Publication Ethics

All PUBLIA.NEXT-journals promote transparent scientific communication and high ethical standards. All interactions with the journal’s staff, editors, reviewers, and authors must be polite, respectful, and professional, whether by email, phone, comments, or social media.

PUBLIA.NEXT-journals do not tolerate any form of harassment, offensive or threatening behaviour, or repeated inappropriate contact. Examples include:

• Derogatory, offensive, or threatening language.
• Excessive or aggressive contesting of editorial decisions after an appeal has been concluded.
• Persistent resubmissions or complaints after a final decision.
• Frequent or disruptive inquiries while an issue is under investigation.

If these standards are not met, the journal may take proportionate action, such as:

• Issuing a formal warning or feedback.
• Limiting or ceasing direct engagement.
• Reassigning editors or reviewers.
• Declining current or future submissions.
• Modifying an individual’s editorial board status.
• Informing the individual’s institution or employer.
• Referring the matter to COPE for advice or guidance.

Information on how decisions are made can be found on the individual journal’s website. Concerns about non-compliant interactions should be reported directly to the journal.

Code of Conduct for Editorial Board Members

All of PUBLIA.NEXT-journal’s Editorial members are entrusted with upholding the highest standards of editorial practice. Members are expected to adhere to the journal’s policies on research integrity and publication ethics, the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers and Editors, and the values of fairness, transparency, and accountability.

All Editors commit to:

• Editorial integrity: Handle all manuscripts in a fair, unbiased, and timely manner, ensuring that decisions are based solely on academic merit and relevance to the journal’s scope.
• Confidentiality: Respect the confidentiality of submissions, peer reviews, and editorial discussions. Manuscripts and data must not be shared outside the editorial process.
• Conflicts of interest: Disclose any conflicts (financial, institutional, or personal) that may influence editorial judgment, and recuse themselves when necessary.
• Respectful conduct: Communicate with authors, reviewers, and colleagues professionally and constructively.
• Promotion of quality: Encourage ethical, transparent research and support the continuous improvement of the journal’s standards.
• Representation: Act as ambassadors for the journal, promoting its values and mission within their scholarly communities.

Maintaining the Highest Standards of Research Ethics and Integrity

As a member of the Editorial Board of a PUBLIA.NEXT-journal, it is essential to uphold the highest standards of research ethics and integrity. This includes:

• Adhering to the principles of the scientific community and modelling them in your work
• Notifying the journal if any of your work is under investigation at an institution or journal
• Avoiding conflicts of interest and recusing yourself from manuscripts where necessary

Selfless Editing and Peer Review

As an Editorial Board member, it is crucial to facilitate a fair and unbiased review process. This includes:

• Avoiding self-interest and advancing your own work
• Not using knowledge of competing work to influence your editorial judgment or timing
• Not requesting or alluding to the citation of your own, your co-workers’ or the reviewers' work during peer review
• Alerting the journal office of excessive or irrelevant citations request by reviewers of their own or your work
• Recusing yourself from manuscripts where you have a conflict of interest (see Competing Interests).

Ethical Peer Review and Confidentiality

• Be aware of the Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers and alert the journal to potentially unethical peer review practices
• Maintain confidentiality and not discuss research with outside parties before publication
• Alert the journal to potential breaches of confidentiality

Editorial Judgment and Quality

• Support high-quality and timely peer review
• Dedicate time to active manuscript editing
• Respond to invitations, reminders, and staff queries
• Notify the editorial office of changes in your availability
• Inform the other editors when you will be unavailable
• Use best practices when making editorial decisions and selecting or suggesting reviewers

Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion

• Be aware of your own bias and how it might affect your work
• Be inclusive and encourage others to be as well
• Evaluate manuscripts based on their content only. References to affiliation, nationality, religious, political and other positionings as well as gender, age etc. should not influence your evaluation of the manuscript.
• Take action to prevent bias toward any individual, group, or region

Values in Action

• Treat all individuals with kindness and respect
• Report any instances of potential discrimination or harassment
• Be mindful of how your editorial actions impact the careers and lives of authors and reviewers

Affiliation

• Declare all institutional and commercial affiliations when joining the Editorial Board
• Notify the journal staff of any significant changes

All PUBLIA.NEXT-journals take seriously any concerns regarding adherence to the Code of Conduct and will discuss potential issues with the editors involved. This may affect their eligibility for Editorial Board membership. If you have a concern, please email the journal office.

