Ethics and Malpractice

Statement on Publication Ethics and Publication Malpractice

Our publication ethics and publication malpractice statement is based on the Code of Conduct and Best-Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors (Committee on Publication Ethics, 2011).

Editors’ Responsibilities

Editor Roles

The Editor-in-Chief (EiC), under the guidance of the Advisory and Editorial Boards, is responsible for choosing Associate Editors and for leading the processes around all policies and procedures of the journal. The EiC assigns issues to Associate Editors. Associate Editors are responsible for seeking expert reviews of all assigned papers, and for leading discussions about the papers with the reviewers.

Publication Decisions

Paper submissions that don’t follow the submission guidelines may be rejected without review. The assigned Associate Editors are responsible for deciding which of the submitted papers will be published. These decisions are made after the papers are reviewed and discussed by expert reviewers, who have a strong influence on the decisions. The publication decision is based on the criteria outlined here. Legal requirements regarding libel, copyright infringement, and plagiarism are also considered: papers found to be in violation of honorable academic conduct will be rejected.


The editorial staff must not disclose any information about a submitted manuscript to anyone other than the corresponding author, reviewers, potential reviewers, as appropriate.


Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted paper shall not be used by the members of the editorial board for their own research purposes without the authors’ explicit written consent.

Conflicts of Interest

The Editor-in-Chief has an inherent conflict of interest with the journal, and shall not submit any paper for publication in the journal while in that role. Associate Editors may submit papers to the journal; these papers must be assigned to another Associate Editor, who must ensure a high level of quality of those papers, well above the average. Associate Editors must identify and avoid all conflicts of interest pertaining to expert reviewers and the submitted papers.

Reviewers’ Responsibilities

Contribution to editorial decisions

The peer-reviewing process assists the Associate Editors in making editorial decisions, and also serves the authors in improving the papers. The journal encourages, expects, and facilitates reviewers to engage in discussions about the papers they review, under the guidance of the assigned Associate Editors. Those discussions have a strong influence on the decisions made by the Associate Editors, who are expected to follow the reviewers’ reconciled recommendations.

Adequacy and Promptness

Any reviewer who feels unqualified to review the research reported in an assigned paper, or knows that its prompt review will be impossible, should notify the Associate Editor and withdraw from the review process.


Any papers received for review must be treated as confidential. They must not be disclosed to or discussed with others except as authorized by the Associate Editor.

Reviewing Standards

All reviews should be made without regard to the authors’ race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy. Reviewers should clearly identify the main ideas of the paper, and proceed to assess their fitness with respect to the criteria outlined here. Personal criticism of the authors is inappropriate and shall be flagged as such by the assigned Associate Editor. When appropriate, reviewers should strive to give suggestions of how the paper can be improved. Reviewers should identify cases in which relevant published work referred to in the paper has not been cited. They should point out whether observations or arguments derived from other publications are accompanied by the respective source. Reviewers will notify the Associate Editor of any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published paper of which they have personal knowledge.

Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest

Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage of reviewers. Reviewers should inform the Associate Editor about conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions associated with the papers.

Authors’ Responsibilities

Reporting standards

Authors of original research papers 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. Sources of data and ideas used in the reported work should be properly cited. A paper should contain sufficient detail and references to permit others to replicate the work. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behavior and are unacceptable.

Authors of Essays and other analytical works should use appropriate care with material that has been previously published, so not to mislead readers in thinking it is original material.


Plagiarism is the misrepresentation of someone else’s work as one’s own, for example by incorporating it without appropriate attribution. The work might be words, or ideas, or programs, or pictures, among others; it might be copied verbatim, or paraphrased, or generated. It is irrelevant whether the original source has been formally published, or whether the original creator has granted permission.

Plagiarism is academic misconduct, and any plagiarising submission will be summarily rejected.

Data access and retention

Although the journal currently does not have a separate Artifact Evaluation process, authors may be asked to provide the raw data and/or artifacts of their study together with the paper for editorial review and should be prepared to make the artifacts publicly available if practicable. The journal strongly encourages authors to ensure accessibility of such artifacts to other peers for at least ten years after publication. The journal facilitates this long term storage through Zenodo.

Prior Papers and Concurrent Submissions

Submitted papers must present original work made by the authors, must not overlap significantly with the authors’ previously published work in a peer review publication, and must not be under review on another journal or conference.


Authorship should be limited to those who have made a significant contribution to the conception, design, execution, or interpretation of the reported study and the paper itself. Provision of funding without involvement in the conception of the work should not grant authorship. All those who have made significant contributions to the paper should be listed as co-authors. The corresponding author(s) must verify that all co-authors have approved the final version of the paper and have agreed to its submission for publication.

Disclosure and conflicts of interest

All papers must include a statement disclosing any financial support for the work. At the time of submission, authors should notify the editors about conflicts of interest with potential reviewers, and clarify what those conflicts are.

Fundamental errors in published works

It is the authors’ responsibility to promptly notify the associate editor about significant errors or inaccuracies in his/her work after publication of the paper, and to cooperate with the editor to retract or correct the paper in form of an erratum. Errors and inaccuracies may also be reported by readers after publication, in which case the Associate Editor may publish readers’ letters, to which the authors may offer a rebuttal.