The abstracts and proceedings of the International Psychological Applications Conference and Trends (InPACT) are edited by Prof. Clara Pracana, Full and Training Member of the Portuguese Association of Psychoanalysis and Psychoanalytic Psychotherapy, Portugal, and Prof. Michael Wang, Emeritus Professor of Clinical Psychology, University of Leicester, United Kingdom, and are published by inScience Press – http://insciencepress.org/ – and this general statement lays ground to develop and assure good practices and ethics in scientific publishing. It also aims to deal, in a practical way, with issues that arise in and by the publication of the proceedings of the conference, concerning intellectual honesty to prevent misconduct.

The success of our publications depends on the participation of those who wish to find creative solutions and believe in their potential to change the world, altogether to increase public engagement and cooperation from communities. Part of our mission is to serve society with these initiatives and promote knowledge, therefore it requires the reinforcement of research efforts, education and science, and cooperation between the most diverse studies and backgrounds.

inScience Press assumes a neutral position on issues treated within its publications, which purpose is to foment academic discussions, whatever the themes.

inScience Press is committed to meet and maintain the standards of ethical behaviour at all stages of the publication process. Reasonably responsive measures can be taken regarding ethical issues or claims made. The following guidelines pertain to all parties involved:

1. Ethical responsibilities

Editor(s):

– The editor(s) undertakes to act in a balanced, objective and fair way while carrying out his/her expected duties, without discriminating any gender, race, sexual orientation, religious or political beliefs, ethnic or geographical origin of the authors, or institutional affiliation;
– Editors and editorial staff will not disclose any information about a submitted manuscript to anyone other than the corresponding author, reviewers, potential reviewers, other editorial advisers, and the publisher, as appropriate;
– All types of submissions will be treated equally, so that articles are considered and accepted based on their academic merit and without commercial influence;
– The editor(s) will adopt and follow reasonable procedures in case of complaints of an ethical or conflict nature, in accordance with the publishing house policies and procedures;
– Authors will be given the opportunity to respond to any complaints. All complaints should be analysed, no matter when the original publication was approved. Documentation associated with any such complaints should be retained.

Reviewer(s):

– The reviewers have an important contribution in the decision-making process, they help improving the quality of the published papers by reviewing the submissions objectively and in a timely manner;
– The reviewers are chosen based on their expertise and relevance among the scientific community. inScience Press intends to have a worldwide and diverse scientific committee, in order to respond effectively to any language barriers that might exist and comprise the different social, cultural and economic contexts of our authors;
– inScience Press relies on the double-blind peer review process to uphold the quality and validity of the articles published in the book of proceedings. Reviewers must maintain the confidentiality and should not retain or copy the manuscript.
– Any invited reviewer who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a proposal or knows that its prompt review will be impossible, should immediately notify the editors and decline the invitation to review, so that alternative reviewers can be contacted;
– All works received must be treated as confidential papers, not to be shown or discussed with others: the review process should be conducted objectively and observations formulated clearly with supporting arguments so that authors can use them for improving the manuscript, not leaving room to personal views or criticism;
– The reviewers should warn the editor about any published or submitted content that is substantially similar to that under review, and of any potential conflicts of interest (financial, institutional, collaborative or other relationships between the reviewer and author), withdrawing their services for that proposal.

Author(s):

– All authors must own their original work, which has not been published previously somewhere else – research and analysis within the paper must reflect the author’s own work: fraudulent or knowingly fallacious declarations are not accepted and constitute unethical behaviour;
– Significant contributions of co-authors and co-researchers must be properly listed, whereas the corresponding author should ensure all agree with the final version and submission for application;
– The framework of a prior and existing research/work must be guaranteed, ensuring that the work/words of others are appropriately quoted or cited: plagiarism in any form is unaccepted;
– Authors must supply or provide access to existing research/work, on reasonable request;
– Not be submitted to more than one society, institute or journal for deliberation, to prevent redundant concurrent peer review and unethical publishing behaviour;
– Procedures or equipment that may cause unusual hazards inherent in their use must be clarified: Human or animal subjects must have their privacy rights observed and human experimentation (institutional or private) must have informed consent, according to ethical standards;
– Authors should ensure that any studies involving human or animal subjects conform to national, local and institutional laws and requirements and confirm that approval has been sought and obtained where appropriate. Authors should obtain express permission from human subjects and respect their privacy;
– Any potential conflicts of interest (e.g. where the author has a competing interest that could be considered or viewed as exerting an undue influence on his or her duties at any stage during the publication process) must be declared.
– Authors must read carefully the Copyright Agreement.
– Notify promptly the editor or publisher if a significant error in their publication is identified, and cooperate with them to publish an erratum, addendum, corrigendum notice, or to retract the paper, where this is deemed necessary.
– Authors are obliged to participate in the peer review process and cooperate fully by responding promptly to editors’ requests for raw data, clarifications, and proof of ethics approval, patient consents and copyright permissions. In the case of a first decision of “revisions necessary”, authors should respond to the reviewers’ comments systematically, point by point, and in a timely manner, revising and re-submitting their proposal within the timeframe given by the Editor and/or Publisher.

Publisher:

– inScience Press is an Open Access publisher of books and journals. The publisher’s purpose is to disseminate quality research articles to the global community freely and accessible to everyone online, enabling the share of knowledge around the world;
– inScience Press is committed to achieve and maintain high standards of excellence concerning the publications, its contents, style and presentation, educational value, editorial performance, and consistency and transparency in the access to the scientific community and public in general;
– The publisher shall ensure that good practices are maintained to the standards above mentioned.
– inScience Press is committed to the permanent availability and preservation of scholarly research and ensures accessibility by maintaining an open access digital archive.

2. Resolution of situations of misconduct and unethical behaviour

– Misconduct and unethical behaviour may be identified and brought to the attention of the editor and publisher at any time, by anyone.
– Misconduct and unethical behaviour may include, but it is not limited to, the examples mentioned above;
– The informer that denounces such conduct to the editor or publisher should provide sufficient information and evidence in order for an investigation to be initiated. All allegations should be taken seriously and treated in the same way, until a successful decision or conclusion is reached;
– The editor should take an initial decision, consulting the publisher, if appropriate;
– Evidence must be gathered, while avoiding the spread of any allegations beyond those who need to know;
– Minor misconduct might be resolved without the need to consult more widely. In any event, the author should be given the opportunity to respond to any allegations.
– Serious misconduct might require the notification of the employers of the accused. The editor, in consultation with the publisher, should make the decision whether or not to involve the employers, either by examining the available evidence themselves or by further consultation with a limited number of experts.
– Editors (along with the publisher) will take responsive measures when ethical concerns are raised with regard to a submitted or published paper. Every reported act of unethical publishing behaviour will be looked into, even if it is discovered years after publication. inScience Press follows the COPE Flowcharts when dealing with cases of suspected misconduct. If, on investigation, the ethical concern is well-founded, a correction, retraction, expression of concern or any other relevant note, will be published in inScience Press website.