Code of Conduct for Peer Review

Assessments made by reviewers and editors in their respective comments and decision letters must represent their own opinions and are their responsibility. This includes the submission's compliance with the PUBLIA.NEXT-journal’s guidelines and policies.

Reviewers must disclose any third-party support they have received including the provider's name. Unpublished submissions should not be shared with anyone other than those officially contributing to peer review. Reviewers must also reference all relevant sources in their comments. Those who participate in peer review are expected to comply with the PUBLIA.NEXT-journal’s policies and reviewer guidelines.

Authors, editors and reviewers are not allowed to interfere with others’ contributions to peer review. Editors and reviewers must not take advantage of the peer review process for personal gain. 

All reviewers follow the COPE Guidelines: Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers: https://doi.org/10.24318/cope.2019.1.9

Editorial board members must not modify review content. Any concerns about reviewer or decision letter comments should be raised with the PUBLIA.NEXT-journal’s editorial board office. 

Reviewers should review only those manuscripts for which they have professional expertise.

Reviewers commit to assess the manuscript based on its content only. References to affiliation, nationality, religious, political and other positionings as well as gender, age etc. should not influence the evaluation of the manuscript. Critique can and should be presented in context of a clear, reasonable, and professional argumentation. Any form of discrediting and personal criticism is not acceptable.

In the case of conflicting expert recommendations, editors decide on the evaluation, obtain further expert opinions if necessary, and propose a solution with which they approach the authors.

Authors may have to make several changes to their manuscript. In doing so, they enter into a dialog with the editorial team and explain how they deal with expert recommendations. They have the scientific freedom to implement the recommendations of the reviewers according to their own assessments.

Once the review process is complete, editors make the decision to accept or reject a manuscript.

For a detailed description of the peer review process see the respective journals.

Artificial Intelligence (AI) Tools in Peer Review

Peer review feedback and decision letters need to accurately reflect the opinions and assessments of the reviewers and editors. AI tools cannot replace human reviewers or editors and cannot serve as reviewers or editors.

If AI tools are used in the peer review process, including for data analysis or language editing, their usage must be disclosed to the authors in the review or decision letter.

Unpublished submissions must be kept strictly confidential, meaning they must not be processed by any third-party. This includes AI-Services which are provided by any third-party. Further, their contents must not be used to train AI, neither locally hosted nor on other systems.

All PUBLIA.NEXT-journals follow the COPE flowcharts for any complaints and appeals. For complaints and appeals, please contact the PUBLIA.NEXT-journal’s editorial office. If you have any complaints about the editorial team, please contact PUBLIA – SLUB Open Publishing (diamondoa@slub-dresden.de). 

The PUBLIA.NEXT-journals only considers complaints that are based on objective criteria. Please first contact the corresponding author and attempt to resolve the issue directly. If that proves unsuccessful, submit your complaint to the PUBLIA.NEXT-journal. Only complaints made directly to the PUBLIA.NEXT-journal will be considered. 

Complaint Process

To submit a complaint, please follow these steps:

1. Address an email to the PUBLIA.NEXT-journal’s editorial office, with a detailed letter explaining the complaint.
2. The letter should include the following information:
   • The article, including title, authors and DOI.
   • A clear explanation of the complaint, including its academic or scientific validity, ethical or legal background and any adverse consequences anticipated.
   • Details of any previous contact with the author or authors of the article.
   • A statement declaring whether the complainant has any conflicts of interest, and if so, a description of those conflicts.
3. if you wish, you can include information about yourself (title, current affiliation and position, other proof of expertise) 
4. Please also provide an annotated PDF of the article, with the passages of concern clearly marked and the reasons for those concerns.

