Ethic Statement & Policies
Ethics StatementOur ethics statement is based on the “Code of Conduct and Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors” document developed by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and published in 2011.
Duties of EditorsPublication decisions
The Journal of Geriatric Emergency Medicine editorial board is responsible for deciding which of the articles submitted to the journal should be published. Members of the board confer and refer to reviewer recommendations in making this decision, constrained by legal requirements related to libel, copyright infringement, and plagiarism. Editorial decisions are not affected by the origins of the manuscript, including the nationality, ethnicity, political beliefs, race, or religion of the authors.Confidentiality, disclosure, and conflicts of interest
During the review process, editors must not disclose information about a submitted manuscript to anyone other than the corresponding author, reviewers, potential reviewers, and other editorial advisers. Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in an editor's, reviewer’s, or any other reader’s own research without the express written consent of the author. Readers should be informed about who has funded the research or other scholarly work and whether the funders had any role in the research and its publication and, if so, what this was.Author relations
Editors strive to ensure that peer review at JGEM is fair, unbiased, and timely. The journal has established policies for handling submissions from editorial board members to ensure unbiased review. Author instructions provide guidance about criteria for authorship.Reviewer relations
JGEM encourages reviewers to comment on ethical questions and possible misconduct raised by submissions (e.g. unethical research design, insufficient detail on patient consent, inappropriate data manipulation), and to be alert to redundant publication and plagiarism. Reviewers’ comments should be sent to authors in their entirety unless they contain offensive or libelous remarks. Contributions of reviewers to the journal are regularly acknowledged, and JGEM ceases to use reviewers who consistently produce discourteous, poor quality, or late reviews.Quality assurance
Editors should take all reasonable steps to ensure the quality of the material they publish, recognizing that different sections have different aims and standards. Editors should seek assurances that the research they publish has been approved by an appropriate body (e.g. research ethics committee, institutional review board) where one exists. Editors should be alert to intellectual property issues and work with their publisher to handle potential breaches of laws and conventions. Errors, inaccurate, or misleading statements must be corrected promptly and with due prominence.
Duties of Reviewers
Contribution to editorial decisions Reviewers assist the editorial board in making editorial decisions. JGEM uses a blind peer review model and typically uses two peer reviewers per article. Reviews should be conducted objectively, and observations should be formulated clearly with supporting arguments so that authors can use them for improving the paper. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate..Qualification of reviewers
Any selected referee who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should notify the editor and excuse himself from the review process. Reviewers should not consider manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers.Confidentiality
Any manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage.Acknowledgement of sources
Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors. References to the ideas of others should be accompanied by the relevant citation. A reviewer should also call to the editor's attention any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published paper of which they have personal knowledge.
Duties of AuthorsReporting standards
Authors of reports of original research should present an accurate account of the work performed as well as an objective discussion of its significance. Underlying data should be represented accurately in the paper. Review articles should be objective, comprehensive, and accurate accounts of the state of the art. Authors should be prepared to provide public access to raw data in connection with a paper and retain such data for at least two years after publication. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behavior and are unacceptable.Originality, plagiarism and concurrent publication
Authors should ensure their work is entirely original and that any work and/or words of others have been appropriately acknowledged. Plagiarism in all its forms constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable. Submitting essentially the same manuscript to more than one journal concurrently constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable.Disclosure and conflicts of interest
All authors should disclose in their manuscript any financial or other substantive conflict of interest that might be construed to influence the results or interpretation of their manuscript. All sources of financial support for the project should be disclosed.Authorship of the paper
The corresponding author should ensure that all appropriate co-authors and no inappropriate co-authors are included on the paper, and that all co-authors have seen and approved the final version of the paper and have agreed to its submission for publication. All those who have made significant contributions should be listed as co-authors. Others who have participated in certain substantive aspects of the research project should be acknowledged or listed as contributors.Fundamental errors in published works
When an author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in the published work, it is the author’s obligation to promptly notify the journal editor and work with the editor to retract or correct the paper.
Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion
JGEM supports the efforts to create a more welcoming environment for all people and to foster more diverse, inclusive and equitable communities. Diverse perspectives offer new ideas, avenues of discovery, and solutions to research problems and scholarly communication. Expanding equity and inclusivity initiatives increase the likelihood that research will benefit everyone in our global communities. Journal editorial teams and publishers therefore have a responsibility to foster these values within the research communities they represent, ensuring diverse representation and an equitable and inclusive experience for all involved.
JGEM aims to promote diversity, equity, and inclusion in the editorial processes and policies, within the journals’ editorial team, reviewer pools, and authorship base. Harassment or discrimination against an individual on the grounds any of the following will not be tolerated: age, ancestry, color, religious creed, physical or mental disability, marital status, medical condition, genetic information, military and veteran status, national origin, race, sex, gender, gender identity, gender expression, sexual identity, sexual orientation, political affiliation, or any other category protected by law.
Conflict of InterestMichael L. Malone owns stock in Abbott Labs and AbbVie.
Rights for Authors and Advocate Aurora Health Institutional Repository
As further described in our submission agreement (the Submission Agreement), in consideration for publication of the article, the authors assign to Advocate Aurora Health Institutional Repository all copyright in the article, subject to the expansive personal--use exceptions described below. JGEM's content currently isn’t archived with a long-term preservation service. Our vision is to be indexed in PudMed Central where articles will be archived long-term. Authors may deposit versions of their work in an institutional or other repository of their choice.
Attribution and Usage Policies
Reproduction, posting, transmission or other distribution or use of the article or any material therein, in any medium as permitted by a personal-use exemption or by written agreement of Advocate Aurora Health Institutional Repository, requires credit to Advocate Aurora Health Institutional Repository as copyright holder (e.g., Advocate Aurora Health Institutional Repository © 2022).
The following uses are always permitted to the author(s) and do not require further permission from Advocate Aurora Health Institutional Repository provided the author does not alter the format or content of the articles, including the copyright notification:
- Storage and back-up of the article on the author's computer(s) and digital media (e.g., diskettes, back-up servers, Zip disks, etc.), provided that the article stored on these computers and media is not readily accessible by persons other than the author(s);
- Posting of the article on the author(s) personal website, provided that the website is non-commercial;
- Posting of the article on the internet as part of a non-commercial open access institutional repository or other non-commercial open access publication site affiliated with the author(s)'s place of employment (e.g., a Phrenology professor at the University of Southern North Dakota can have her article appear in the University of Southern North Dakota's Department of Phrenology online publication series); and
- Posting of the article on a non-commercial course website for a course being taught by the author at the university or college employing the author.
People seeking an exception, or who have questions about use, should contact the editors.
General Terms and Conditions of Use
Users of the Advocate Aurora Health Institutional Repository website and/or software agree not to misuse the Advocate Aurora Health Institutional Repository service or software in any way.
The failure of Advocate Aurora Health Institutional Repository to exercise or enforce any right or provision in the policies or the Submission Agreement does not constitute a waiver of such right or provision. If any term of the Submission Agreement or these policies is found to be invalid, the parties nevertheless agree that the court should endeavor to give effect to the parties' intentions as reflected in the provision, and the other provisions of the Submission Agreement and these policies remain in full force and effect. These policies and the Submission Agreement constitute the entire agreement between Advocate Aurora Health Institutional Repository and the Author(s) regarding submission of the Article.