Editorial policy statement
Statement on Liability
The legislation on product liability makes increased demands on the duty of care to be exercised by authors of scientific research and medical publications. This applies in particular to papers and publications containing therapeutic directions or instructions and doses or dosage schedules. We therefore request you to examine with particular care, also in your own interest, the factual correctness of the contents of your manuscript once it has been copyedited and returned to you in the form of galley proofs. The responsibility for the correctness of data and statements made in the manuscript rests entirely with the author.
Definition of Authorship
Authorship credit should be based on criteria established by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. Each author should have made the following contributions towards the completion of the manuscript:
- Substantial contributions to conception and design, acquisition of data, or analysis and interpretation of data
- Drafting the article or revising it critically for important intellectual content
- Final approval of the version to be published
Submitted manuscripts must represent original research not previously published nor being considered for publication elsewhere. The editors combat plagiarism, double publication, and scientific misconduct.
Your manuscript may be subject to an investigation and retraction if plagiarism is suspected.
If you plan to reproduce text, tables, or figures from a published source, you must first obtain written permission from the copyright holder (usually the publisher). This is required even if the material is from your own published work. For material never before published and given to you by another person, you must obtain permission from that person. Serious delays to publication can be incurred if permissions are not obtained.
As the author, it is your responsibility to obtain all permissions, pay any permission fees, furnish copies of permissions to EGO with your manuscript, and include a credit line at the end of the figure caption, beneath the table, or in a text footnote.
Upon publication of an article, all rights are held by the publishers, including the rights to reproduce all or part of any publication. The reproduction of articles or illustrations without prior consent from the publisher is prohibited.
Statement of Ethics
This journal adheres to the ethical standards described by the Committee on Publication Ethics and the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. Authors are expected to adhere to these standards.
For all manuscripts reporting data from studies involving human or animal participants, formal review and approval, or formal review and waiver (exemption), by an appropriate institutional review board (IRB) or ethics committee is required, as well as any necessary HIPAA consent, and 12 should be described in the Methods section with the full name of the reviewing entity. All clinical trials must be registered in a public trials registry. Denote the registry and registry number.
Patient Permission Policy
You must obtain a signed patient permission form for every patient whose recognizable photograph or video will be used. If you do not supply this, the identity of the patient must be obscured before the image is published; this could interfere with the instructive value of the photograph or video.
Conflict of Interest Statement
The importance of transparency and objectivity in scientific research and the peer review process.
The conflict of interest exists when an investigator, author, editor, or reviewer has a financial/personal interest or belief that could affect his/her objectivity, or inappropriately influence his/her actions.
All manuscripts for original articles, systematic reviews, meta-analysis, short reviews, case reports, editorials, statements and position papers that are submitted to EGO as well as the articles that are published in it, must be accompanied by a conflict of interest disclosure statement or a declaration by the authors that they do not have any conflicts of interest to declare.
EGO may use disclosures as a basis for editorial decisions and may publish them if they are believed to be important to readers in judging the manuscript. Likewise, it may decide not to publish on the basis of the declared conflict.
All the “potential conflicts of interests” that are to be privately disclosed to the editors of EGO when submitting a manuscript, include all financial and non-financial interests and relationships, direct employment with a private sector entity and service on private sector and non-profit Boards and advisory panels, whether paid or unpaid.
Authors should also disclose any conflict of interest that may have influenced either the conduct or the presentation of the research to the editors, including but not limited to close relationships with those who might be helped or hurt by the publication, academic interests and rivalries, and any personal, religious or political convictions relevant to the topic at hand.
In the article, the authors must include a statement that discloses all relevant conflicts of interest and affiliations. The relevance of financial conflicts of interest with private firms is defined as a relationship of any value with a firm that has a stake in the subject of the manuscript or its competitors. Relevance for patents is defined as any invention or pending invention connected in any way to the subject. As relevance is often in the eye of the beholder, one must err on the side of full disclosure when drafting the disclosure statement. Editors will check a draft against the private financial disclosure statement and initiate discussions toward possible adjustments, if necessary.
