Fatigue of Aircraft Structures

Please submit your article via https://www.editorialsystem.com/fas/

Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement

Fatigue of Aircraft Structures

Łukasiewicz Research Network – Institute of Aviation, Warsaw

1. Introduction

This Publishing Ethics and Malpractice Statement for Fatigue of Aircraft Structures embodies our commitment to the highest standards of integrity in scientific publishing. The statement delineates the ethical responsibilities and duties of all parties involved in the publication process: the publisher, editors, peer reviewers, and authors. In adhering to these standards, the journal ensures a rigorous, fair, and transparent peer-review process, safeguarding the integrity of the academic record.

This Ethics and Malpractice Policy for Fatigue of Aircraft Structures incorporates the key principles and practices set forth by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). The journal aligns itself with the following COPE resources and guidelines:

• COPE Code of Conduct for Journal Editors
• COPE DOAJ OASPA WAME. Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing
• COPE Council. Ethics toolkit for a successful editorial office: A COPE Guide
• COPE Council. COPE Discussion Document: Authorship
• COPE Council. COPE Discussion document: Diversity and inclusivity
• COPE Council. COPE Discussion Document: How should editors respond to plagiarism?
• COPE Council. COPE Guidelines: Cooperation between research institutions and journals on research integrity and publication misconduct cases
• COPE Council. COPE Guidelines: Editorial board participation
• COPE Council. COPE Guidelines: Retraction Guidelines
• COPE Council. COPE Flowcharts and infographics — Plagiarism in a submitted manuscript
• COPE Council. COPE Flowcharts and infographics — How to recognise potential authorship problems

The journal strives to ensure diversity, equity, and inclusion in the selection of peer reviewers and editorial board members, reflecting COPE’s Diversity and Inclusivity Discussion Document. The editorial board actively seeks to involve experts from a variety of geographical regions, career stages, and institutional backgrounds. Special attention is given to ensuring gender balance and fair representation of minority groups in the editorial and review processes. These efforts aim to foster an inclusive scientific environment and broaden the spectrum of perspectives represented in the journal.

Fatigue of Aircraft Structures also applies the Ethics Toolkit for a Successful Editorial Office, implementing internal policies and procedures for ethical publishing.

2. Publisher’s Responsibilities

The publisher upholds the autonomy of editorial decisions, ensuring a clear separation between commercial interests and editorial content. The publisher is responsible for overseeing the entire publishing process, committed to protecting intellectual property rights and ensuring the accessibility and preservation of published content. Additionally, the publisher supports the communication of corrections, retractions, and apologies as necessary, maintaining the integrity of the academic record. The publisher encourages collaboration and information sharing with other journals in cases of suspected misconduct, in accordance with COPE’s guidance on cooperation between journals. 

3. Editors’ Responsibilities

The Editor in Chief holds the ultimate responsibility for making final decisions regarding the acceptance or rejection of manuscripts submitted to the journal. These decisions are based exclusively on the scientific merit, originality, and relevance of the work to the journal’s thematic profile, independent of commercial considerations or external influences. The Editor in Chief ensures that all manuscripts undergo a fair and rigorous evaluation process and that the highest ethical and academic standards are upheld.

Associate and Subject Editors play a key role in managing the editorial workflow. They are responsible for overseeing the peer-review process, selecting qualified reviewers, and evaluating reports to provide a well-informed recommendation to the Editor in Chief. Their role is to safeguard the objectivity and quality of assessments while ensuring that authors receive constructive feedback and have the opportunity to address reviewers’ comments.

Both the Editor in Chief and Subject Editors are committed to impartiality and non-discrimination. Manuscripts are assessed without regard to the authors’ race, gender, sexual orientation, ethnic origin, citizenship, religious belief, political philosophy, or institutional affiliation. Confidentiality is strictly observed throughout the editorial and review process. Information related to submitted manuscripts is not disclosed to third parties and may not be used by editors or reviewers for personal benefit without the explicit, written consent of the authors.

