Peer Review

Submitted manuscripts are usually reviewed by two or more experts with a double-blind peer review process, in which the reviewers' names are routinely withheld from the author unless a reviewer requests a preference for his or her identity to be revealed. Authors are invited to suggest the names, affiliations and contact information of up to five individuals who may be suitable to serve as referees, but the Editors are under no obligation to use all or any of these individuals as reviewers. All manuscripts are reviewed initially by the Editors and only those papers that meet the scientific and editorial standards of the journal, and fit within the aims and scope of the journal, will be sent for outside review. Each research article and review manuscript is reviewed by at least two referees. All manuscripts are reviewed as rapidly as possible, and a first editorial decision is generally reached within 4 weeks of submission.

The desired major elements of a high-quality review should include:

• The reviewer should have identified and commented on major strengths and weaknesses of study design and methodology
• The reviewer should comment accurately and constructively upon the quality of the author's interpretation of the data, including acknowledgment of its limitations.
• The reviewer should comment on major strengths and weaknesses of the manuscript as a written communication, independent of the design, methodology, results, and interpretation of the study.
• The reviewer should comment on any ethical concerns raised by the study, or any possible evidence of low standards of scientific conduct.
• The reviewer should provide the author with useful suggestions for improvement of the manuscript.
• The reviewer's comments to the author should be constructive and professional
• The review should provide the editor the proper context and perspective to make a decision on acceptance (and/or revision) of the manuscript. (Some journals may wish a recommendation on whether the article should be published; others will not, as such decisions are usually made on priorities different than the reviewer's).

The editors should routinely assess all reviews for quality; they may also edit reviews before sending them to authors, or simply not send them if they feel they are not constructive or appropriate. Ratings of review quality and other performance characteristics of reviewers should be periodically assessed to assure optimal journal performance, and must contribute to decisions on reappointment or ongoing review requests (for journals that do not formally appoint reviewers). Individual performance data must be kept confidential. Performance measures such as review completion times should be used to assess changes in process that might improve journal performance.

The type of review process should be stated, such as the number of reviewers, blinded as to author or institution or not, authors blinded as to reviewer identity or not, etc. Any policy on suggesting reviewers or on requests to not use certain reviewers should be described.

The submitted manuscript is a privileged communication; reviewers must treat it as confidential. It should not be retained or copied. Also, reviewers must not share the manuscript with any colleagues without the explicit permission of the editor. Reviewers and editors must not make any personal or professional use of the data, arguments, or interpretations (other than those directly involved in its peer review) prior to publication unless they have the authors' specific permission or are writing an editorial or commentary to accompany the article.

If reviewers suspect misconduct, they should notify the editor in confidence, and should not share their concerns with other parties unless officially notified by the journal that they may do so.

High-quality review is important, but equally important is that readers be able to readily determine which contents of the journal are peer reviewed. The journal should describe which types of articles are peer reviewed, and by whom (ie, only by editorial board members, by outside expert reviewers, or both). Editors should strongly consider having a statistician review reports of original research that are being considered for publication, if this feasible, since studies have shown that typical non-statistician reviewers do not identify many major errors in research.

Journals should publish annual audits of acceptance rates, publication intervals, percentage of submissions sent out for external peer review, and other performance data.

Review materials and original submitted manuscripts may sometimes be useful for educational purposes, for review by other parties in the peer review process (other than the decision editor or other reviewers of the same manuscript) or in educational products. No reviews or manuscripts should be so used without the express written permission of the reviewer or authors, respectively. (One procedure may be to have a blanket permission for autonomous internal quality assurance use included in the submission requirements for the manuscript, and the reviewer's assignment agreement).

Editorial Decisions

Decisions about a manuscript should be based only on its importance, originality, clarity, and relevance to the journal's scope and content. Studies with negative results despite adequate power, or those challenging previously published work, should receive equal consideration.

There should be an explicit written policy on the procedure that will be followed if an author appeals a decision.

