues in research ethics and integrity.
Being a good editor requires a commitment to principles that extend beyond those outlined here. However, the adoption of these policies and practices provides an essential framework for maintaining high standards of editorial work and reinforcing trust in the published research.
2. Editorial Principles
2.1. Accountability and Responsibility for Journal Content
Editors take full responsibility for everything published in Regional Synergies in Engineering & Society. Appropriate procedures and policies are in place to ensure the academic quality of published materials and to safeguard the integrity of the research record.
2.2. Editorial Independence and Integrity
A fundamental editorial duty is to ensure fair and unbiased decisions, grounded in the principles of editorial independence and integrity.
2.2.1. Separation of Editorial and Commercial Decisions
All editorial decisions are made solely based on academic merit. Editors maintain full responsibility for their decisions, independent of any commercial or political considerations. Clear processes are established to separate commercial activities from editorial workflows and decisions. Editors are also expected to monitor the publisher’s pricing policies to promote wide and affordable access to the published content.
Sponsored supplements are subject to the same rigorous peer review and editorial standards as all other journal content. Decisions regarding such material are taken exclusively on scholarly grounds, and the role of the sponsor must be transparently declared to readers. Advertisements are carefully reviewed to ensure compliance with journal guidelines, must be clearly distinguishable from scholarly content, and must not influence academic decision-making.
2.2.2. Relationship Between Editors and the Publisher/Owner
Editors ideally operate under a written contract that clearly defines the terms of their appointment and explicitly protects the principle of editorial independence. The journal’s publisher or owner has no role in influencing editorial decisions for commercial or political reasons. Editors cannot be dismissed based on journal content unless there is proven editorial misconduct or the outcome of an independent investigation determines that editorial decisions contradict the journal’s scholarly mission.
2.2.3. Journal Metrics and Decision-Making
Editors must not engage in practices aimed at artificially influencing journal metrics. For example, authors should never be required to cite the journal’s own articles unless such citations are academically justified. Editorial decisions are based exclusively on scholarly quality, and authors are never pressured to include specific references for non-academic reasons.
3. Editorial Confidentiality
3.1. Authors’ Material
If the journal operates a system where peer reviewers are selected by editors (rather than posting papers for public comment as a pre-print), editors must protect the confidentiality of authors’ material and remind reviewers to do the same. Editors should not share submitted papers with editors of other journals unless authorised by the authors or in cases of alleged misconduct.
3.2. Reviewers
Editors should protect the identities of reviewers unless an open peer review system is in place. If reviewers wish to disclose their names, this should be permitted. In cases of alleged or suspected reviewer misconduct, it may be necessary to disclose the reviewer’s identity to a relevant third party.
4. General Editorial Policies
4.1. Encourage Maximum Transparency and Honest Reporting
To advance knowledge, it is crucial to understand why the research was conducted, how it was planned, and what it contributes to current knowledge. Maximum transparency and complete, honest reporting are essential for achieving this understanding.
4.1.1. Authorship and Responsibility
The journal has a clear policy on authorship, following standards within relevant fields. Authors are expected to contribute significantly, understand the full content of the paper, and take responsibility for their work. For multidisciplinary and collaborative research, the contribution of each author should be clear. Any changes in authorship must be agreed upon in writing by all authors. Authorship disputes should be resolved at the institutional level, not by editors. The journal declares policies for handling papers submitted by editors or editorial board members to ensure unbiased review.
4.1.2. Conflicts of Interest and Funding
Authors must disclose any relevant financial or non-financial conflicts of interest. The source of funding and its role in the research must be declared. Policies also clarify when certain conflicts of interest may preclude authorship in specific sections of the journal.
4.1.3. Full and Honest Reporting
Editors maintain high scholarly standards, ensuring all papers make a significant contribution. Practices such as ‘salami publication,’ duplicate publication, or misleading presentation are discouraged unless fully declared and justified. Authors are encouraged to follow reporting guidelines, provide study protocols when standard in their field, and ensure data and images adhere to ethical and field-specific standards. Anti-plagiarism checks and scrutiny for image manipulation are part of maintaining integrity.
4.2. Responding to Criticisms and Concerns
Reaction and response to published research by other researchers is an important part of scholarly debate in most fields and should generally be encouraged. In some fields, journals can facilitate this debate by publishing readers’ responses. Criticisms may be part of a general scholarly debate but can also highlight transgressions of research or publication integrity.
4.2.1. Ensuring Integrity of the Published Record-Corrections
When genuine errors in published work are pointed out by readers, authors, or editors, which do not render the work invalid, a correction(or erratum) should be published as soon as possible. The online version of the paper may be corrected with a date of correction and a link to the printed erratum. If the error renders the work or substantial parts of it invalid, the paper should be retracted with an explanation as to the reason for retraction (i.e., honest error).
