EASE Toolkit for Journal Editors
Golden Rules for Scholarly Journal Editors
Editors tend to be busy people; we can become lost in the details and forget about the big picture. It seemed useful to draft a list of golden rules that editors can stick on their noticeboard and learn. After much discussion, the Ten Golden Rules were presented at the EASE Conference in Split, Croatia in June 2014.
EASE Ethics Checklist for Authors
The EASE Ethics Checklist for Authors (to be signed by the corresponding author) is intended for use by scientific journals during or soon after manuscript submission, to detect the possible ethical problems. The checklist is part of the EASE Guidelines for Authors and Translators of Scientific Articles, freely available in more than 25 languages. It can be supplemented with the EASE Form for Authors (pdf).
The EASE Science Editors’ Handbook includes more information on how to deal with ethical issues. The Handbook is an invaluable resource for anyone working in the field of editing either in print, or digitally.
Conflict of interest
EASE Form for Authors
The EASE Form for Authors’ Contributions and Conflict of Interest Disclosure (to be signed by all authors) is intended for use by scientific journals during or soon after manuscript submission and can be supplemented with the EASE Ethics Checklist for Authors (pdf).
EASE Standard Retraction Form
Retractions are often used as a proxy for publication quality and have been studied with cohorts of various sizes over different time periods. Time after time the results have shown that there is often no clearly stated reason for retraction and any reasons that are given often lack detail.
Hervé Maisonneuve (Université de Lyon, France and EASE member) and Evelyne Decullier put forward a proposal for a standard retraction form, which was discussed at a Committee On Publication Ethics (COPE) webinar forum on September, 2014, and presented at the World Congress on Research Integrity on 3 June, 2015. More details and a summary of the discussion at the COPE Forum and of the comments on the COPE blog can be found here (PDF 185kb).
A copy of the form can be downloaded using the link at the bottom of this page. Hervé and Evelyne will continue to develop the form and. would welcome any comments from members.
EASE Impact Factor Statement
The EASE Statement on Inappropriate Use of Impact Factors was published in November 2007 after a consultation exercise. It records how, although the journal impact factor was developed as a means to measure the impact of scientific journals, its use has been extended to measuring the quality of scientific journals, the quality of individual articles and the productivity of individual researchers.
EASE recommends that journal impact factors are used only – and cautiously – for measuring and comparing the influence of entire journals, but not for the assessment of single papers, and certainly not for the assessment of researchers or research programmes either directly or as a surrogate.
Working with Macros
EASE member Paul Beverley, who has over 25 years’ experience as a technical author, publisher, proofreader and editor has prepared the book “Computer tools for editors and proofreaders”. The book is available in digital format (ca. 750 pp) and contains a wide range of computer tools (macros) to enable proofreaders and editors to work faster and more effectively.
Download the book: http://www.archivepub.co.uk/TheBook
Core competencies for scientific editors of biomedical journals: consensus statement
14 key core competencies for journal editors, divided into three major areas. Each competency has a list of associated elements or descriptions of more specific knowledge, skills, and characteristics that contribute to its fulfillment.
A high-level taxonomy, including 14 roles, that can be used to represent the roles typically played by contributors to scientific scholarly output. The roles describe each contributor’s specific contribution to the scholarly output.
Good Publication Practice for Communicating Company-Sponsored Medical Research: GPP3
Good Publication Practice 3 (GPP3) is a key guidance document for the publication of company-sponsored medical research, and is published online by the Annals of Internal Medicine (AIM). GPP3 has been developed to benefit all stakeholders in medical publications, and supplements other guidelines, such as the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors authorship guidelines and data reporting guidelines.
Taylor & Francis – Editor Resources
Online content hub with information and resources to support journal editors, structured around the key aspects of the editor’s role: Content development, Editorial board, Ethics, Journal visibility, Peer review, and Research metrics.
These COPE guidelines are intended to help journal editors deal with cases of text recycling. Text recycling, is also known as self-plagiarism and it refers to sections of the same text that appear (usually un-attributed) in more than one of an author’s own publications.
Editage Insights is another resource for editors. Not only can editors share these resources and educate their authors, editors themselves can gain a lot from interviews with industry experts. They can also follow the researcher Q&A section to understand the challenges authors face and the questions they are asking. The Wolters-Kluwer and ISMTE monthly newsletter articles are also available.
Elsevier Publishing Ethics Resource Kit (PERK)
The Elsevier Publishing Ethics Resource Kit (PERK) is an online resource to support journal editors in handling publishing ethics issues. It is a single point of access for information and guidelines on publishing ethics. PERK provides flowcharts to guide editors through processes required to deal with different forms of publishing ethics abuse.
Wiley Exchanges (their ideas, research and discussion blog).
Proof-Reading-Service.com has published a free handbook for editors of academic and scientific articles that is a useful source of information for EASE members.