Publishing ethics

  1. The Editor-in-chief is responsible for investigating all alleged unethical practices.
  2. In case of an alleged unethical practice, the Editor-in-chief informs the authors of the manuscript, provides the necessary evidence and invites the authors to provide explanation.
  3. Concerns about unethical practices can be expressed by the Editor-in-chief, the Associate Editors, Advisory and Editorial Board members, manuscript reviewers, authors, readers and other people who have encountered such practices.
  4. All submissions to the Journal Neurosonology and Cerebral Hemodynamics are checked for presence of unethical practices with software package before being sent to reviewers.
  5. If an unethical practice is identified during the review process, the review process is stopped until the case is clarified. The review process continues if the alleged unethical practice is not substantiated.
  6. If an alleged unethical practice is substantiated for a manuscript that has not been yet sent for review, is currently under review or has been accepted but not published yet, the manuscript is rejected.
  7. If an alleged unethical practice is substantiated for a manuscript that has already been published, the manuscript is retracted and a retraction notice is published in the next available volume of the Journal. For completeness of the bibliographic records, the text of the retracted paper remains online, but with a watermark “Retracted”.
  8. In case of a second substantiated unethical practice, the author receives a life-time ban for publication it the Journal Neurosonology and Cerebral Hemodynamics.
  9. The Journal Neurosonology and Cerebral Hemodynamics adheres to the principles of the Committee on Publication Ethics (
  10. All submitted manuscripts are reviewed initially by an editor for observing the Guidelines for Authors. Manuscripts with insufficient priority for publication or that are inappropriate for the scope of the Journal are rejected. All others are sent to expert consultants for peer review. 
  11. All reviewers are required to complete a conflict of interest statement and will warrant that he or she has no actual or perceived conflicts of interest with the authors, institutions, or sponsors of the manuscript.
  12. Confidentiality: as a general presumption, manuscripts, reviewer comments, author disclosures, and materials associated with a submitted manuscript should not be shared with third parties.
  13. Requests from third parties to use manuscripts and reviews for legal proceedings should be politely refused, and editors should do their best not to provide such confidential material should it be subpoenaed.
  14. Peer reviewers are required to maintain confidentiality about the manuscripts they review and must not divulge any information about a specific manuscript or its content to any third party without prior permission from the Journal editors.
  15. Conflict of Interest-authors must disclose any financial, personal, or professional relationships with other people or organizations that could reasonably be perceived as conflicts of interest or as potentially influencing or biasing their work.
  16. The Sources of Funding and Disclosures are identified at the end of an article. Authors must completely spell out the names of all grant-funding agencies.