Only complaints about scientific/academic validity, ethics, or legal aspects of a work or its review will be considered. Complaints with personal criticisms, inappropriate or derogative language, or under false or misleading identity will not be considered. 

Complaints are sent to the editorial board office, who decide if further investigation is needed. If so, the authors are informed of the complaint and an Expression of Concern may be published. For legal or ethical concerns, the PUBLIA.NEXT-journal will seek advice from legal counsel or follows COPE guidelines.

Outcomes

If the complaint is upheld, the investigation may result in:

• No further action (if complaint is deemed unsubstantiated)
• Publication of a corrigendum (if errors are found), if authors do not comply, editors may correct or retract the publication 
• Addressing author bias. This may be handled through e.g. retraction or an invited commentary, whereby handling editor and reviewers are not associated with the original publication 
• An Expression of Concern until a final decision is reached. This may include contacting institutions concerned
• Retraction (if necessary). All PUBLIA.NEXT-journals follows COPE guidelines for retraction and will publish a retraction notice

Investigation and Communication

Investigations may take time, and the PUBLIA.NEXT-journal is not obligated to provide updates until a decision is reached. The PUBLIA.NEXT-journals reserve the right to cease communication with complainants who are not cordial.

Appeals

Authors who have had a submission rejected can submit a formal appeal in writing to the PUBLIA.NEXT-journal. To initiate the appeal process, authors must email the PUBLIA.NEXT-journal’s editorial board with the word "appeal" in the subject line. The appeal should include a detailed explanation of the reasons for the appeal and a point-by-point response to the reviewers' and/or Academic Editor's comments. Please note that decisions on appeals are final and binding and the appeal process may take longer than the original submission process due to the journal's priority on new submissions.

There are two separate situations to consider: intentional scientific misconduct (such as fabricating data, data manipulating or plagiarism) and honest mistakes. Mistakes can occur due to carelessness or oversights, and are not considered a form of misconduct. In cases where misconduct is suspected or confirmed, the PUBLIA.NEXT-journal will adhere to the COPE flowcharts. If it is determined that misconduct has occurred, we will take steps to correct the scientific record.

Please find further information on post-publication corrections in the appropriate section. 

If you wish to report suspected misconduct of research, publication and / or review, please contact the editorial board office.

If you wish to report suspected misconduct of the editorial board, please contact PUBLIA – SLUB Open Publishing: diamondoa@slub-dresden.de 

All PUBLIA.NEXT-journals conduct thorough investigations into any concerns raised about their publications, regardless of when they were published or who raised the issue. If necessary, we take corrective action to ensure the accuracy and integrity of the scientific record, which may involve issuing a corrigendum, retraction, removal or expression of concern. We prioritize transparency in scientific communication, but also protect the confidentiality of individuals who report publication ethics or research integrity concerns. Any information or materials collected during ethics case discussions are treated as confidential, but we may share relevant details with others involved in the case, such as editors, reviewers, or authors' institutions, in accordance with COPE guidelines. We follow COPE flowcharts if institutions or other journals need to be contacted. We follow the COPE flowcharts with regard to responses to whistleblowers.

Individuals who raise concerns to a PUBLIA.NEXT-journal, inquire about issues, or are involved in publication ethics cases are expected to adhere to the Standards for Professional Conduct.

Additionally to the above, the publisher PUBLIA – SLUB Open Publishing reserves the right to retract any publication that is found to contain unethical research. It is the publisher’s priority to uphold the integrity of scholarly publishing and to protect the academic community. PUBLIA – SLUB Open Publishing follows COPE guidelines.

A conflict of interest can be anything potentially impacting, or that could be perceived as impacting, the work's neutrality or the objectivity of its assessment. This includes the full and objective presentation, peer review, editorial decision-making, or publication of research or non-research articles submitted to a journal.

All authors, reviewers, and members of the PUBLIA.NEXT-journal’s editorial board are obligated to disclose any existing or potential conflicts of interest when submitting a manuscript or when taking on an editorial or review role. A conflict of interest-statement should be included by the authors in the final publication version of the article.

If authors fail to disclose valid competing interests, their manuscript may be rejected from publication. If an undisclosed competing interest is discovered after publication, our journal will respond appropriately in accordance with the guidelines established by COPE. This may include a public notification to the community.

