Ethical Policy
  • Share:

Journal of Semiconductors uses the IOP Ethical Policy for Journals (LAST UPDATED APRIL 5, 2018).

1. Research results

Authors must not fabricate, falsify or misrepresent data or results. They should strive to be objective, unbiased and truthful in all aspects of their work.

Authors must be honest in making claims for the results and conclusions of their research. Making inflated claims for a project interferes with the objective evaluation of its results and applications, and can lead to an unfair and wasteful distribution of resources.

Authors should strive to avoid mistakes in research and exercise due diligence in presenting high quality work for publication. They should critically assess the likelihood of experimental, methodological and human errors and avoid self-deception and bias. Where possible they should conduct an internal review to assess the validity of their work before publication.

If an error occurs

It is, of course, recognised that errors will occur from time to time. When an error is discovered in published or submitted work, the mistake should be admitted and a corrigendum, erratum or retraction should be published. Corrections should be approved by all authors of the original article unless there is a particular reason why this is not possible. In these cases any dissent among the authors should be noted in the published correction.

Source materials

IOP Publishing does not require the raw data from an experiment to be submitted for publication, although some of our journals do offer the option to supply this data as supplementary information. However, we expect that all authors follow established best scientific practice and record (and retain) source material of experiments and research results, in an auditable manner that allows for scrutiny and verification by other scientists. Exceptions may be appropriate to preserve privacy or patent protection. There may also be specific instructions from your funding agency or university.

Investigations involving live subjects

All investigations involving humans must be conducted in accordance with the principle sembodied in the Declaration of Helsinki and in accordance with local statutory requirements. Researchers should not generally publish or share identifiable individual data collected in the course of research without specific consent from the individual (or their representative). Articles relying on clinical trials should quote the trial registration number at the end of the abstract. IOP also encourages the registration of such studies in a public trials registry prior to publication of the results in the journal. All investigations involving animal experimentation must be conducted in accordance with the Guiding Principles for Research Involving Animals and Human Beings as adopted by the American Physiological Society, and with local statutory requirements.

2. Authorship

When determining the credit for a piece of work, authors should ensure that all those who have made a significant contribution are cited as co-authors. Other individuals who have contributed to the study in a lesser capacity should be acknowledged, but not cited as authors.

Some co-authors will be accountable for the entire article, for example those who provide critical data, write the manuscript, present the findings at conferences or provide leadership for junior colleagues. Other co-authors may be responsible for specific contributions to a paper. Where such specific attributions of credit and responsibility are required, authors must make this clear in the acknowledgements of the article otherwise all co-authors will be taken to share full responsibility for all of the paper. Authors should not use acknowledgements misleadingly to imply a contribution or endorsement by individuals who have not, in fact, been involved with the work or given an endorsement.

Responsibility of the corresponding author

It is the corresponding author's responsibility to ensure that all named authors have approved the submitted version of the manuscript, agree to its submission and are willing to take appropriate responsibility for it.

All authors should be consulted about any subsequent changes to authorship (e.g. the list of authors) during the publication process, and it should be made clear to the journal that they have given their consent.

3. Referencing, citation and novelty

Authors have a responsibility to acknowledge the work of others used in their research and to cite publications that have influenced the direction and course of their study. Information obtained in private correspondence or conversation should only be used with the explicit permission of the individuals involved. Information obtained whilst providing confidential services, such as refereeing research articles or grant applications, should not be used without permission of the original author.

All sources for the article must be clearly disclosed and permissions obtained from the original authors (and original publishers if they hold the copyright) for any figures or significant extracts that are to be reproduced or quoted. (Collection of such permissions is the responsibility of the authors.)


Submitted articles must be the authors’ own work. Plagiarism constitutes unethical scientific behaviour and is never acceptable. Plagiarism ranges from the unreferenced use of others’ ideas to submission of a complete paper under 'new' authorship.

Duplicate publication/self-plagiarism

Duplicate publication (sometimes called 'self-plagiarism') is the production of multiple papers with the same, or essentially the same, content by the same authors and is viewed as unacceptable. Submitted research articles must be novel and original.

