Editorial Policies and Publication Ethics


CJEO welcomes submissions which are original, not under consideration by any other publication at the same time, and which contribute to the existing body of knowledge. All authors should be aware of the importance of presented content that is based on their own research and expressed in their own words. Plagiarism is bad practice and unethical.

CJEO recommends that all the peer reviewer, editors and authors comply with the principles of publication transparency.

Peer review

All manuscripts should have a peer review process by peer-reviewed experts (seeing peer review section)

Retractions and corrections

Duplicate publication and Permissible republication of original work

Duplicate publication, multiple publications, or redundant publication refers to the author’s act of publishing exactly the same intellectual material in two or more journals without informing editors. The same intellectual materials include the same text, or main data, figure, picture, table and graphs, etc. CJEO insists that submitting authors do not infringe copyright by duplicating data and material that is published in other journals with copyright.
Submitting authors are advised to ensure that the data and research in manuscripts has not been previously published.

Exceptions to the republication of original work include conference papers, archival papers that are republished in an anniversary or commemorative issue, papers that are of particular merit and that have received only limited circulation (for example through a company newsletter). These papers are republished at the discretion of the Editor-in-Chief. The original work should be fully and correctly attributed and permission from the appropriate copyright holder obtained.

Malpractice statement

CJEO recommends that authors be cognisant of current guidelines for the welfare of experimental animals, the approval and consent of human trials and publishing ethics best practice as identified by COPE and ICMJE guidelines.


A listed author must have:

  • Participated in the selection of the research topic; the design of the study and the collection, analysis and interpretation of the data.
  • Made critical drafting and revision input to the final submitted manuscript.
  • Approved the final version of the manuscript and acknowledged responsibility for the accuracy, authenticity and integrity of the article content.
  • Admitted responsibility for the research transparency and rationale supporting the article.
  • Agreed accountability for all aspects of the manuscript content and research work and be fully familiar with the substantive investigation work.

Conflict of Interest Policy

CJEO’s COI policy generally follows those of the ICMJE Recommendations. Conflicts of interest (sometimes referred to as competing interests or dual loyalties) are common, and some would say almost inevitable. Conflicts of interest are secondary interests (e.g. personal, commercial, political, academic or financial) that may influence judgement on a primary decision, in this case what is published. They have been described as those which, when revealed later, would make a reasonable reader feel misled or deceived. Financial interests may include employment, research funding, sponsorship, stock or share ownership, payment for lectures or travel, consultancies, company support for staff commissioning/ funding/sponsoring of any element of the paper, any financial or potential financial benefit, or PR firm involvement.

All authors are requested to complete a conflict of interest form prior to submission of their manuscript online. Conflict of interest is defined as those factors which influence authors, peer reviewers and editors, including personal, commercial, political, academic or financial interest. Peer reviewers and editors must declare and avoid these conflicts or competing interests during the submission and assessment of manuscripts. For additional guidance please refer to ICMJE’s ‘‘Conduct, Reporting, Editing, and Publication of Scholarly work in Medical Journals’’ and  COPE’s “Responsible research publication: international standards for authors”CJEO requests authors to provide a financial funding statement and potential conflict of interest disclosure before submission of manuscript.

Financial Funding and Acknowledgements

Authors should also outline the substantial contributions to the preparation of the paper. Acknowledgement should include those who have had supporting roles in the research but who have not been involved directly in the preparation of the paper.

Management of conflicts of interest

CJEO takes the view that any potential conflicts of interest must be recognised and stated. If there is doubt about the existence of a conflict, it is preferable to err on the side of disclosure. Most conflicts of interest can be managed, as per the following procedures; however, there may be occasions when the conflict of interest is so extreme as to make publication impossible.

This is not an exhaustive list of potential conflicts, rather an indication of the range of potential conflicts of interest:

  1. Potential Author COIs

Authors are asked to consider conflicts of interest in both the instructions to authors and then to declare in writing on a form.

  • Instructions to authors – includes the following: ‘Authors must declare any competing interests by completing our standard form. Conflict of interests/competing interests can be defined as factors which could influence the judgment of an author, reviewer or editors, and may be personal, commercial, political, academic, or financial in nature. Put simply, they are interests which, if revealed later, would make a reasonable reader feel misled or deceived’.
  • Conflict of interest form – requires authors to disclose any potential conflicts of interest relevant to the publication of the manuscript.
  1. Potential Reviewer COIs

Editors will try to avoid inviting individuals to review who have potential COIs. Editors will also attempt to honor authors’ requests to exclude potential reviewers, provided that the reason for exclusion is a true COI and that rigorous and comprehensive review is possible if these individuals are excluded. At the time they are invited to review, individuals must disclose any COIs that could bias their opinions, and they must disqualify themselves from reviewing when appropriate. If a COI becomes apparent during the review process, the reviewer must contact the journal office and, when appropriate, ask to be recused. The following situations are considered conflicts and should be avoided:

  • Co-authoring publications with at least one of the authors in the past 3 years
  • Being colleagues within the same section/department or similar organisational unit in the past 3 years
  • Supervising/having supervised the doctoral work of the author(s) or being supervised/having been supervised by the author(s)
  • Receiving professional or personal benefit resulting from the review
  • Having a personal relationship (e.g. family, close friend) with the author(s)
  • Having a direct or indirect financial interest in the paper being reviewed

It is not considered a Conflict of Interest if the reviewers have worked together with the authors in a collaborative project (e.g. EU) or if they have co-organized an event.

