MSP General Principles and Publication Ethics
RESPONSIBILITIES OF AUTHORS
1. Authors may submit only their own original research, which has not been previously published in any other journal. Authors may not submit work that is currently under consideration for publication in any other journal (including other MSP journals).
Prior to publication, authors are required to attest that they own the intellectual property represented in the article.
(View our consent-to-publish form here.)
If an article includes experimental data, it is expected that the data are real and represent the authors' own work unless they state otherwise.
2. Plagiarism is strictly forbidden. We adhere to the COPE guidelines for dealing with suspected plagiarism. We follow this flowchart to the extent possible. (See also Responsibilities of the Journal and its Editors below.)
3. All named authors must have significantly contributed to the work. Conversely, all researchers who have significantly contributed to the work should be named as authors.
4. Submitted work must include a bibliography listing relevant references.
5. Authors should acknowledge financial support where appropriate.
6. In the event that an error in the research is discovered, authors are obligated to provide the necessary retractions or corrections, which MSP will publish in a timely manner.
RESPONSIBILITIES OF REVIEWERS
1. Judgements should be objective and well considered. Reviewers should have no conflict of interest with any participant.
2. Reviewers must retain confidentiality with respect to the reviewed article. Reviewers' identities are not disclosed to authors or third parties.
3. Reviewers should be alert for additional resources or information that could be brought to the author's attention for improvement of the article.
RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE JOURNAL AND ITS EDITORS
The governance structure of MT and its acceptance procedures are transparent and designed to ensure the highest quality of published material. Business concerns are not allowed to compromise intellectual and ethical standards. The Editorial Board makes the final decision on a submitted manuscript after the manuscript has been proposed for publication by an Editor (member of the Editorial Board). The proposing Editor must explicitly endorse the paper's scientific content. The information-gathering process is open to the whole Editorial Board throughout. Specifically:
1. Upon submission, an author suggests a member of the Editorial Board to be the article's handling editor. Members of the Editorial Board are listed on the submission webpage together with their areas of interest.
2. The paper is assigned by one of the editor(s)-in-chief to a member of the Editorial Board. The assignee becomes the handling editor of the paper. A paper may be reassigned (for example, if the first assignee does not wish to handle it).
3. The editor(s)-in-chief can recommend to the full Editorial Board to reject a paper that seems unlikely to meet the journal’s standards, without assigning it to a handling editor.
4. The handling editor can quickly recommend to the full Editorial Board to reject a paper that seems unlikely to meet the journal’s standards. Experts may optionally be consulted for a general opinion on whether the standards are likely to be met. A paper that is not rejected at that stage is then sent out for one or more referee reports. The handling editor may elect to serve as a referee if the paper falls within the appropriate area of specialization.
5. The handling editor may at any time request that the author(s) submit a revision (for example, to take into account a referee’s comments). This does not imply that the paper will be accepted if the revision is made.
6. The handling editor makes a recommendation to the full Editorial Board with justification explaining the reasoning and the standards which he is using.
7. If the recommendation is rejection, a week is allowed for objections.
8. After an acceptance recommendation comes a two-week period of discussion and voting. All members of the Editorial Board are encouraged to make comments and/or vote. Until a final decision is made, it is possible to change one’s vote or add further comments by simply voting again.
9. The final decision rests with the editor(s)-in-chief, who make a decision after the board discussion and waiting period.