The presence of competing interests does not automatically disqualify research from publication or prevent individuals from participating in the editorial or review process. Nevertheless, all competing interests must be declared. Providing a clear and detailed explanation of potential issues, regardless of whether they have had an impact or not, enables informed assessments of the research and its peer review.

What Should Be Disclosed?

Authors

Authors need to disclose any potential conflict of interest during the submission process. If authors are unsure about disclosing potential conflicts of interest or have failed to do so during the submission process, they can reach out to the PUBLIA.NEXT-journal’s editorial office and provide the necessary details as soon as possible.

Potential conflicts of interest for authors are:

You or your institution have received a form of financial compensation or benefits from a third party in relation to the submitted research at any point, including during the planning, execution, or writing of the work. 

You have or had financial connections with entities that could be seen to potentially influence the content or outcome of your research.

You have patents, copyrights, or related intellectual property rights, whether pending, granted, licensed, or generating royalties that are directly or indirectly related to the research presented in the manuscript. 

You have other relationships or activities that could be viewed as potentially influencing or appearing to influence the content of the submitted work? 

For commercial funding, it is essential to disclose the role of the funder. We suggest including one of the following statements: 

• This research was supported by [FUNDER NAME], who contributed to the study in the following way: [DESCRIPTION OF INVOLVEMENT].
• This research was funded by [FUNDER NAME]. We confirm that the funder had no involvement in the study's design, methodology, data collection, data analysis, interpretation of results, manuscript preparation, or publication decision.

Funding disclosure: All information regarding funding sources and their impact on the study must be fully disclosed in the manuscript's funding section, which should include grant numbers if applicable.

Reviewers and Editors

The PUBLIA.NEXT-journal’s handling editors and reviewers will be required to evaluate the following potential conflicts of interest prior to accepting any editorial or review assignment: 

• Are there any personal relationships between the authors or between the reviewer and the handling editor, including friendships, family ties, relationships or other close personal connections? 
• Have you had any collaborations with any of the authors within the past five years, including mentorships, advising or student roles?
• Are you affiliated with, employed by, or hold an advisory position with an organization that has an interest in the outcome of the research?
• Are you currently a member of a committee, department, or organization that has a direct or indirect connection with any of the authors?
• Are you currently engaged in academic competition with any of the authors or have you been in the past?
• Are there any potential conflicts of interest related to intellectual property, including patents or trademarks owned by you, the authors, or your respective affiliations?
• Do you have any financial interests (including funding, goods, or services received or expected) or business relations with organizations involved in this research or the preparation of the manuscript?
• Do you have any financial interests or competing interests (including funding, goods, or services received or expected) or business relations that might influence your ability to conduct an objective review of the manuscript?
• Are there any potential conflicts arising from differing ideologies, beliefs, or activism (e.g. political or religious) that could impact your ability to review the manuscript objectively? 

All PUBLIA.NEXT-journal’s follow the COPE guidelines for Editorial board participation.

Editorial Actions and Decisions

All PUBLIA.NEXT-journal’s editors must consider any potential conflicts of interest while reviewing submissions and ensure that any relevant ones are disclosed in the published article.

If the PUBLIA.NEXT-journal’s editors become aware of any competing interest that could in their judgement potentially introduce bias or give rise to a perception of bias, they will refrain from publishing commissioned or non-research articles. 

Furthermore, PUBLIA.NEXT-journal’s editors exclude reviewers from the review process if they deem their competing interests could compromise their objectivity. 

For more information, see Code of Conduct for Editorial Board Members.

Plagiarism involves the use of someone else's ideas, including small parts, without giving proper credit. To ensure originality and integrity, all PUBLIA.NEXT-journals use Crossref Similarity Check, powered by iThenticate, to screen a randomised selection of submitted manuscripts for textual overlap. Any manuscripts found to contain plagiarism are not considered for publication. Should plagiarism be discovered following the publication of an article, the PUBLIA.NEXT-journal will take appropriate action, which may involve publishing a correction or retracting the paper. For further guidance on plagiarism and exceptions, see below.