What to report: Any financial relationship from the past three years (dating from the month of submission) of any size, should be disclosed. These potential conflicts of interest include:
- Direct employment
- Grants and research funding (but not grants to your institution or others within your institution, on which you have not worked). These include substantial grants from trade associations and non-profit (50% or more) or funded by private sector firms
- Travel grants, speaking fees and other honoraria
- Paid expert testimony for one side in adversarial proceeding (this does not include testimony as a factual witness in a civil or criminal case)
- Patents granted and pending applications, irrespective of whether they are generating royalties or not
- Stock ownership and investment in the related ‘sector’ funds or stock options, including those of immediate family members, but excluding diversified mutual funds and investment trusts Membership of private sector, scientific or other advisory Boards, whether paid or unpaid
In addition, any current negotiations regarding future employment or current job offers, either full-or part-time, must be disclosed.
In disclosing these financial arrangements to the editors, the authors can include dollar amounts, albeit they will not be printed in the journal. Editors may choose to exclude this information from the publication, but in no case should an editor or author consider an arrangement irrelevant based on its size alone.
Non-Financial Conflicts of Interest:
The authors must consider disclosing these views and the editors may choose to print any affiliations or expressions from these views that may be relevant. These may be personal, political or intellectual, and may include any expression of strongly held views relevant to the subject of submission. Such disclosures may be original or they may be references to opinions previously expressed in books or monographs, opposite editorials (op-eds) or public comments, or to some prior sworn testimony or lobbying of legislators or legislative bodies. Disclosable non-financial conflicts of interest will also include membership or affiliation to nongovernmental organizations that have an interest in the submission.
How do I Make a Declaration?
The declaration must be included at the end of your manuscript, following any acknowledgments and prior to the references, under the heading ‘Conflict of Interest Statement’. If no declaration is made, the following will be printed under this heading in your article: ‘None Declared’.
Alternatively, you may wish to state that ‘The author(s) declare(s) that there is no conflict of interest.
Our business model does not rely on any form of advertisement, even if there is no formal prohibition to it. Any advertising proposal is evaluated by the publishing company. Advertisements are not related in any way to editorial decision-making process and shall be kept separate from the published content.
Please click here for the ICMJE advertising recommendations.
Peer review process
Reviewers play a pivotal role in scholarly publishing. The peer review system exists to validate academic work, helps to improve the quality of published research, and increases networking possibilities within research communities. We rely on the peer review process to uphold the quality and validity of individual articles and the journals that publish them.
We use an easy-to-use customized platform: Editorial Manager (EM) is a workflow management system optimized to streamline editorial processes and communication while managing metadata and files. Authors submit manuscript files and metadata into EM and act on revision requests. Editors use the system to review submissions, assign Reviewers, and make/communicate decisions to accept, revise, transfer or reject manuscripts. Reviewers are invited to review manuscripts, can accept or reject assignments, flag their own availability and specialties for Editors, and perform and submit all review tasks right in the system https://www.editorialmanager.com/ego/default1.aspx .
Peer review comes in different kinds. In case of questions regarding the peer review model employed by the journal for which you have been invited to review, contact the editorial office directly. We have adopted the most common type: “single anonymized review”.
In this type of review, the names of the reviewers are hidden from the author. This is the traditional method of reviewing and is the most common type by far. Points to consider regarding single anonymized review: reviewer anonymity allows for impartial decisions, the reviewers should not be influenced by the authors; authors may be concerned that reviewers in their field could delay publication, giving the reviewers a chance to publish first; reviewers may use their anonymity as justification for being unnecessarily critical or harsh when commenting on the authors’ work.
Summary scheme of the process:
- Article is submitted and passed for editor’s handling
- Editor in Chief or Section Editor send the paper to the reviewers (2 reviewers normally); sometimes a paper is rejected straight away as out of scope of the journal. Sometimes it i the editor who reads the paper and decides to accept it.
- Reviewers are invited; if a reviewer accepts our invitation to revise a paper, they receive a reminder to send the feedback; the reviewers send their feedback (1 or 2) and their comments are forwarded to the authors.
- The authors may receive 3 types of notification:
- Acceptance letter
- Rejection letter
- Revision letter (with a deadline for the revised version to be submitted)
- In case of the revised manuscript – the editor may either decide herself/himself whether the corrections are satisfactory and makes the final decision or send the paper to the original reviewer for the second reading.