Summary of Points
1. Authors of Research Manuscripts
1.1. The Society for Neuroscience expects its members to adhere to high standards when publishing any scientific communications, whether these are SfN publications or not.
1.2. Data must be original and accurate.
1.3. Priority of data and ideas must be respected.
1.4. Any data reported in scientific communications involving human or animal subjects must have been conducted in compliance with the relevant institutional review boards.
1.5. All data should be presented so as to minimize the possibility of misinterpretation.
1.6. Authorship should be based on a substantial intellectual contribution.
1.7. “Honorary authorship” is inconsistent with the definition of authorship.
1.8. “Acknowledgements” provide an opportunity to note assistance that does not warrant authorship but does merit recognition.
1.9. Financial contributions to the work being reported should be clearly acknowledged, as should any potential conflict of interest.
1.10. Methods and materials should be described in sufficient detail to permit evaluation and replication.
1.11. Data sharing is encouraged.
1.12. Unique and propagatable materials used in studies being reported must be made available to qualified scientists for bona fide research purposes.
1.13. Authors have an obligation to correct errors promptly.
1.14. All components of a research article are subject to peer review.
1.15. Authors should not engage in duplicate publication.
1.16. Informal communication of results and ideas is encouraged.
1.17. Authors should not discuss with reviewers any aspect of a manuscript under evaluation prior to a final decision.
1.18. It is improper for authors to submit a manuscript describing essentially the same research simultaneously to more than one peer-reviewed research journal.
1.19. When communications will not undergo formal editorial review (e.g., abstracts for presentations at professional meetings), authors are encouraged to have these communications reviewed by colleagues.
2. Reviewers of Manuscripts
2.1. Thorough scientific review is in the interest of the scientific community.
2.2. A thorough review must include consideration of the ethical dimensions of a manuscript as well as its scientific merit.
2.3. All scientists are encouraged to participate if possible when asked to review a manuscript.
2.4. Anonymity of reviewers should be preserved unless otherwise stated in the guidelines for authors and for reviewers, or unless a reviewer requests disclosure.
2.5. Reviewers should be chosen for their high qualifications and objectivity regarding a particular manuscript.
2.6. Reviews should not contain harsh language or personal attacks.
2.7. Reviews should be prompt as well as thorough.
2.8. Reviewers must not use non-public information contained in a manuscript to advance their own research or financial interests.
2.9. Information contained in a manuscript under review is confidential and must not be shared with others.
3. Editors of Scientific Journals
3.1. The sole responsibility for acceptance or rejection of a manuscript rests with the editor.
3.2. Editors should generally grant the request of an author who asks that an individual be excluded from the review of a particular manuscript.
3.3. Editors should establish a review process that minimizes bias.
3.4. Editors should subject all manuscripts of a given form to the same type of review.
3.5. Editors should provide to the authors a written rationale for editorial decisions regarding a manuscript submitted for publication.
3.6. Everyone involved in the editorial process must treat unpublished manuscripts as confidential documents.
3.7. A limited amount of information regarding a manuscript accepted for publication may be disclosed by an editor before publication in print.
3.8. Editors should correct errors in a manuscript if the errors are detected before publication or publish corrections if they are detected afterward.
4. Abstracts for Presentations at Scientific Meetings
4.1. Research scientists are encouraged to communicate their ideas and results to the public.
4.2. Material prepared for the popular literature should be accurate and be given prior review by peers.
4.3. Communication outside the scientific literature is not a substitute for publication within the scientific literature.