If a published paper is subsequently found to have errors or major flaws, the Editor should take responsibility for promptly correcting the written record in the journal. The specific content of the correction may address whether the errors originated with the author or the journal. The correction should be listed in the table of contents to ensure that it is linked to the article to which it pertains in public databases such as PubMed.

Ratings of review quality and other performance characteristics of editors should be periodically assessed to assure optimal journal performance, and must contribute to decisions on reappointment. Individual performance data must be confidential. These performance measures should also be used to assess changes in process that might improve journal performance.

The handling of manuscripts that may represent a conflict of interest for editors is described under the section on conflict of interest.

The process by which candidates are nominated to the Editorial Board, and the qualities sought in candidates, should be explicitly described.

 
Fraud

Fraud is defined as any intentional act or omission designed to deceive others, resulting in the victim suffering a loss and/or the perpetrator achieving a gain.  In addition, this policy covers any dishonest or fraudulent act, including but not limited to:

• Misappropriation of funds, securities, supplies or other assets.
• Impropriety in the handling or reporting of money or financial transactions.
• Profiteering as a result of insider knowledge of company plans or activities.
• Disclosing confidential and proprietary information to outside parties.
• Intentional, false representation or concealment of a material fact for the purpose of inducing another to act upon it to procure an advantage, benefit or gain.
• Accepting or seeking anything of material value from contractors, vendors or persons providing services/materials to Journal/publisher, unless pursuant to the Acceptance of Gifts Policy.
• Destruction, removal, or unauthorized use of records, furniture, fixtures, and equipment.
• Any similar or related irregularity.

Each member of management will be familiar with the types of improprieties that might occur within his or her area of responsibility and be alert for any indication of irregularity.  An employee, volunteer, consultant, vendor, contractor, or outside agency doing business with the journal/publisher shall immediately report any irregularity that is detected or suspected. Any employee or person who suspects or reports dishonest or fraudulent activity shall not attempt to personally conduct investigations or interviews related to any suspected fraudulent act. 

Ethics

The publication of an article in a peer-reviewed journal is an essential building block in the development of a coherent and respected network of knowledge. It is a direct reflection of the quality of work of the author and the institutions that support them. Peer-reviewed articles support and embody the scientific method. It is therefore important to agree upon standards of expected ethical behavior.

Ethics topics to consider when publishing:

• Authorship of the paper:  Authorship implies a significant intellectual contribution to the work, some role in writing the manuscript and reviewing the final draft of the manuscript, but authorship roles can vary. Who will be an author, and in what sequence, should be determined by the participants early in the research process, to avoid disputes and misunderstandings which can delay or prevent publication of a paper. Authorship should be limited to those who have made a significant contribution to the conception, design, execution, or interpretation of the reported study.

  For all manuscripts, the corresponding author should be required to provide information on the specific contributions each author has made to the article. (Alternatively, since authors may differ on the nature and magnitude of contributions, each author may be asked to describe their own.) All authors are responsible for the quality, accuracy, and ethics of the work, but one author must be identified who will reply if questions arise or more information is needed, and who will take responsibility for the work as a whole. This description of author contributions should be printed with the article. The authors are responsible for creating all components of the manuscript. If writers are provided by the sponsoring or funding institution or corporation to draft or revise the article, the name of the writer and their sponsoring organization must be provided. Their names and contributions will be provided with the acknowledgments. Journals should discourage "honorary" authorship (when authorship is granted as a favor to someone powerful or prestigious who would not have qualified for it otherwise) and should also try to ensure that all those who qualify as authors are listed.

  All authors must take responsibility in writing for the accuracy of the manuscript, and one author must be the guarantor and take responsibility for the work as a whole. A growing trend among journals is to also require that for reports containing original data, at least one author (eg, the principal investigator) should indicate that she or he had full access to all the data in the study and takes responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis. This helps assure that authors, and not funding sources, have final say over the analysis and reporting of their results.