The journal’s Editors plays a crucial role in handling and resolving any conflicts between authors, reviewers, and the editorial staff. Fatigue of Aircraft Structures takes any and all allegations of research misconduct seriously. This includes, but is not limited to, plagiarism, guest authorship, ghostwriting, citation manipulation, and data falsification/fabrication. Upon receiving such claims, the editorial team promptly informs the authors and requests clarification. If the response is inadequate or absent, the institution with which the authors are affiliated is formally notified. To investigate and address the issue in a fair and transparent manner all cases are handled in accordance with the principles and guidelines of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

4. Reviewers’ Responsibilities

Reviewers play a crucial role in maintaining the integrity of the review process. They are required to treat manuscripts as confidential documents and refrain from using information obtained during the review for personal gain. Reviewers must objectively judge the quality of a manuscript on its own merit, respecting the intellectual independence of the authors. Personal criticism is inappropriate. Reviewers should avoid conflicts of interest, disclose any potential bias, and treat the manuscript as a confidential document, not to be shown or discussed with others except for specific advice. Reviewers must provide clear, complete, and cogent explanations for their judgments, especially for negative feedback, and notify the editor of any substantial similarity with other works. Reviewers are bound by a confidentiality clause and are obligated to report any ethical breaches such as plagiarism or auto-plagiarism. In case of suspected ethical misconduct, the journal may refer to relevant COPE case studies.

5. Authors’ Responsibilities

Authors are expected to present a comprehensive and accurate account of their research, ensuring originality and proper citation of previous work. The submitted manuscript must contain detail and references to public sources of information sufficient for peers to replicate the work or verify its accuracy. Authors must cite and attribute publications influential in shaping the reported work and avoid using information obtained privately without explicit permission. The manuscript should not contain plagiarized material, falsified research data, or inappropriate fragmentation of research papers. Additionally, authors must inform the editor of related manuscripts under consideration elsewhere and avoid submitting the same research to multiple journals. Where applicable, authors should follow COPE’s Text Recycling Guidelines to avoid inappropriate reuse of their own published content. Authors must secure any and all necessary permissions for the use of copyrighted material and ensure ethical compliance in research involving humans or animals. The author's contribution must be clearly described and the COPE guide How to handle authorship disputes: a guide for new researchers should be used to avoid or resolve authorship issues. When using generative AI tools (e.g., ChatGPT), their use must be disclosed in the methods section, and the generation of substantive content (e.g., results) is not allowed. Responsibility for all content rests with the authors.

6. Ethical Oversight and Handling of Unethical Publishing Behavior

The journal maintains ethical oversight throughout the publication process to uphold the standards expected in scientific publishing. In cases of unethical behavior, such as disputed authorship, research fraud, or plagiarism, the journal will investigate and act in accordance with COPE guidelines. Allegations of scientific misconduct or fraudulent publication will result in appropriate actions, including publication corrections, retractions, or article removal, with transparency in the resolution process. Such incidents will moreover be reported to the respective authorities, following the framework provided in COPE’s principles of transparency and best practice and COPE’s retraction guidelines. In cases where there is uncertainty or dispute around authorship, the journal follows COPE’s document.

7. Open Access and Fees

Fatigue of Aircraft Structures is an Open Access journal, offering increased visibility and impact for authors' work. We do not charge any article processing charges or other publication fees. This approach aligns with our mission to disseminate cutting-edge research freely and widely.

8. Journal Policies on Data Sharing and Reproducibility

Fatigue of Aircraft Structures encourages authors to share their data and methods used in their research in a responsible and ethical manner. Authors are encouraged to provide access to data that supports their research findings, where appropriate and feasible, in accordance with disciplinary norms and expectations. The journal supports the replication and reproducibility of research and encourages authors to be transparent about the reproducibility of their results.

9. Post-Publication Discussions and Corrections

The journal provides a platform for post-publication discussion to facilitate scientific discourse. Corrections, clarifications, retractions, and apologies may be published as needed to maintain the integrity of the academic record. Readers and authors are encouraged to engage in post-publication discussions to enhance the impact and accuracy of published research. By adhering to these principles, Fatigue of Aircraft Structures upholds the integrity of the academic record and asserts its commitment to the highest standards of publishing ethics, reflecting the professional and ethical behavior expected in the scholarly community.

