“Every
Comparatist is part Swiss banker and part global justice activist, with one
foot in a deeply exploitative cultural marketplace, and the other foot in the
struggle for free and fair cultural exchange” (Redmond 2003)
Advocating
a fair treatment of all parties involved
(editors, authors, reviewers), CDDC’s editorial board have taken
due care to ensure high ethical and professional standards, as put forth in the
Principles of Best Practice in Scholarly
Publishing, the Code of Conduct and Best Practice Guidelines for Journal
Editors, and the Code of Conduct for Journal Publishers .
PUBLICATION
ETHICS and PUBLICATION MALPRACTICE STATEMENT
CDDC is committed to
maintaining the editorial independence of journal editors, as well as to
supporting the latter to run their journals ethically and transparently.
Editors must
maintain the confidentiality of the review process, i.e. they must not discuss
individual manuscripts submitted with anyone apart from the author, the
editor-in-chief, reviewers and the publisher, if appropriate, unless otherwise
authorized by author or editor-in-chief.
They are also not allowed to make any substantial alterations to the
manuscripts without consulting the author and all co-authors beforehand. CDDC’s editors will, in addition, seek to ensure that any identifiable
personal information they collect is kept to the minimum required by standard
editorial procedure. In their capacity as editorial interface between
author and reviewer they must conduct themselves fairly and impartially, with
due regard for both parties involved.
Authors should
abide by all statements listed in the Author’s Warranties Form (s. pdfdocument
under AUTHOR GUIDELINES) and ensure that any real or apparent
conflicting or competing interest is clearly stated on submission of their
manuscript. If the manuscript was prepared jointly with other authors, the main
authors should list co-authors, acknowledge any other major contributions to
the research conducted and additionally list the names of those acknowledged as
such. They are also expected to make public any sources of research funding as appropriate.
Neither CDDC’s editors nor the publisher can be held responsible for
any incomplete or incorrect manuscript submitted by the author(s). In addition,
unless the authors and all co-authors are informed and are in agreement with
the change, no authors can be added or removed post submission.
After performing an
unbiassed meticulous overall assessment of the manuscript, with clear emphasis
placed on both its fortes and its drawbacks, reviewers are expected to make a ‘reject’ or ‘accept’
recommendation supported by rigorous argumentation (s. Manuscript Reviewer’s Form
for additional suggestions under ‘accept’). Reviewers must treat all
manuscripts as strictly confidential documents and immediately alert the
editor-in-chief of any conflict of interests which is in any way liable to
infringe the principles of publication ethics, in which case they are expected
to opt out of the team designated to assess the manuscript at issue (s. Peer-Reviewer’s
Agreement Form).
Last but not least, since the final decision of accepting
manuscripts for publication rests entirely with the editor-in-chief, (s)he must ensure that all manuscripts are fairly
treated, without ethnic, racial, religious, political or sexual bias, and take
immediate appropriate action if any of the quality standards or principles of
best practice are not being met or complied with, respectively. Prior to making
the final decision, the editor-in-chief must give due consideration to both the
reviews submitted and the views of all those involved in the editorial process.
Should the reviews of a manuscript differ significantly either on specific
points or with regard to overall assessment, then it is the editor-in-chief’s
duty to assign a third referee to the evaluation of the manuscript at issue.
COPYRIGHT
NOTICE
Copyright of the content of all research
articles and reviews/interviews will remain with the designated author of the
research article or review/interview, whereas copyright of the layout and
design of the journal articles, reviews/interviews remains with CDDC and the publisher.
REPOSITORY
POLICY
The final published version (publisher pdf)
of a research article/review/interview can be archived by authors on their
personal website (self-archiving) and/or on a non-profit server in an
institutional repository.
PLAGIARISM STATEMENT
Painfully aware of the surreptitious attempts made by
plagiarism in recent years to rear its ugly head in the scientific world, CDDC’s
editors do their share of averting such attempts by utilizing as an additional
editorial tool one of the several plagiarism detection services made available by
the university to which the journal’s publisher is affiliated (s. detailed
description at Third-stage cross-check plagiarism filter under AUTHOR
GUIDELINES). In no case shall the publisher or editors encourage
such misconduct, or knowingly allow such misconduct to take place. In the event
that CDDC’s
publisher or editors are made aware of any allegations of research misconduct,
they shall deal with allegations appropriately. In addition, both the publisher
and the editors will always be willing to publish corrections, retractions,
clarifications and apologies when needed. As regards plagiarizing manuscripts, if
detected at any stage throughout the evaluation process, they will be exposed
without delay by editors and reviewers alike, automatically rejected, and
authors thereof indefinitely denied the right to submit any more manuscripts
to CDDC on account of scholarly misconduct.
No comments:
New comments are not allowed.