Publication ethics statement and misuse of publication in the journal “Historical Views”
The journal “Historical Views” complies with the Code of Conduct and Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors and the Code of Conduct for Journal Publishers of the Committee on Publication Ethics – COPE; https://publications.org).
Duties of the Editor
Correctness and editorial independence
Editors evaluate the manuscripts received solely on the basis of their academic virtues (importance, originality, value of the study, clarity) and the appropriateness of the journal’s competencies without reference to the author’s race, gender, sexual orientation, ethnic origin, citizenship, religious confession, political worldview, and affiliation with the institution. The decision to edit and publish is not governed by the policies of the government or any agency outside the journal. The editor-in-chief has full authority over the entire editorial content of the magazine and the timing of its publication.
Editors and editors will not disclose information about the manuscript received to anyone other than the contributing author, reviewers, potential reviewers, and other editorial expert advisors and the publisher.
Conflict of interest statement
The publisher and the editorial staff will not use the unpublished information contained in the received manuscript for their own research without the author’s express written consent. Editors will be excluded from consideration of manuscripts in which they have conflicting interests due to a competitive, collaborative or any other relationship / affiliation with any of the authors, and will instead be considered by the other editorial staff.
Editors guarantee that all manuscripts under consideration for publication undergo peer review by at least two reviewers who are experts in the field. The Editor-in-Chief is responsible for deciding which of the manuscripts received will be published based on validation of the work, its relevance to researchers and readers, commenters’ reviews, and legal provisions regarding defamation, copyright infringement and plagiarism. The Editor-in-Chief may consult with other editors or reviewers when deciding to publish a paper.
Involvement and collaboration in research
Editors (in collaboration with the publisher and / or company) will take appropriate action if an ethical issue related to the work received or the article published arises. Any allegations of unethical conduct at the time of publication will be investigated, even if discovered years after publication. Editors follow the COPE flow chart when dealing with a case of suspected misconduct. If the investigation reveals a validity of an ethical issue, the journal will publish a correction, withdrawal, statement of concern, or any other remark that may be relevant.
Obligations of reviewers
Contribution to editorial decision
Peer review helps editors make editorial decisions and through editorial communications with authors can help authors improve their manuscript. All scientists who wish to contribute to the scientific process have an obligation of impartial review.
A reviewer who is considered unqualified to review a manuscript research or who knows that its updating will be impossible should immediately notify the publisher and reject the invitation to review so that other reviewers can be contacted.
Any manuscript received for review is a confidential document and should not be shown or discussed with other persons unless permitted by the editor-in-chief in exceptional and specific situations. This also applies to invited reviewers who have declined the review invitation.
Reviews should be carried out objectively and observations clearly formulated with supporting arguments for use by authors to correct the manuscript. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate.
Publication of sources
Reviewers should identify relevant published work not cited by the authors. Any statement that is an objection, performance, or argument that has been made and has already been published should be associated with the relevant citation. Reviewers should also alert the Editor-in-Chief of the potential similarity or overlap of a manuscript that is under review with another manuscript (published or unpublished) and of which they have personal knowledge.
Conflict of interest notice
A invited reviewer who is in a conflict of interest because of a competitive, collaborative, or other relationship or relationship with any of the authors, companies, or institutions should immediately notify the editor of the conflict of interest and decline the invitation to review to select another reviewer. Unpublished material included in the received manuscript should not be used in the reviewer’s own research without the written consent of the author. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must remain confidential and must not be used to the reviewer’s private advantage. This also applies to invited reviewers who have declined the review invitation. Reviewers are encouraged to register with Publons, an online portal and free service, to track, review, and review reviews and editorial contributions in academic journals (https://publons.com).
Obligations of the author
The authors of the original research should present the exact amount of work done and the results, followed by an objective discussion of the importance of the work. The manuscript should include enough details and references to allow others to repeat it. Reviewed articles should be accurate, objective and exhaustive, while editorial “opinions” and review articles should be clearly identified as such. Fraudulent or intentionally inaccurate statements are unethical conduct and are not acceptable.
