Editorial Policy

 

At EJPD, all Authors, Contributors, Reviewers, Editors, Publishers, and Owners are required to follow the “Recommendations for the Conduct, Reporting, Editing and Publication of Scholarly Work in Medical Journals” (updated December 2019), issued by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) and available at http://www.icmje.org/recommendations.

 

Ownership and management

The European Journal of Pediatric Dermatology is owned and published by the Dermatologia Pediatrica Association, a non-profit organization incorporated as a cultural association under the Italian Civil Code and based in Bari (Italy). The Dermatologia Pediatrica association was established in 1993 to advance scientific knowledge and mutual learning in pediatric dermatology. As of June 2021, it has about 200 members – mostly specialists in dermatology or pediatric, clinical researchers and academics.

The European Journal of Pediatric Dermatology is the post-graduate journal of the European Society for Pediatric Dermatology, which appoints three members to the EJPD’s Editorial Board.

Contact us:

Dermatologia Pediatrica Association

ejpd@dermatologiapediatrica.com

Via Bitritto 131,

70124 Bari (BA), Italy.

 

The EJPD is currently managed by a team chaired by M.G. Favale (MSc, Managing Editor) which includes five members (L. Favale, L. Garofalo, F. Mazzotta, V. Pisani and P. Chieco) in the capacity as Assistant Editors.

 

Peer review policy

The EJPD recognizes the value and importance of peer review in maintaining the integrity of the scientific record. The peer-review process is essential to scholarly publication both as a critique and a collaboration to improve the quality of the manuscript. All manuscripts are reviewed initially by the Editors and only those papers that meet the language, scientific and editorial standards of the journal, and fit within the aims and scope of the journal, will be circulated for further peer review.

The EJPD adheres to a conventional single-blind reviewing policy in which the identities of the reviewers are always concealed from the author(s). In addition to the editorial review, individual manuscripts are reviewed by at least two referees. Differential diagnosis in Pediatric Dermatology, Case reports and Letters to the Editor may not require peer review or may receive less than two reviews after the Editor’s assessment. Once a reviewer accepts the privilege of reviewing the manuscript, the reviewer is requested to submit their review within two weeks. An editorial decision is generally reached within a week of receipt of all reviews; generally, within 6 weeks of submission. Manuscripts requiring revision, whether minor or major, may be resubmitted for further peer review after revision, at the reviewers’ own request.

As part of the submission process, Authors are permitted but not required to provide the names of two peers who could be called upon to review their manuscript. Recommended reviewers should be experts in their fields and should be able to provide an objective assessment of the manuscript. Authors must be aware of any conflicts of interest when recommending reviewers. Examples of conflicts of interest include (but are not limited to) the below:

  • The reviewer should have no prior knowledge of your submission
  • The reviewer should not have recently collaborated with any of the authors
  • Reviewer nominees from the same institution as any of the authors are not permitted

 Authors are also permitted but not required to identify peers who you do not wish to review your manuscript (opposed reviewers). The Editors are not obliged to invite/reject any recommended/opposed reviewers to assess the manuscripts.

 

Corrections, Retractions, Republications, and Version Control

Corrections are needed for errors of fact. Matters of debate are best handled as letters to the Editors, as print or electronic correspondence, or as posts in the EJPD website. Updates of previous publications (e.g., an updated systematic review or clinical guideline) are considered a new publication rather than a version of a previously published article.

In case a correction is needed, the EJPD will act according to the following standards:

  • The EJPD will publish a correction notice as soon as possible detailing changes from and citing the original publication.
  • The EJPD will also post a new article version with details of the changes from the original version and the date(s) on which the changes were made.
  • The current and all prior versions of the article will be directly accessible to readers on the journal’s website.
  • Previous electronic versions will be amended to note that there are more recent versions of the article.

Errors serious enough to invalidate a paper’s results and conclusions may require retraction. However, retraction with republication (also referred to as “replacement”) will be considered by the Editorial Board in cases where honest error (e.g., a misclassification or miscalculation) leads to a major change in the direction or significance of the results, interpretations, and conclusions. If the error is judged to be unintentional, and the changed version of the paper survives further review and editorial scrutiny, then retraction with republication of the changed paper, with an explanation, allows full correction of the scientific literature. In such cases, the extent of the changes will be highlighted in an appendix, for complete transparency.

 

Scientific Misconduct, Expressions of Concern, and Retraction

Scientific misconduct in research and non-research publications includes but is not necessarily limited to data fabrication; data falsification, including deceptive manipulation of images; purposeful failure to disclose relationships and activities; and plagiarism.

When scientific misconduct is alleged, or concerns are otherwise raised about the conduct or integrity of work described in submitted or published papers, the Editorial Board will initiate the appropriate procedures as detailed by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) (publicationethics.org/resources/flowcharts). Pending the outcomes of such procedures, the Editorial Board will consider informing the concerned institutions and funders and may choose to publish an expression of concern.

If the procedures involve an investigation at the authors’ institution, the Editorial Board will seek to discover the outcome of that investigation; notify readers of the outcome if appropriate; and if the investigation proves scientific misconduct, publish a retraction of the article. There may be circumstances in which no misconduct is proven, but an exchange of letters to the editors could be published to highlight matters of debate to readers.

Expressions of concern and retractions will be prominently labelled, appear on an electronic page that is included in an electronic Table of Contents of the EJPD, to ensure proper indexing, and include in their heading the title of the original article. The retraction and original article will be linked in both directions and the retracted article will be clearly labelled as retracted in all its forms (abstract, full text, PDF). Ideally, the authors of the retraction should be the same as those of the article, but if they are unwilling or unable the editors may under certain circumstances accept retractions by other responsible persons, or the editors may be the sole authors of the retraction or expression of concern. The text of the retraction will explain why the article is being retracted and include a complete citation reference to that article. Retracted articles will remain in the public domain and be clearly labelled as retracted.

The integrity of research may also be compromised by inappropriate methodology that could lead to retraction.

 

Advertising and revenue sources

The EJPD does not carry any kind of advertising. Payments for subscriptions are the only source of revenue.

 

Disclosure and conflicts of interest

Peer Reviewers

Reviewers must disclose to the Editors any relationships or activities that could bias their opinions of the manuscript and should recuse themselves from reviewing specific manuscripts if the potential for bias exists. Reviewers must not use knowledge of the work they’re reviewing before its publication to further their own interests.

Editors and Journal Staff

Editors who make final decisions about manuscripts must recuse themselves from editorial decisions if they have relationships or activities that pose potential conflicts related to articles under consideration. Other editorial staff members, who participate in editorial decisions must provide editors with a current description of their relationships and activities (as they might relate to editorial judgments) and recuse themselves from any decisions in which an interest that poses a potential conflict exists. Editors should regularly publish their own disclosure statements and those of their journal staff. Guest editors should follow these same procedures.

Except for Case reports, Editors or members of the Editorial Board may only occasionally submit their own manuscripts for publication consideration. In these cases, the peer review process will be managed by alternative members of the Board and the submitting Editor/Board member will not be involved in the decision-making process.