Submission Procedures and Copyright Policies

Fatigue of Aircraft Structures, published once a year by the Łukasiewicz Research Network – Institute of Aviation, adheres to a structured and ethical approach in its submission and review process.

The journal specifically focuses on scientific disciplines that align with the activities and interests of the Łukasiewicz Research Network – Institute of Aviation. Authors seeking to publish in the journal are required to submit their manuscripts in English, and in an electronic format, preferably as *.docx or *.doc files. Detailed guidelines for authors, including formatting guidelines and requirements for the list of references, are available on website. These guidelines are critical to ensure consistency and adherence to academic standards.

Authorship

The journal recognizes as authors only those individuals who have contributed significantly to the conception, design, execution, or interpretation of the reported study. The identification of authors at the head of the paper is essential, along with their respective affiliations. Any and all individuals who have made considerable but non-authorship contributions, such as technical assistance or financial support, should be listed in the acknowledgements. Importantly, the journal prohibits the attribution of authorship to individuals whose actual contributions were minimal or non-existent. The corresponding author is responsible for verifying and declaring that any others named as co-authors have seen the final version of the manuscript and have agreed to its submission for publication. No fictitious name may be given as an author or co-author. The corresponding author who submits a manuscript for publication accepts responsibility for having properly included all, and only, qualified co-authors.

Integrity of Submissions

Authors must declare that their articles are original, have not been published before, and are not currently under consideration for publication elsewhere. The journal requires authors to submit
a hand-signed declaration, asserting their ownership of full copyright to all components of the manuscript, including texts, tables, and graphics. Furthermore, authors are required to provide written details concerning the scope of contributions from each author, sources of funding, and any support received from research institutions, associations, or other entities.

It is inappropriate to submit manuscripts with an obvious commercial intent. Authors should reveal to the Editors any potential conflict of interest, e.g., a consulting or financial interest in a company that might be affected by publication of the results contained in a manuscript. The authors should ensure that no contractual relations or proprietary considerations exist that might affect the publication of information in a submitted manuscript.

Key Principles Regarding the Use of Generative AI

These principles were developed with reference to COPE's official position statement on the use of artificial intelligence tools in scientific publications (COPE Position Statement: Artificial Intelligence (AI) tools as authors).

• Using a generative artificial intelligence tool, such as ChatGPT or other Large Language Models (LLM), to generate any portion of an article is prohibited, including to generate abstracts or literature reviews. AI tools do not satisfy the criteria for authorship and cannot take responsibility for the submitted work. Responsibility for the submitted work, its interpretation and its accuracy, rests with the Author.
• Generating or reporting results and statistics using generative AI/LLM tools is not allowed due to concerns about the authenticity, integrity, and validity of the data obtained. However, using such tools to assist in analyzing a study is permitted, provided that the Methods section of the article (or a similar section) clearly specifies which tool was used, and how. Authors are fully responsible for the content of their manuscript, including any parts produced using AI tools, and are thus accountable for any breaches of publication ethics.
• Using a generative AI/LLM tool solely in order to improve the language and readability of an article is allowed, as this practice aligns with standard tools historically used for spelling and grammar correction. Note that this procedure processes existing material created by the Author, rather than generating entirely new content; meanwhile, the Author remains fully responsible for the submitted work.
• Submitting and publishing images created by artificial intelligence tools or large-scale generative models is not permitted.

Review process

The review process begins with an initial assessment by the Editor-in-Chief, who verifies the manuscript’s compliance with the thematic scope of the journal. Upon passing this initial review, the manuscript is then assigned to a particular Subject Editor, who has expertise in the relevant discipline. This Subject Editor is responsible for suggesting potential reviewers, ensuring that recommended alterations by reviewers are incorporated by the author, and ultimately accepting or rejecting the manuscript for publication.

Reviewers, selected on the grounds of their expertise and lack of affiliation with the author's organization, are tasked with providing an objective and thorough evaluation of the manuscript. Reviewers will be chosen from institutions in at least two different countries, ensuring an international perspective. Reviewers are bound by a confidentiality clause and are obligated to report any ethical breaches such as plagiarism or auto-plagiarism. Their conduct is guided by the principles outlined in COPE’s Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers. The identity of the reviewers remains unknown to the authors, preserving the integrity of the double-blind review process.

