Journal Policies

AUTHORSHIP CRITERIA

Summarizing the applicable standards of academic research is almost impossible, but the main responsibility of authors is to follow the best applicable standards of research within their field, and to represent their research in the article in a fair, honest and accurate way. This implies, among other things, to present research and associated data with clarity, transparency, and with sufficient detail to allow for accurate peer review. Authors should also present the research of others with the same clarity, fairness and transparency that applies to their own research. 

Authors should only submit their own original works, and clearly state where/if this is not the case as well as acknowledge the research or writing of others that is used in the submission. Acknowledging the work of others should be done fairly, which includes referencing those works which have influenced the article, and citing correctly, transparently and precisely, the work of others.

This includes but is not limited to making the work of others appear as your own, or taking credit for research results of others. Manuscripts may be checked for plagiarism.

Authorship credit implies significant material contribution to the article, either in the conception, design, execution or interpretation of the research, or the writing of the article. Lab owners, research leaders not contributing to the article as such, or other figureheads should not be listed as authors unless they contributed to the article in question. Conversely, you should ensure that all contributors are listed as authors, and in the order you have agreed upon. JDSR is a cross-disciplinary journal, and each discipline may have differences in the approach to the ordering of author names. This means that the editors will assume the order listed in the original submission is correct. Peripheral contributions to the article, such as advice, proof-reading or similar should be listed under acknowledgements. All authors are jointly responsible for the submitted contribution as a whole and are expected to have agreed to its submission. All authors should be able to account for what contributions they have made to the finished article.

PEER REVIEW POLICY

Peer review is a foundational element of scientific publication. Reviewers are selected as experts in their field and as contributors to the quality assurance and scientific soundness of publications. JDSR believes that the reviewers we engage are competent to distill and express the most relevant aspects and issues of any article they are set to review. As such, we do not use extensive forms or grading systems but rather rely on reviewers to freely express their informed views. In doing so, we do expect reviewers to abide by the golden rule, to review others as they themselves would like to be reviewed. This implies keeping to relevant and academically sound comments that serve either to evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of the article, or which can assist authors in improving the clarity, scope, sourcing or other relevant aspects of the work. Personal criticism is, of course, inappropriate. Be fair and honest – criticism is part of the game – but try to avoid becoming the stereotypical "reviewer no. 2”. 

To maintain anonymity, reviewers are responsible for ensuring that information identifying them is not present in their review comments or in the metadata of any files they submit as part of their review. If you are unsure of how to accomplish this, contact the editor in advance of submitting the review.

Reviewers may submit separate comments to the editors and to authors. While we understand the human instinct to be a bit more polite and civil in the comments to authors (it’s a good instinct), reviewers should in any case ensure that the gist of their critique or comments is made clear in their comments to authors, and that the comments to the authors and editors respectively are not contradictory, as to avoid confusion when the editorial decision is made.

As reviewers are chosen for their competence within the field or specific area of the submitted article, it may be tempting for them to suggest authors cite the reviewers’ own work or that of their collaborators. While such suggestions can be academically relevant and fair, they should be done cautiously and only when motivated by sound scientific reasons. Such suggestions may otherwise risk revealing the identity of the reviewer, and if done to game citation counts or for self-promotion, could be considered ethically questionable. 

Reviewers are responsible for keeping the manuscripts they review confidential during and after the review process.

Reviewers are also not allowed to use unpublished materials they have accessed in their role as reviewer in their own research or for personal gain.  

Reviewers should bring to the attention of the journal any potential ethical issues in the articles under their review. This includes, but is not limited to, issues of research ethics (including the risk for identifying individual research subjects), uncredited overlap with existing research, plagiarism, suspected falsification or embellishment of data or results, etc.

Reviewers should alert the editors of any potential conflict of interest relating to the author or the reviewed article. We realize that in double-blind review systems this may be difficult, but reviewers should report such issues if they become apparent to them. Such conflicts of interest include being close colleagues, family members, part of the same research project or otherwise working closely together with the author(s). 

ORCID

The journal's editors strongly recommend that authors who submit manuscripts register an "Open Researcher and Contributor Identifier", a so-called ORCiD.

This registration provides a unique and stable digital author identity that ensures that the article is attributed to the correct person and improves the searchability of all the author's publications. This helps to ensure that the author receives recognition for their work. As a person's ORCiD remains the same as long as the account exists, any name changes, change of employment, department affiliation or research field do not affect the searchability of previous publications. This facilitates correspondence between research colleagues.

The journal's editors encourage all authors to include an ORCiD along with other author information when the manuscript is registered in the system. If the article is accepted, this will be published with the article.

POLICY FOR OPEN DATA

Decided on a case-by-case basis.

POLICY FOR SELF-ARCHIVING

Authors are permitted to deposit all versions of their paper in an institutional or subject repository.

• Preprint
• Author’s Accepted Manuscript
• Published article (Version of Record)

No embargo is applied.

ARCHIVING POLICY

Beginning when the journal joins Publicera, its current and future content is made available via Publicera and stored long-term on a secure and central server at the National Library of Sweden (KB).

The journal's owner and KB aim for the journal's archive to be transferred and made available via Publicera, and thus the archive will also be stored long-term on a secure and central server at KB. In the event that the journal ceases publishing, the journal's content on Publicera will remain archived at KB.

CORRECTION AND RETRACTION POLICIES

The conditions of publication with persistent identifiers such as DOI include that the object published is final and not changed without readers being clearly informed of changes.

Articles published in the journal cannot therefore be changed without a) an erratum or b) a change notice being published and linked to the original article. This highlights the need to ensure that your final approved version of the article is acceptable to you.

If a factual error in an article is discovered, this should be reported to the Editor-in-Chief, who decides on possible actions and possible corrections.

COMPLAINTS AND APPEALS POLICY

In the case of formal complaints, disputes or appeals, authors should contact the Editor-in-Chief, who is responsible for ensuring that a fair, deliberative and thorough investigation is conducted.

POLICY FOR ETHICAL OVERSIGHT

The Journal follows the ethical guidelines and best practices set forth by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). All cases of ethical misconduct will be dealt with in accordance with COPE's recommendations and guidelines.

POLICY ON THE USE OF AI TOOLS

In accordance with COPE’s position statement on the use of artificial intelligence (AI) tools, AI tools such as Large Language Models, chatbots and image creators cannot be credited with authorship of any manuscript submitted to this journal. Authorship attribution implies responsibility for the integrity, originality, accuracy and validity of a work, and AI tools cannot take such responsibility.

In any instance where generative AI tools have been employed in the creation of written content, generation of images or graphical elements, or the collection and analysis of data within a submitted work, authors are required to disclose these uses within the manuscript. This acknowledgement should provide explicit information about the specific tasks performed by AI tools, including the identification of the tool(s) and their respective versions. AI tools used to improve or correct spelling and grammar need not be credited.

Authors bear full responsibility for the content of their manuscript, including any portions generated with the assistance of AI tools. Consequently, they are liable for any potential breaches of publication ethics. Authors must ensure that all quoted and referenced material is appropriately credited.