Introduction
In the area of scientific publishing, ethics can be considered as either Scientific Ethics or Publishing Ethics. Many international, national and governmental institutions worldwide concern themselves with scientific ethics, for example, the ethics of experimentation, data storage regulations and the setting up of ethics committees at universities etc.

Monitoring Publishing Ethics is a major aspect of the peer-review process, and as such lies within the area of responsibility of the Editor-in-Chief, or the scientific editor, of each journal. In practice publishers often help guide and support editors with these matters, and in addition there are also several supporting organisations, of which, the Committee on Publishing Ethics (COPE) is the best known. Elsevier recently took the decision to list all of its journals with COPE, to provide Editors with additional guidance if needed, and to support this essential independent activity.

In addition to making available this resource kit, Elsevier is also active in other publishing ethics initiatives, internally and externally. With the CrossRef Association (http://www.crossref.org), it is involved in a pilot plagiarism software project called Crosscheck (http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/editorsinfo.editors/plagdetect).

To enforce publishing ethics, and detect misconduct, Editors rely heavily on the reviews of referees, and post-publication, on comments from the community at large. Fortunately, the area of science publishing is reasonably good at self-correcting, albeit sometimes later rather than earlier. In any case, every reported act of unethical publishing behaviour must be looked into, even if it is discovered years after publication.

Experienced Editors may well have dealt with many publishing ethics cases; however the rules and guidelines of the community are constantly being refined and updated. All Editors, new and experienced, are urged to look at and use this resource kit, which has been assembled and maintained not only for journal Editors, but also for publishing staff.

When an Editor is confronted with a case (or suspected case) of ethics abuse, he/she should first identify the type of unethical behaviour, using the definitions provided in this kit. Then the decision trees, and their recommended action, can be followed. COPE charts are also available for a second opinion. This is often the time for the Editor to discuss the case with his/her publishing contact within Elsevier and agree what action to take.

The material in this Resource Kit consists of the following:

• General Links to Elsevier and non-Elsevier policy and procedures documents.
• Decision trees - Flow charts for dealing with different forms of publishing ethics abuse.
• Form letters - Examples of appropriate letters for various situations.
• Q & A - A large resource of useful information structured in the form of Questions and Answers.