Each Reviewer indicates on the review form one of the following recommendations:

1. Accept as written with no need for any revisions
2. Accept with minor revisions with no second review necessary
3. Accept with minor revisions and continue with a second review
4. Require major revisions and allow text to reviewed again if resubmitted
5. Do not accept for publication.

The Editor in Chief reserves the right to select Reviewers and to verify whether the Author has followed recommendations in the reviews. In justifiable cases the Editor in Chief may delegate those powers to a member of the Editorial Advisory Board of Fatigue of Aircraft Structures with expertise in the given field. The final decision on publishing each manuscript is taken by the Editor in Chief.

A manuscript recommended for publication must receive positive evaluations from at least two independent reviewers. In cases where reviewers request revisions, authors are notified in writing and expected to submit a corrected version before the paper can be considered for final acceptance. If both reviewers provide negative assessments, the paper is rejected, and the authors are formally informed.

The journal’s Editors plays a crucial role in handling and resolving any conflicts between authors, reviewers, and the editorial staff. The Editors are committed to maintaining the quality and coherence of the articles published. Any scientific misconduct, including falsification of research or outcomes, is taken seriously. Such instances, including breaches of copyright law, are reported to the relevant ethical bodies, such as the Committee for Ethics in Science at the Polish Academy of Sciences.

Access and Copyright

All articles accepted for publication, along with their abstracts, are made available on the journal’s website, promoting broad accessibility and dissemination of research. We do not charge any article processing charges or other publication fees. This Open Access approach aligns with the journal's commitment to sharing scientific knowledge and findings with a wider audience.

Fatigue of Aircraft Structures provides immediate Open Access to its content under the Creative Commons BY-NC-ND 4.0 license. Authors who publish with this journal retain all copyrights and agree to make the submitted article available under the terms of the above-mentioned Creative Commons BY-NC-ND 4.0 license.

Authors must submit a declaration [Authors Declaration Form] that they agree with these publication terms, and that the submitted manuscript is original, written by the stated author(s), has not been published before, contains no unlawful statements, does not infringe the rights of others, is subject to copyright that is vested exclusively in the author (or copyrights belonging jointly to the indicated co-authors) and free of any third party rights, and that any necessary permissions to use other sources have been obtained by the author(s).

Handling Allegations of Research Misconduct

Fatigue of Aircraft Structures takes any and all allegations of research misconduct seriously. This includes, but is not limited to, plagiarism, citation manipulation, and data falsification/fabrication. Upon receiving an allegation, the journal follows COPE’s guidelines to investigate and resolve the issue. The journal is committed to taking reasonable steps to prevent the publication of papers where research misconduct has occurred. In cases where misconduct is confirmed, the journal will take appropriate actions, which may include retraction of the article, correction notices, or other measures as deemed necessary. When applicable, the journal refers to specific COPE cases that address ethical issues related to falsified references or unauthorized use of AI-generated content in submitted manuscripts. These cases provide guidance on how to evaluate suspicions of data manipulation or unacknowledged use of generative AI tools and help ensure that appropriate editorial actions are taken in line with best publishing practices.

Conflicts of Interest / Competing Interests

Authors must disclose any potential conflicts of interest or competing interests that could influence the interpretation of their manuscript. The journal requires a statement regarding conflicts of interest from all authors, to be published alongside the manuscript. Editors and reviewers are also required to declare any potential conflicts of interest, and if necessary, recuse themselves from handling the manuscript.

Historical Publications

The journal recognizes the COPE position on older publications. If allegations arise regarding articles published prior to modern policies, we follow COPE’s recommendations for handling these matters responsibly.

By adhering to COPE’s internationally accepted standards and guidance, Fatigue of Aircraft Structures ensures that all stakeholders in the publication process — authors, reviewers, editors, and publishers — are held to the highest level of ethical accountability. The full policy document incorporates direct references and best practices from COPE’s extensive library of guidelines and case studies, which shape our daily editorial operations and publication standards.

For more details, readers, authors, and editorial members are encouraged to visit COPE's website: https://publicationethics.org