Accessing and storing data
Authors may be required to provide editorial review with the raw data of their study together with the manuscript, and must be prepared to make the data publicly available if practicable. In any case, authors must make such information available to other competent professionals for at least ten years after its publication, provided that the confidentiality of participants and the rights associated with proprietary information are secured.
Originality and plagiarism
Authors should make sure that they have written and submitted a fully original work and that they have used the work and / or words of others to cite it properly. Publications that influenced the nature of the work should also be cited in the manuscript. Plagiarism takes many forms, from “presenting” someone else’s work as one’s own, through copying or paraphrasing a substantial portion of someone else’s manuscript (without attribution), to claiming the results of other work performed by others. Plagiarism in all forms is unethical publicity and is not acceptable.
Duplication, over-submission / publication
Papers describing much of the same research should not be published in more than one journal or primary publication. Therefore, authors should not submit for consideration a manuscript that has already been published in another journal. The same manuscript submission in more than one journal is unacceptable and is not ethical journalistic conduct.
Authorship of the manuscript
Only persons who meet the criteria of authorship should be listed as authors of the manuscript because they must take public responsibility for the content: have participated substantially in the concept or draft of the work or in the collection, analysis and interpretation of the data and have written the first version of the work or revised it critically intellectual content and endorsed the final version of the work and agreed that they were responsible for all work data and warranted that issues relating to the accuracy and integrity of any part of the work would be properly investigated and resolved. Substantial contributions to the conception or design of the work; or the acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of the data for the work; and Drafting the work or revising it critically for important intellectual content; and Final approval of the version to be published ; and the Agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved.)
All persons who have substantially contributed to the work in the manuscript (such as technical assistance, writing and editing, general support) and who do not have the authorship criteria should not be listed as authors, but should be acknowledged in Thanks, after written consent. The responsible author must ensure that all suitable co-authors (as defined above) are listed in the author list, and no unsuitable co-authors have indicated that all co-authors have seen and approved the latest version of the manuscript and agreed to submit the paper for publication.
Communication and Conflict of Interest
Authors should (mainly when submitting a statement, including a statement in a manuscript) declare any conflict of interest that could be interpreted as influencing the results or their interpretation in the manuscript.
Authors should make sure that they have correctly acknowledged the work of others and should cite publications that have influenced the determination of the nature of the work reported. Privately obtained information (through conversations, correspondence or discussion with third parties) should not be used or written without the express written permission of the source. Authors should not exploit information obtained through confidential services such as court records or scholarship applications, unless they have obtained the express written permission of the authors of the work involved in the service.
Risks and human subjects
If the work involves human participants, authors should ensure that all procedures are performed in accordance with applicable laws and institutional guidelines and have been approved by the appropriate institutional committee (s): the manuscript should have a statement of this effect. Authors should also include in the manuscript a statement that informed consent has been obtained for research involving humans. Privacy should always be respected when engaging people in research.
A peer review
Authors are required to fully cooperate with the editor, responding promptly to his or her requests for explanation, violation of ethical approval, and copyright permission. In the case of the first decision on “necessary changes”, the authors should systematically respond to editorial comments, point by point, and resubmit the manuscript to the journal within the stipulated time.
Basic mistakes in publicity work
When authors discover material errors or inaccuracies in their own published work, it is their responsibility to make a quick note to the journal editor or publisher and work with them to correct the work in terms of typos or to retract the manuscript. If the editor or publisher learns from a third party that the published work has material errors or inaccuracies, then it is the responsibility of the author to promptly correct or withdraw the work or to provide evidence to the editor of the journal about the accuracy of the work.
Duties of the publisher
Dealing with Unethical Publicity Behavior In the case of alleged or confirmed scientific misconduct, dishonest publication or plagiarism, the publisher, in collaboration with the editors, will take steps to clarify the situation and correct the article cited. This includes promptly posting a correction, explaining or withdrawing an article. The publisher, along with the editors, will take reasonable steps to identify and prevent the publication of papers in which scientific misconduct has occurred.
Access to content
The publisher is obliged to ensure the continued availability and preservation of scientific work, to ensure its availability in collaboration with organizations, and to maintain its own digital archive. For more recall the publisher and magazine page here: http://www.cimoshis.org/; http://views.cimoshis.org/.