Ensuring the integrity of the published record–suspected research or publication misconduct. If serious concerns are raised by readers, reviewers, or others about the conduct, validity, or reporting of academic work, editors should initially contact the authors (ideally all authors) and allow them to respond to the concerns. If that response is unsatisfactory, editors should take this to the institutional level (see below). In rare cases, mostly in the biomedical field, when concerns are very serious and the published work is likely to influence clinical practice or public health, editors should consider informing readers about these concerns, for example by issuing an ‘expression of concern’, while the investigation is ongoing. Once an investigation is concluded, the appropriate action needs to be taken by editors with an accompanying comment that explains the findings of the investigation. Editors should also respond to findings from national research integrity organisations that indicate misconduct relating to a paper published in their journal. Editors can themselves decide to retract a paper if they are convinced that serious misconduct has happened, even if an investigation by an institution or national body does not recommend it. Editors should respond to all allegations or suspicions of research or publication misconduct raised by readers, reviewers, or other editors. Editors are often the first recipients of information about such concerns and should act, even in the case of a paper that has not been accepted or has already been rejected. Beyond the specific responsibility for their journal’s publications, editors have a collective responsibility for the research record and should act whenever they become aware of potential misconduct, if at all possible. Cases of possible plagiarism or duplicate/redundant publication can be assessed by editors themselves. However, in most other cases, editors should request an investigation by the institution or other appropriate bodies(after seeking an explanation from the authors first and if that explanation is unsatisfactory). Retracted papers should be retained online, and they should be prominently marked as a retraction in all online versions, including the PDF, for the benefit of future readers. For further guidance on specific allegations and suggested actions, such as retractions, see the COPE flowcharts and retraction guidelines (publicationethics.org).
4.2.2. Encourage Scholarly Debate
Journals provide mechanisms for readers to discuss papers and voice criticisms. Authors can respond to comments and criticisms, and editors distinguish between methodological critique and potential research misconduct, investigating the latter even if concerns arise long after publication.
5. Editorial Policies Relevant Only to Research Involving Humans or Animals
5.1. High Standard of Ethical Conduct
Ethical conduct is essential in research involving humans and animals, particularly in biomedical research, but also in social sciences and humanities. Authors must ensure ethical oversight, proper consent procedures, and compliance with relevant laws. Editors remain vigilant regarding any ethical concerns.
5.1.1. Ethics Approval and Conduct
Editors generally require studies to be approved by an ethics committee or institutional review board. Research involving humans should adhere to the Declaration of Helsinki. Papers may be reviewed by specialists or the journal’s ethics committee, and may be rejected on ethical grounds even if approval was obtained.
5.1.2. Consent to Participate in Research
For research involving humans, authors must include a statement on the consent procedure. Written informed consent is typically required. For vulnerable populations or cases where concerns arise, editors may request a review of the consent form to ensure proper procedures were followed.
5.1.3. Consent for Publication
Authors must obtain explicit consent for publication of case reports, small case series, or images of identifiable persons. Participants should be informed about the journal of publication, and while identifiers should be removed, complete anonymity may not be guaranteed. The consent form should be retained by the authors, not sent to the journal. In rare cases (e.g., deceased persons), editors may consider publication without consent if justified by public interest and minimal risk of harm.
5.1.4. Data Protection and Confidentiality
Editors must ensure that research complies with data protection and confidentiality standards, including proper consent for both the research itself and any publication of identifiable data.
5.1.5. Adherence to Laws and Best Practice Guidelines
Authors must follow relevant national and international laws and best practices, particularly for animal research. Editors encourage registration of clinical trials and compliance with ethical standards.
6. Editorial Processes
6.1. Ensuring a Fair and Appropriate Peer Review Process
One of the key responsibilities of editors is to organise and manage peer review fairly and effectively. The journal clearly explains its peer review process in the information for authors and indicates which sections of the journal are peer-reviewed.
6.1.1. Decision Whether to Review
Editors may decide not to send a paper for peer review if it is deemed unsuitable for the journal’s audience or of insufficient quality. This decision is made fairly and impartially, based solely on the academic content of the paper, without influence from the authors’ identity or affiliation.
6.1.2. Interaction with Peer Reviewers
Editors select peer reviewers with appropriate expertise while avoiding conflicts of interest. Reviewers are expected to submit their assessments promptly and are informed of the journal’s policies and their responsibilities. Reviewers are asked to assess ethical aspects of research and publication, including potential plagiarism, fabrication, falsification, or redundant publication. Editors request formal conflict of interest declarations and monitor adherence to confidentiality. Reviewers may seek guidance from colleagues or mentors, but must report such interactions. Editors ideally provide feedback to reviewers to ensure quality and timeliness.
6.1.3. Reviewer Misconduct
Allegations of reviewer misconduct, such as breaches of confidentiality, undisclosed conflicts of interest, misuse of confidential material, or delays for competitive advantage, are taken seriously. Serious cases, including plagiarism, are escalated to the relevant institutions (for further guidance, see: Reviewer misconduct?).
6.1.4. Interaction with Authors
Editors clearly communicate the role of peer reviewers to authors. Peer reviewers are generally regarded as advisors, and editors may not always follow their recommendations. Correspondence is usually with the corresponding author, who ensures co-authors are involved. Review comments are normally shared in full, except in cases where parts contain libellous or offensive content. Editors provide clear reasons for seeking additional reviewers and communicate final decisions transparently. Authors may appeal decisions, though editors are not obliged to overturn them.
6.2. Editorial Decision-Making
Editors hold a central role in deciding which manuscripts are published, making it essential that the process is fair, unbiased, and aligned with the academic vision of the journal.
6.2.1. Editorial and Journal Processes
All editorial procedures are clearly described in the information for authors. This includes expectations for authors, types of papers accepted, and the workflow for manuscript handling. Editors are fully familiar with the journal’s policies, vision, and scope. The final responsibility for all editorial decisions rests with the Editor-in-Chief.
6.2.2. Editorial Conflicts of Interest
Editors must recuse themselves from decisions on manuscripts where a conflict of interest exists, such as collaborations with the authors, shared institutional affiliations, ownership of relevant stock, or personal relationships. The journal has defined procedures to handle such cases and to ensure unbiased evaluation of papers submitted by editors or editorial board members. All editorial conflicts of interest should be declared, ideally in a public manner, and the process for handling these cases is described in the journal’s information for authors.