Ethical standards

Our journal follows the ethical standards provided by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). The Crossref Similarity Check service is used to verify the originality of submitted texts. Not only does the Institute of Scandinavian Studies maintain an academically rigorous approach to research published in “Studia Scandinavica” but it also promotes ethics in science. Therefore, adequate procedures have been implemented to safeguard against such practices as “ghostwriting” (failure to acknowledge a substantial contribution made by a person to the manuscript) and “guest authorship” (the naming of authors who have made virtually no contribution to the manuscript). As such practices are deemed scientific misconduct, any irregularities encountered at any stage of the publishing process will be disclosed by the editorial board and reported to relevant authorities. To counteract such research misconduct, the authors of submitted texts are requested to acknowledge the actual contribution made to their publication.

 

Ethical standards for editors, reviewers, authors and publishers

  1. Editors:

  • Perform their duties in a fair and objective manner, without discriminating against authors because of their gender, sexual orientation, religious or political convictions, ethnic or geographical origin.

  • Accept articles on the basis of their academic merit. Submissions made to “Studia Scandinavica” are not published for commercial purposes.

  • Follow relevant procedures and principles established by the editorial board in the event of ethical complaints. Authors may respond to the above-mentioned complaints, to be examined regardless of when the original manuscript was accepted for publication. Documents associated with any such complaints should be retained.

  1. Reviewers:

  • Participate in the decision-making process regarding the publication of the manuscript and aid in improving its quality by conducting a timely and objective review.

  • Notify the editor-in-chief about any similarities between the manuscript under review and any published or submitted content.

  • Do not retain the manuscript.

  • Keep confidential any information provided by the editor or author.

  • Should be aware of any potential conflicts of interest, including, but not limited to, of institutional, financial or personal nature, as well as should report these to the editor-in-chief, if necessary declining to proceed with the review of the manuscript.

  1. Authors:

  • Keep records of data regarding their submitted manuscript in order to provide information on their contribution to the manuscript in response to a reasonable request.

  • Assert that the manuscript submitted for publication has not been previously published or accepted for publication elsewhere. In the event that portions of the article overlap with any published or submitted content, authors should acknowledge and cite those sources. Furthermore, they should provide the editor-in-chief with a copy of any published or submitted papers that may contain overlapping content.

  • Confirm that all the research work in the submitted manuscript is original and valid as well as acknowledge and cite content reproduced from other publications.

  • Should obtain permission to reproduce paintings or photographs from other sources.

  • Should notify the editor-in-chief about any potential conflicts of interest.

  • Should immediately report to the editor-in-chief a significant error identified in their publication as well as cooperate with the editor-in-chief in order to publish an erratum, addendum, corrigendum notice or to withdraw the paper if necessary.

  1. The publisher:

  • Asserts that he/she subscribes to the standards set out above.

  • Before the issue is published, The Publisher (Gdańsk University Press) checks it for plagiarism.

 

Procedures for dealing with unethical behaviour

  1. Unethical behaviour includes only the cases outlined above. It may be reported to the editorial board by anyone, at any time.

  2. Any person who reports unethical behaviour to the editor-in-chief or the publisher should provide them with evidence sufficient to initiate an investigation.

  3. An initial decision regarding the investigation should be taken by the editor-in-chief, and, if necessary, reached after consultation with the publisher.

  4. Evidence should be collected, without disclosing it to third parties.

  5. In the event of a minor breach of the ethical standards the editor-in-chief may make an independent decision without the need to hold wider consultation. In any case, the author should be given the opportunity to respond to any allegations.

  6. In the event of a major breach of the ethical standards the employer(s) of the author may be notified about the misconduct. The editor-in-chief (the publisher) takes the decision on whether or not to engage the employer(s) in the examination of the collected evidence or in further consultation with experts.

  7. Outcomes (Listed in increasing order of severity, the measures specified below may be applied separately or in conjunction):

- The editor-in-chief informs or educates the author and/or reviewer in the event of a misunderstanding or misapplication of acceptable standards.

- The author receives a letter containing clearly and unequivocally stated allegations of the misconduct and serving as a warning against future attempts to engage in similar practices.

- The editor-in-chief publishes a formal notice detailing the misconduct.

- The editor-in-chief sends a formal letter to the author's university or funding agency.

- A publication is withdrawn from the journal, which is reported to the author’s employer(s).

- The editorial board imposes for a specified period of time a formal embargo on contributions from an individual charged with unethical behaviour.

- The case is reported to a professional organisation or higher authority for further investigation.

 

Based on: Cambridge University Press Ethical Standards.