IET Ethical Policy for Journals

All IET journals are committed to following best practices on publication ethics. The following policy is based mainly on the Core Practices from the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) [1-3]. This policy should be read in conjunction with the journal’s author and referee guidelines.


Sections

  1. Duties of Editors

  2. Duties of Authors

  3. Duties of Referees

  4. References


Duties of Editors


Review of Manuscripts

Editors will take all reasonable steps to ensure that peer referees’ identities are protected, and that the peer review process is fair, unbiased and timely.


Publication Decisions

Editorial decisions are not affected by the origins of the manuscript, including the nationality, ethnicity, political beliefs, race, or religion of the authors. The decision to accept or reject a paper for publication is based on the paper’s importance, originality and clarity, and the study’s validity and its relevance to the remit of the journal.


Confidentiality

Editors will ensure that the information and material submitted by the authors remains confidential while under consideration for the journal, and will only be disclosed as appropriate to the author(s), referees, potential referees, other editorial advisors and the IET.


Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest

Editors will not use unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted paper for their own research purposes without the author’s explicit written consent. Submissions made to a journal by the Editor will be handled by an alternative Editor to ensure the process remains fair and unbiased.


Intellectual Property

Editors will ensure that all submissions are checked for originality using iThenticate’s CrossCheck software prior to peer-review. Editors should be alert to intellectual property issues and will work with the IET to ensure that the COPE guidance on handling of intellectual property is followed.


Data Protection Requirements

The Editors agree to comply with the provisions of the General Data Protection Regulation (EU) 2016/679 (as applicable), the Data Protection Act 2018, Privacy and Electronic Communications (EC Directive) Regulations, and codes of practice issued by the Information Commissioner from time to time (all as amended, extended, re-enacted or replaced from time to time), in so far as the same relates to the provisions and obligations of this Agreement.


Duties of Authors


Reporting Standards

Authors should present their results accurately, clearly and honestly, and without fabrication, falsification or inappropriate data manipulation. Misleading, selective or ambiguous reporting should be avoided. Authors should strive to describe their methods clearly and unambiguously so that their findings can be confirmed by others. The submission guidelines of the journal must be followed.


Acknowledgement of Sources, Plagiarism, Infringement of Copyright and Infringement of Moral Rights and Submission to Multiple Publications

Authors must ensure that they have written entirely original work, acknowledge all sources of data and appropriately represent the work or words of others in citations or quotations.
Copyright material (e.g. tables, figures or extensive quotations) should be reproduced only with appropriate permission and acknowledgement. Authors should ensure that they have not submitted the same manuscript or manuscripts describing essentially the same work to more than one journal concurrently.


Authorship

The IET believes in clear, transparent and verifiable authorship. In line with ICMJE guidance [4], to qualify for authorship, each individual must:

  1. Have made a substantial contribution to the concept or design of the article; or to the acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data for the article; AND
  2. Drafted the article or revised it critically for important intellectual content; AND
  3. Approved the version to be published; AND
  4. Agreed to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved.

Contributors who do not meet all these criteria for authorship should be listed in the Acknowledgements section. It is the author's responsibility to obtain written approval by any persons named in the Acknowledgements section.

The submitting author must ensure that all authors have seen and agreed to the submitted version of the manuscript and to the inclusion of their names as co-authors or to the inclusion of their names in the Acknowledgements section.

The contributions of each author to the work must now be indicated as part of the submission process, and you will be asked to add Author Contributions using CRediT Taxonomy [5]. Each author on a paper may have one or more CRediT contribution roles, but having a role described by the taxonomy does not automatically qualify one as author. Please review the Best Practice Guidelines on Research Integrity and Publishing Ethics [6].

The submitting author is responsible for ensuring all qualifying authors are included on submission with the correct spelling, institution and address details and in the agreed order. The primary affiliation listed for each author should be where the majority of the work was done. If the author has subsequently moved, the current address may be listed as a second affiliation. The Acknowledgements section may be used to further clarify if some or all of the work was conducted at one or more different institutions.

We strongly encourage the use of institutional email addresses for all authors listed on your manuscript. Authors are now asked to provide a separate file on submission containing a summary of the corresponding author’s institutional email address; their profile page on their institution’s website; their Google Scholar page; and a list of up to ten most recent published papers with links (where available). If we are unable to verify the identities of any of the authors, your paper may be withdrawn or rejected.

 

Unacceptable Authorship Types

The following types of authorship are considered unacceptable and a contravention of publication ethics:

  • "Ghost" authors, who contribute substantially but are not acknowledged;
  • "Guest"/"Gift" authors, who have made very little or no contribution to the work and do not qualify for authorship.

The IET does not recognise AI tools as authors or as able to fulfil authorship criteria, as they cannot take responsibility for the submitted work. If AI tools were used in the preparation of any part of the paper, this should be clearly disclosed in the appropriate section of the paper, and authors take full responsibility for the paper in its entirety.