• Originality: The authors should ensure that they have written entirely original works, and if the authors have used the work and/or words of others, that this has been appropriately cited or quoted. Original work is that has not been previously published. Web and other electronic publication should be considered the same as print publication for this purpose. Redundant publication occurs when multiple papers, without full cross reference in the text, share the same data, or results. Republication of a paper in another language, or simultaneously in multiple journals with different audiences, may be acceptable, provided that there is full and prominent disclosure of its original source at the time of submission of the manuscript. At the time of submission, authors should disclose details of related papers they have authored, even if in a different language, similar papers in press, and any closely related papers previously published or currently under review at another journal.

  Because medical research findings are of increasing interest to the lay media, journalists attend scientific meetings at which preliminary research findings are presented, which can lead to their premature publication in the mass media. Publication of details not included in the abstract or meeting presentation is not advised until the article has appeared in a peer-reviewed journal, as this means that enough detailed evidence has been provided to satisfy peer reviewers and editors. Where this is not possible, authors should help journalists to produce accurate reports, but refrain from supplying additional data, if they wish their material to be of sufficient original interest to warrant publication in peer-reviewed journals. Authors should be discouraged from holding press conferences to publicize their abstract results, as these results are preliminary and generally the complete report has not yet undergone peer review. Journals should address these concerns in their formal policies on originality of submitted materials.

  Previous publication of an abstract during the proceedings of meetings (in print or electronically) does not preclude subsequent submission for publication, but full disclosure should be made at the time of submission.

• Plagiarism: Plagiarism is the use of others' published and unpublished ideas or words (or other intellectual property) without attribution or permission, and presenting them as new and original rather than derived from an existing source. The intent and effect of plagiarism is to mislead the reader as to the contributions of the plagiarizer. This applies whether the ideas or words are taken from abstracts, research grant applications, Institutional Review Board applications, or unpublished or published manuscripts in any publication format (print or electronic).

  Plagiarism is scientific misconduct and should be addressed as such (see prior section).Self-plagiarism refers to the practice of an author using portions of their previous writings on the same topic in another of their publications, without specifically citing it formally in quotes. This practice is widespread and sometimes unintentional, as there are only so many ways to say the same thing on many occasions, particularly when writing the Methods section of an article. Although this usually violates the copyright that has been assigned to the publisher, there is no consensus as to whether this is a form of scientific misconduct, or how many of one's own words one can use before it is truly "plagiarism." Probably for this reason self-plagiarism is not regarded in the same light as plagiarism of the ideas and words of other individuals. If journals have developed a policy on this matter, it should be clearly stated for authors.

• Conflicts of Interest statement

  A conflict of interest exists when professional judgment concerning a primary interest (such as patients’ welfare or the validity of research) may be influenced by a secondary interest (such as financial gain or personal rivalry). A conflict of interest may arise for authors when they have a financial interest that may influence – probably without their knowing – their interpretation of their results or those of others.  Chinese Journal of Optometry Ophthalmology and Visual Science (CJOOVS) recognizes the multiplicity of financial and other conflicts confronting authors, referees, and editors, and all authors, members, referees, and editors must disclose any association that poses a financial conflict of interest in connection with the manuscript.  We believe that to make the best decision on how to deal with a manuscript we should know about any such conflict of interest that the authors may have. We are not aiming to eradicate conflicts of interests – they are almost inevitable. We will not reject manuscripts simply because the authors have a conflict of interest, but we will publish a declaration in the manuscript as to whether or not the authors have conflicts of interests.

  Authors are required during submission of their manuscripts to complete the online declaration form and to disclose any conflict of interest. The corresponding author must ensure that all authors have been asked to disclose any conflicts of interest. Referees and editors are asked to recuse themselves from handling a paper if the conflict makes them unable to make an impartial scientific judgment or evaluation. A referee or editor who has a conflict but believes that it does not preclude his or her making a proper judgment must disclose to the journal the nature of the conflict.

