Policies on publication ethics
Ars æqui adheres to COPE’s Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing (available here). Our policies are detailed below.
1. Authorship and contributorship
Authorship of papers published in this journal is recognized to anyone who fulfils both of the following criteria:
(1) having made a substantial contribution to the work;
(2) accepting legal and moral accountability for the respective work and its publication.
Contributions falling short of these criteria may be credited in the Acknowledgements (in a footnote at the very beginning of the paper). Such is the case of mentors or scientific supervisors, as well as those who have facilitated access to resources or made comments on previous drafts of the paper.
2. Handling allegations of research misconduct
This journal treats allegations of research misconduct (including plagiarism, citation manipulation etc.) very seriously, both pre-publication and post-publication. While balancing transparency and confidentiality is not simple, our journal is committed to support complainants who bring forward their legitimate concerns, as well as providing a fair process and due support to the corresponding respondents. At all stages, the parties are reminded that the allegation is yet unproven, is being addressed under this procedure and all information relating to it remains confidential. The procedure, detailed below, is based on the template provided by the UK Research Integrity Office (available here):
|
Stage 1 Receipt of allegations |
The journal manager will assess whether the matter: (a) falls under the scope of this procedure and should advance to the next stage, (b) falls under the scope of a different procedure, warranting referral to another body, including (but not limited to) external organisations, (c) is the result of poor practice rather than misconduct, requiring informal measures, (d) should be dismissed as neither under the remit of this procedure, nor to be referred to any other body. The journal manager may seek confidential advice from experts both within and outside the journal team and/or publisher. This step should be completed within 10 working days from the moment of receipt. |
|
Stage 2 Preliminary investigation |
The journal manager shall appoint a team of two investigators with relevant expertise and no conflict of interests, for the purpose of establishing whether there is a prima facie case of research misconduct. The team should: (a) interview the complainant and respondent, (b) review all evidence, and (c) decide whether or not the case should move to the formal investigation stage. This step should be completed within 30 working days from its commencement. |
|
Stage 3 Formal investigation |
The journal manager shall appoint a committee of three investigators (including at least one external) with relevant expertise, no conflict of interest and no previous involvement in the case. The committee will conduct a full review so as to establish whether there is a research misconduct, and suggest adequate remedies for consideration by the relevant institutional body (university, journal team or publisher). |
3. Policies on conflicts of interest
There is conflict of interest when a participant in the publication process (i.e., author, peer reviewer or editor) has a competing interest that may unduly influence (or be reasonably considered to do so) his or her responsibilities. Examples of competing interests may include financial ties (a), academic commitments (b), personal relationships (c), political or religious beliefs (d), as well as institutional affiliations (e).
|
Onus of disclosure |
All authors are required to disclose any conflict of interest before peer-review. Insofar as competing interests exist, the disclosure will be published alongside the submission.
|
|
Failure to disclose |
If conflict allegations appear during the peer review process, the journal shall contact the author and request clarification. If such a conflict is found to exist, then the author must provide a signed statement before peer review can continue. If no such conflict exists, then peer review may continue. |
|
If conflict allegations surface after publication, the journal shall contact the author and request clarification. There are three possible outcomes: (a) the publication stands (if no conflict can be found), (b) the publication is corrected (with the omitted disclosure, if appropriate), or (c) the publication is retracted (for unduly affecting the publication process).
|
4. Publishing license and intellectual property
Ars æqui operates under an open access publishing model. Original research articles are distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (available here), which allows unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided appropriate credit is given. For any material not covered by this license, authors must obtain permission from the copyright holder. See our Copyright and Licensing Terms, as well as the Open Access and Article Processing Charges policy for full details.
The editorial board will only consider submissions which have not already been published in a scientific journal. Plagiarism, including self-plagiarism, will be dealt with in accordance with COPE guidelines.
5. Post-publication policies
Our journal allows post-publication debate through letters to the editor, publishable after peer review in a subsequent issue, inviting a possible Reply from the original author.
The journal shall issue corrections, revisions or retractions as applicable:
- Author or publisher corrections are issued to address important error(s) made by the author(s), to maintain the scientific integrity of the article or reputation of the author(s) or the journal.
- An Editor’s note shall be issued whenever the journal has initiated an inquiry in response to concerns raised about a published work.
- Retractions are issued when publication or research ethics are violated and/or the scientific integrity of the publication has been grossly undermined. The publication will be marked as ‘retracted’, yet the original PDF will generally continue to be available to readers.
- Removals may be issued when (1) a court or government order requiring the removal of such content has been issued or is likely to be issued, (2) the content poses a serious and immediate risk to health, if acted upon, and (3) the Editor has been advised that the content is unlawful (e.g., when it infringes intellectual property or is defamatory).