 

Limit on Number of Submissions per Author

In order to ensure sufficient diversity within the authorship of our journals, authors will be limited to being listed as an author (including as a co-author) on five manuscripts submitted for consideration in a single journal and ten manuscripts submitted for consideration across the IET Journals within a 12-month period.

This policy does not apply to editorials and other non-peer-reviewed manuscript types.

 

Authorship Change Requests

Authors are expected to consider carefully the list and order of authors before submitting their manuscript and to provide the definitive list of authors with the correct institutions and verifiable details at the time of the original submission.

Adding and/or deleting authors after submission (including at revision stage) is generally not permitted and will only be considered in exceptional circumstances and only where the authorship change complies with the IET’s authorship policy. No requests to amend the authorship can be made after the manuscript has been accepted. Any changes to the listed authors on a paper must be done via an Authorship Change Form which can be requested from the Editorial Office. Any changes to authorship between submission and acceptance must be approved by all authors (including any authors to be removed) and justified. In addition to this, we require the change(s) stated in the form to be approved by the Head of Department of the submitting author (and by the Head of Department of the corresponding author if different).

All requests made will be assessed by the Editorial Office and Editor, and we may request further evidence or contact the authors' institutions to confirm the contribution of each author. The IET reserves the right to refuse requests we do not believe conform with our authorship policies.


Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest

All sources of financial support must be disclosed in the submitted manuscript. A statement should also be included disclosing any financial or other substantive conflicts of interest that may be seen to influence the results or interpretation of the presented work.


Significant Errors in the Work

Authors should alert the Editor promptly if they discover a significant error or inaccuracy in their submitted, accepted or published work. Authors should cooperate with the Editor in issuing retractions or corrections when required.


Human or Animal Subjects

All investigations involving humans must be conducted in compliance with the WMA Declaration of Helsinki [7] and in accordance with local statutory requirements. Manuscripts relying on clinical trials should quote the trial registration number at the end of the abstract. Authors should include a statement in the manuscript that informed consent was obtained for experimentation with human subjects. The privacy rights of human subjects must always be observed. For all manuscripts reporting experiments on animals, the corresponding author must confirm that all experiments were performed in accordance with relevant guidelines and regulations. The manuscript must include a statement identifying the institutional and/or licensing committee approving the experiments, including any relevant details.


Duties of Referees


Confidentiality

Referees should respect the confidentiality of peer review and not reveal any details of a manuscript or its review, during or after the peer-review process, beyond those that are released by the journal.

The IET does not allow the use of any AI tools in generating peer review comments on manuscripts, as they cannot be held responsible for the feedback provided or engage with the subsequent author response in an appropriate manner. Uploading a confidential manuscript to such AI tools to generate reviewer feedback is a violation of the confidentiality of the peer review process.


Acknowledgement of Sources

Referees should ensure that authors have acknowledged all sources of data used in their reported work. If the referee finds that the manuscript has similarity or overlap with any other published paper, this must be brought to the attention of the Editor immediately.


Standards of Objectivity

Referees should not allow their reviews to be influenced by the origins of a manuscript, by the nationality, religious or political beliefs, gender or other characteristics of the authors, or by commercial considerations. Referees should be objective and constructive in their reviews, refraining from being hostile or inflammatory, and from making libellous or derogatory personal comments.


Promptness

Referees should only agree to review manuscripts for which they have the subject expertise required to carry out a proper assessment and which they can assess in a timely manner.


Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest

Referees should not agree to review any manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies or institutions. Referees should not use information obtained during the peer review process for their own or any other person’s advantage, or to disadvantage or discredit others.


Ethical Policies last updated: March 2024


References

  1. Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) (December 2017) ‘Core Practices’ https://publicationethics.org/core-practices, accessed February 2018

  2. Wager E & Kleinert S (2011) ‘Responsible research publication: international standards for authors. A position statement developed at the 2nd World Conference on Research Integrity, Singapore’, July 22-24, 2010. Chapter 50 in: Mayer T & Steneck N (eds) Promoting Research Integrity in a Global Environment. Imperial College Press/World Scientific Publishing, Singapore (pp 309-16). (ISBN 978-981-4340-97-7)

  3. Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) (March 2013) ‘COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers’ http://publicationethics.org/files/Ethical_guidelines_for_peer_reviewers_0.pdf, accessed May 2016

  4. International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) ‘Defining the Role of Authors and Contributors’ https://www.icmje.org/recommendations/browse/roles-and-responsibilities/defining-the-role-of-authors-and-contributors.html, accessed November 2023

  5. National Information Standards Organization (NISO) - Contributor Roles Taxonomy ‘Contributor Roles Defined’ https://credit.niso.org/contributor-roles-defined, accessed May 2023

  6. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. (February 2023) 'Best Practice Guidelines on Research Integrity and Publishing Ethics' https://authorservices.wiley.com/ethics-guidelines/index.html, accessed May 2023

  7. World Medical Association (October 2013) 'WMA Declaration Of Helsinki – Ethical Principles For Medical Research Involving Human Subjects' https://www.wma.net/policies-post/wma-declaration-of-helsinki-ethical-principles-for-medical-research-involving-human-subjects, accessed January 2023