  When a conflict of interest is disclosed either by the author or editor, a describing the conflict will be included with the published article.

  The conflict of interest applies to all material published in CJOOVS including research articles, perspectives, editorials, reviews, colloquium papers, and commentaries. For clarification of the policy, please contact us at zhysgx@vip.126.com.

• Reporting standards: Authors of reports of original research should present an accurate account of the work performed as well as an objective discussion of its significance. Research should be conducted to high standards of quality control and data analysis. Data and records must be retained and produced for review upon request. Fabrication, falsification, concealment, deceptive reporting, or misrepresentation of data constitute scientific misconduct. Good research should be well justified, well planned, and appropriately designed, so that it can properly address the research question. Statistical issues, including power calculations, should be considered early in study design, to avoid futile studies that produce subject risk without enrollment sufficient to answer the research question. Outcomes should be specified at the start of the study.

• Hazards and human or animal subjects: Statements of compliance are required if the work involves chemicals, procedures or equipment that have any unusual hazards inherent in their use, or if it involves the use of animal or human subjects. Documented review and approval from a formally constituted review board (Institutional Review Board or Ethics committee) should be required for all studies involving people, medical records, and human tissues. For those investigators who do not have access to formal ethics review committees, the principles outlined in the Declaration of Helsinki should be followed. If the study is judged exempt from review, a statement from the committee should be required. Informed consent by participants should always be sought. If not possible, an institutional review board must decide if this is ethically acceptable. Journals should have explicit policies as to whether these review board approvals must be documented by the authors, or simply attested to in their cover letter, and how they should be described in the manuscript itself.

  Animal experiments should require full compliance with local, national, ethical, and regulatory principles, and local licensing arrangements.

• Data access and retention: Authors may be asked to provide the raw data in connection with a paper for editorial review, and should be prepared to provide public access to such data.
• Acknowledgement of sources: Proper acknowledgment.
• Fundamental errors in published works: When an author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in his/her own published work, it is the author's obligation to promptly notify the journal editor or publisher and cooperate with the editor to retract or correct the paper.
• Use of patient images or case details: Studies on patients or volunteers require ethics committee approval and informed consent, which should be documented in the paper.
•  Nondiscrimination Policy: Our policy is that the volunteer membership and staff structures and all programs and activities of the journal/publisher shall be designed and conducted without regard to race, religion, national origin, sex, age, disability or other non-merit criteria.  

Responding to Allegations of Possible Misconduct

 Deception may be deliberate, by reckless disregard of possible consequences, or by ignorance. Since the underlying goal of misconduct is to deliberately deceive others as to the truth, the journal's preliminary investigation of potential misconduct must take into account not only the particular act or omission, but also the apparent intention (as best it can be determined) of the person involved. Misconduct does not include unintentional error. The most common forms of scientific misconduct include (the following are taken with minor modification from the ORI publication Analysis of Institutional Policies for Responding to Allegations of Scientific Misconduct [http://ori.dhhs.gov/html/polanal2.htm, full report in PDF format, accessed 3/13/04]):

• Falsification of data: ranges from fabrication to deceptive selective reporting of findings and omission of conflicting data, or willful suppression and/or distortion of data.
• Plagiarism: The appropriation of the language, ideas, or thoughts of another without crediting their true source, and representation of them as one's own original work.
• Improprieties of authorship: Improper assignment of credit, such as excluding others, misrepresentation of the same material as original in more than one publication, inclusion of individuals as authors who have not made a definite contribution to the work published; or submission of multi-authored publications without the concurrence of all authors.
• Misappropriation of the ideas of others: an important aspect of scholarly activity is the exchange of ideas among colleagues. Scholars can acquire novel ideas from others during the process of reviewing grant applications and manuscripts. However, improper use of such information can constitute fraud. Wholesale appropriation of such material constitutes misconduct.
• Violation of generally accepted research practices: Serious deviation from accepted practices in proposing or carrying out research, improper manipulation of experiments to obtain biased results, deceptive statistical or analytical manipulations, or improper reporting of results.
• Material failure to comply with legislative and regulatory requirements affecting research: Including but not limited to serious or substantial, repeated, willful violations of applicable local regulations and law involving the use of funds, care of animals, human subjects, investigational drugs, recombinant products, new devices, or radioactive, biologic, or chemical materials.
• Inappropriate behavior in relation to misconduct: this includes unfounded or knowingly false accusations of misconduct, failure to report known or suspected misconduct, withholding or destruction of information relevant to a claim of misconduct and retaliation against persons involved in the allegation or investigation.