  1. Editorial Board Member COIs

Articles by Editorial Board members will be treated as usual for that category of article and undergo the same peer review process. In this case another editor would be appointed to manage the peer review process. If no editor can be identified who does not have a conflict of interest then a guest editor may be invited to manage the manuscript. Any guest editor must have a good understanding of the journal.

  1. Potential Editor COIs

Editors will not act as the decision maker in articles with which they feel they have a conflict of interest, such as working with the authors or performing competing research. If the editor has not worked with the author for more than six months, then they may be eligible to edit an article. Some conflicts will be insurmountable for editors, for example personal friendships, which will not have a time expiry. Knowledge of an author or being an acquaintance is not enough on its own to mean that the editor cannot manage the article. Editors should err on the side of not taking articles with which they may have a conflict of interest and discuss with the Editor-in-Chief any concerns about their own conflicts, so a decision can be made about the most suitable editor for the article.

Misconduct Handling Policy

CJEO is aware of the potential impact an allegation of ethical misconduct can have upon a researcher’s career. All allegations of ethical misconduct are taken seriously, and a full investigation will take place.

  • The Editor-in-Chief should always be the first point of contact, and will seek clarification from all affected parties, in accordance with COPE
  • Where the allegation is made against the Editor-in-Chief, this should be sent to the Publisher for further investigation.
  • If CJEOis approached by a third party with an allegation of plagiarism, the Editor-in-Chief will always seek a response from the original author(s) or copyright holder(s) before a recommendation is made.
  • The Editor-in-Chief will adhere to COPE flowcharts, and will not be influenced by other parties. Any decisions made will be formed in an unbiased and objective manner. At all times, the Editor-in-Chief will remain neutral in tone, acting with integrity, and educating where possible.
  • The Publisher is not obliged to discuss individual cases of alleged plagiarism with third parties.
  • The Publisher reserves the right not to proceed with a case if the complainant presents a false name or affiliation, or acts in an inappropriate or threatening manner towards the journals editors and staff.

Please refer to the guidelines below and COPE flowcharts for the processes that the journal follows in cases of alleged plagiarism in submitted or published articles.

The following types of ethical misconduct should be avoided:

Verbatim copying

Verbatim copying of significant passages, or streams of text of another person’s work without acknowledgement, references or the use of quotation marks.


Improper paraphrasing of another person’s work is where sentences within a paragraph or a section of text has been rearranged without appropriate attribution. Significant improper paraphrasing without appropriate attribution is treated as seriously as verbatim copying.

Re-using parts of a work without attribution

Reuse of elements of another person’s work, for example a figure, table or paragraphs, without acknowledgement, references or the use of quotation marks. It is incumbent on the author to obtain the necessary permission to reuse elements of another person’s work from the copyright holder.


CJEO requires that all authors sign a copyright form that clearly states that their submitted work has not been published before. If elements of a work have been previously published in another publication, the author is required to acknowledge the earlier work and indicate how the subsequent work differs and builds upon the research and conclusions contained in the previous work. Verbatim copying of an author’s own work and paraphrasing is not acceptable, and we recommend that research should only be reused to support new conclusions. Authors should cite all previous stages of publication and presentation of their ideas, that have culminated in the final work, including conference papers, workshop presentations and listserv communications. This will ensure that a complete record of all communication relating to the work is documented.

Retraction and Correction

CJEO follows the Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing of COPE.

Correction will be published when the little error (especially unintentional mistakes) was found in published articles, such as having direct evidence of change and replace of author’s affiliation, authorship, and little unintentional faults in articles.

Some serious problems or misconducts in published article should be retraction.

Retraction should be considered if:

  • A clear evidence showed that the study findings or results are unreliable or having major error, including miscalculation or experimental error or fabrication of data or falsification and modification of image and picture
  • Plagiarism
  • Redundant publication
  • There are material or data without authorization for use in published paper
  • Copyright has been infringed or some serious legal issue
  • Reports of unethical research
  • Unjust peer review process

Notices of retraction should:

  • Retraction notice will be linked to in all online versions
  • Retraction can be clearly identified with a distinct mark in online published paper
  • Content of retraction notices including the title, authors, published journal name, where it was published, who is retracting the article and reason(s) for retraction with a objective
  • Retraction notice should be published promptly in a newest print issue to minimise harmful effects
  • Retraction notices is freely available to all readers

Retractions are not usually appropriate if:

  • Despite having dispute in authorship, there is no reason to doubt the validity of the findings
  • The main findings of the study are reliable
  • Ongoing investigation or inconclusive evidence to support retraction
  • Author conflicts of interest have been reported to the journal after publication, but in the editor’s view these are not likely to have influenced interpretations or recommendations or the conclusions of the article.