InDret endorses high standards of ethical behavior for all parties involved in the act of publishing –authors, editors, peer reviewers and staff-. The ethics statements for InDret are based on the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors.
Duties of the Editors
Submitted manuscripts are evaluated for their quality and intellectual content without regard to race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, age, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy of the authors.
The editors and any editorial staff must not disclose any information about a submitted manuscript to anyone other than the corresponding author, reviewers, potential reviewers, and other editorial advisers, as appropriate.
Disclosure and conflicts of interest
Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in an Editor’s own research without the explicit written consent of the author(s).
InDret Editorial Board is responsible for deciding which of the submitted articles should be published after having been peer-reviewed. The Editorial Board will be guided by the journal policies and constrained by such legal requirements as shall then be in force regarding libel, copyright infringement and plagiarism. The Editorial Board may confer with other editors or members of the Scientific Committee in making this decision.
Duties of peer reviewers
Contribution to editorial decisions
Peer review assists the Editorial Board in making editorial decisions. InDret uses a double-blind peer review system. Only in exceptional cases, the Editor-in-Chief, once a submitted manuscript has been accepted for publication, may invite editorial communication with the author with the aim of assisting the author in improving the article.
Any invited referee who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its timely review will be impossible should immediately notify the Editor-in-Chief so that alternative reviewers can be contacted.
Any manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. They must not be shown to or discussed with others except if authorized by the Editor-in-Chief.
Standards of objectivity
Reviews should be conducted objectively. Personal criticism of the author is inacceptable. Referees should express their views clearly with appropriate supporting arguments.
Acknowledgement of sources
Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors. Any statement that an observation, derivation, or argument had been previously reported should be accompanied by the relevant citation. A reviewer should also call to the Editor’s attention any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published data of which they have personal knowledge.
Disclosure and conflict of interest
Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage. Reviewers should not consider evaluating manuscripts in which in spite of the double-blind peer-review process they believe to have a conflict of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the presumed authors, companies, or institutions connected to the submission.
Duties of authors
Authors reporting results of original research should present an accurate account of the work performed as well as an objective discussion of its significance. Underlying data should be represented accurately in the manuscript. A paper should contain sufficient detail and references to permit others to contrast any sources and, in particular cases, replicate the work. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behavior and are unacceptable.
Originality and Plagiarism
Authors should ensure that they have written entirely original works, and if the authors have used the work and/or words of others that this has been appropriately cited or quoted.
Multiple, redundant or concurrent publication
An author should not in general publish manuscripts describing essentially the same research in more than one journal or primary publication. Parallel submission of the same manuscript to more than one journal constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable.
Acknowledgement of sources
Proper acknowledgment of the work of others must always be given. Authors should also cite publications that have been influential in determining the nature of the reported work.
Data Access and Retention
Where appropriate, authors may be asked to provide the raw data in connection with a paper for editorial review, and should be prepared to provide public access to such data, if practicable, and should in any event be prepared to retain such data for a reasonable time after publication.
Authorship of a manuscript
Authorship should be limited to those who have made a significant contribution to the conception, design, execution, or interpretation of the reported study. All those who have made significant contributions should be listed as coauthors. Where there are others who have participated in certain substantive aspects of the research project, they should be named in an Acknowledgement section.
The corresponding author should ensure that all appropriate co-authors (according to the above definition) and no inappropriate co-authors are included in the author list of the manuscript, and that all co-authors have seen and approved the final version of the paper and have agreed to its submission for publication.
Disclosure and conflicts of interest
All authors should disclose in their manuscript any financial or other substantive conflict of interest that might be construed to influence the results or their interpretation in the manuscript. All sources of financial support for the project should be disclosed.
Fundamental errors in published works
When an author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in his/her own published work, it is the author’s obligation to promptly notify the journal’s Editor-in-Chief or publisher and cooperate with them to either retract the paper or to publish an appropriate erratum.
Journal Malpractice Statement
In cases of alleged or proven scientific misconduct, fraudulent publication or plagiarism the Editor-in-Chief will take all appropriate measures to clarify the situation and to amend the article in question. This includes the prompt publication of an erratum