Deliberate misrepresentation of qualifications, experience, or research accomplishments to advance the research program, to obtain external funding, or for other professional advancement.

Journals have an obligation to readers and patients to ensure that their published research is both accurate and adheres to the highest ethical standard. Therefore, if the inquiry concludes there is a reasonable possibility of misconduct, responses should be undertaken, chosen in accordance with the apparent magnitude of the misconduct. Responses may be applied separately or combined, and their implementation should depend on the circumstances of the case as well as the responses of the participating parties and institutions. The following options are ranked in approximate order of severity:

• A letter of explanation (and education) sent only to the person against whom the complaint is made, where there appears to be a genuine and innocent misunderstanding of principles or procedure.
• A letter of reprimand to the same party, warning of the consequences of future such instances, where the misunderstanding appears to be not entirely innocent.
• A formal letter as above, including a written request to the supervising institution that a investigation be carried out and the findings of that inquiry reported in writing to the journal.
• Publication of a notice of redundant or duplicate publication or plagiarism, if appropriate (and unequivocally documented). Such publication will not require approval of authors, and should be reported to their institution.
• Formal withdrawal or retraction of the paper from the scientific literature, published in the journal, informing readers and the indexing authorities (National Library of Medicine, etc), if there is a formal finding of misconduct by an institution. Such publication will not require approval of authors, should be reported to their institution, and should be readily visible and identifiable in the journal. It should also meet other requirements established by the International Committee of Journal Editors (accessed 12/2/03). It is recommended that editors inform readers and authors of their reservation of the right to publish a retraction if it meets these conditions, thereby helping decrease arguments with authors.

Editors or reviewers who are found to have engaged in scientific misconduct should be removed from further association with the journal, and this fact reported to their institution.

Statement of Informed Consent

Manuscripts should contain a statement to the effect that all human studies have been reviewed by the appropriate ethics committee or it should be stated clearly in the text that all persons gave their informed consent prior to their inclusion in the study. Patients have a right to privacy that should not be infringed without informed consent. Identifying information, including patients' names, initials, or hospital numbers, should not be published in written descriptions, photographs, and pedigrees unless the information is essential for scientific purposes and the patient gives written informed consent for publication. Identifying details should be omitted if they are not essential. Complete anonymity is difficult to achieve, however, and informed consent should be obtained if there is any doubt. For example, masking the eye region in photographs of patients is inadequate protection of anonymity.

Published Statement of Human and Animal Right

 Statement of Human and Animal Rights

When reporting experiments on human subjects, authors should indicate whether the procedures followed were in accordance with the ethical standards of the responsible committee on human experimentation (institutional and national) and with the Helsinki Declaration of 1975, as revised in 2000 (5).

When reporting experiments on animals, authors should indicate whether the institutional and national guide for the care and use of laboratory animals was respected.

This work must contain a notification like the next example:

“I undersign, certificate that the procedures and the experiments I’ve done respect the ethical standards in the Helsinki Declaration of 1975, as revised in 2000 (5), as well as the national law.”

If such information does not exist, this has to be disclosed and explained.

This should apply to all original papers, including original research, editorials, state of the art papers, brief reports, case reports, images in medicine, and also for comments on clinical trials.