We retain the right to contact the authors' affiliated institutions if authors fail to adhere to good research and publication practices.

Plagiarism and Duplication

Submitted manuscripts to a PUBLIA.NEXT-journal undergo rigorous checks for plagiarism and duplication, and only unique and original content is published. All submissions only contain content that has not been published previously. All PUBLIA.NEXT-journals follow the COPE guidelines and expect that to maintain academic integrity, direct quotes from other sources must be clearly identified using quotation marks and accompanied by accurate citations. This condition also applies to an author's own previously published work. 

PUBLIA.NEXT-journals will not consider manuscripts that have already been published, are currently under review elsewhere, or that substantially duplicate other works by the same authors. Self-plagiarism, including reuse of text, data, or images from previous publications without proper acknowledgement, is considered a form of ethical misconduct. Authors should note that extensive duplication may also constitute copyright infringement, particularly when the copyright of the original work has been transferred to a publisher. For exceptions, please refer to the individual PUBLIA.NEXT-journal’s website.

Redundant Publication (or 'Salami' Publications)

All PUBLIA.NEXT-journals view the submission or publication of multiple articles based on the same research as unethical and will follow COPE Guidelines in such cases.

All PUBLIA.NEXT-journals view it unethical to submit or publish significantly similar articles built on the same research. 

When submitting a manuscript, authors are required to disclose whether they have any related works currently under consideration or previously published. If any related materials exist, authors must provide a copy to accompany their submission and detail its connection to their work. During the review process, editors and reviewers will assess any related content, report any overlaps or similarities to the journal, and flag any duplicate submissions or publications if found. 

If related content is found to have significant similarities or if duplicate submissions are discovered, the manuscript will be rejected. If duplicate content is identified after publication, the PUBLIA.NEXT-journal will take corrective measures according to the extent of overlap. The journal may publish a correction or retract the article as necessary.

Fabrication and Falsification

All PUBLIA.NEXT-journals consider both the intentional creation (fabrication) of false data or images and the deliberate misrepresentation or manipulation (falsification) of data as scientific misconduct. In cases where concerns arise, we ask the authors to provide the original data. If the data is unavailable or not given in a timely manner, the PUBLIA.NEXT-journal may take editorial action based on the information we have at our disposal.

Paper Mills

None of the PUBLIA.NEXT-journals accept manuscripts that are written on behalf of authors by commercial entities, commonly referred to as 'paper mills' or 'fake-paper factories.' We will proactively reject such manuscripts before the peer review process, as they do not meet our publication policies.

Artificial Intelligence (AI) Tools

In line with the COPE position statement on authorship and AI tools, no PUBLIA.NEXT-journal permits AI tools (e.g. language models such as ChatGPT) to be listed as authors. AI tools cannot take responsibility for published work and therefore cannot fulfil authorship requirements such as accountability, declaration of competing interests, or agreement to licensing terms. 

While all PUBLIA.NEXT-journals value transparency, they also respect the confidentiality of individuals who raise concerns about publication ethics or research integrity. We will consider information and materials shared during ethics case discussions confidential, but may share relevant details with those involved in the case, such as editors, reviewers, or affected institutions, in accordance with COPE guidelines. 

Those who raise concerns about a PUBLIA.NEXT-journal’s publications, who participate in publication ethics cases involving a PUBLIA.NEXT-journal or inquire about concerns raised to a PUBLIA.NEXT-journal must adhere to our Standards for Professional Conduct policy.

We understand that authors may change their name for various reasons, such as gender transition, marriage, divorce, or a change in religion. To accommodate these changes, we support authors who wish to update their previously published works. We will, upon request, update the author's name in the article and corresponding metadata, and republish the document. This can be done either silently (i.e. without a correction notice and information to co-authors) or with public notification, depending on the author's preference. Additionally, we will re-submit the updated metadata (and/or full text) to abstracting and indexing services. However, please note that we cannot influence whether third parties will implement these changes, and we also cannot update in-text citations and references.

For queries, correction requests and other information, please contact the editorial office.