In the case of articles that expand upon previously published conference proceedings, or conference write-ups that discuss work already published in an earlier paper, some limited exceptions to this rule may apply. However, in these cases authors should consult with the journal staff before submission. In all instances, articles must clearly cite their sources and present some new contribution to the published literature otherwise such articles will be rejected.

Multiple publications arising from a single research project should be clearly identified as such and the primary publication should be referenced. Translations and adaptations for different audiences should be clearly identified as such, should acknowledge the original source, and should respect relevant copyright conventions and permission requirements. If in doubt, authors should seek permission from the original publisher before republishing any work.

Parallel submission

It is also unethical to submit the same, or essentially the same, article to a second primary research journal whilst it remains under active consideration by another.

To aid us in detecting any submissions that do not meet the above requirements, we regularly use plagiarism-detection software to screen articles.

4. Conflicts of interest


Articles should include a full list of the current institutional affiliations of all authors, both academic and corporate. We also encourage authors to provide ORCID identifiers for each named author on submission.

All sources of financial support for the project should be disclosed in the article.

All authors and co-authors are required to disclose any potential conflict of interest when submitting their article (e.g. employment, consulting fees, research contracts, stock ownership, patent licences, honoraria, advisory affiliations, etc.). If the article is subsequently accepted for publication, this information should be included in an acknowledgments section.


Referees should contact the editorial office to declare any potential conflicts of interest in advance of refereeing an article (e.g. being a co-worker or collaborator with one of the authors, or being in a position which precludes giving an objective opinion of the work).

Minor conflicts do not disqualify a referee from reporting on an article but will betaken into account when considering the referees’ recommendations. Major conflicts of interest (especially relating to a financial commercial interest of over £5000/year) do disqualify a referee.

5. Peer review

Peer review by independent scientists provides advice to the Editors and staff of journals, and is an essential component of the scientific process.

IOP journals are international in authorship and in readership and referees are carefully selected from the worldwide research community. Referees’ names are kept confidential and may only be disclosed to journal Editorial Board members, who are also instructed to maintain confidentiality. Unbiased consideration is given to all manuscripts offered for publication regardless of the race, gender, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, political philosophy, sexual orientation, age or reputation of the authors.

Information and ideas obtained whilst acting as a referee must be kept confidential and not used for competitive advantage. Referees should disclose any conflicts of interest as described in section 4.Referees should inform the journal if they are unable to review a paper or can do so only with some delay. They should not delay the peer review process unnecessarily, either deliberately or inadvertently.

Referees should judge objectively the quality of the research reported, give fair, frank and constructive criticism and refrain from personal criticism of the authors. Comments made by referees may be seen by the authors. Therefore referees’ judgements should be explained and supported so that authors can understand the basis of the comments and judgments.

Referees are expected to point out relevant work that has not been cited, and use citations to explain where elements of the work have been previously reported. If they believe that the work is substantially similar to a manuscript or any paper published or submitted to another journal, they should report this to the journal staff for further investigation.

We request that referees do not contact authors directly. Many IOP journals consult two referees and the opinion of one reviewer may not reflect the journal’s final decision on an article. Receiving partial advice from one referee can give authors a misleading impression of the peer review process. If there is a particularly urgent reason for contacting the author then this should be done via the journal office.

6. Handling cases of misconduct

IOP is not able to actively police the policies and conditions of publication. Our relationship with our authors is based on trust and we publish submitted material in good faith. We believe that employers have the prime responsibility for ensuring their researchers’ good conduct and for the provision of ethical training and leadership.

However, it is our responsibility to maintain the integrity of the scientific record as far as possible. If a possible breach of this ethical policy, or similar misconduct affecting article(s) in our journals, is brought to our attention, we will ask the authors to respond. Whilst journals do not have the resources or legal legitimacy to fully investigate all allegations of scientific misconduct, we will seek advice from an article’s referees and/or the journal's Editorial Board.

In handling corrections to the published record, we follow the STM Guideline for the Preservation of the Objective Record of Science (2006).

IOP reserves the right not to work with authors who are abusive to our staff, referees or editors.

  • Share: