Publication Ethics

Ethical Guideline for Journal Publication

The publication of an article in a peer-reviewed is an essential building block in the development of a coherent and respected network of knowledge. It is a direct reflection of the quality of the work of the authors and the institutions that support them. Peer-reviewed articles support and embody the scientific method. It is therefore important to agree upon standards of expected ethical behavior for all parties involved in the act of publishing: the author, the journal editor, the peer reviewer, the publisher, and the society. 

Furthermore, the authors’ submission also implies that the manuscript has not been published previously in any language, either wholly or partly, and is not currently submitted for publication elsewhere. Editors, authors, and reviewers, within the The PROLEV, are to be fully committed to good publication practice and accept the responsibility for fulfilling the following duties and responsibilities, as set by the COPE Code of Conduct for Journal Editors. As part of the Core Practices, COPE has written guidelines on the http://publicationethics.org/resources/guidelines.

 

Duties of Editors

Publication decisions

The editor of PROLEV is responsible for deciding which of the articles submitted to the journal should be published. The validation of the work in question and its importance to researchers and readers must always drive such decisions. The editors may be guided by the policies of the journal's editorial board and constrained by such legal requirements as shall then be in force regarding libel, copyright infringement, and plagiarism. The editors may confer with other editors or reviewers in making this decision.

 

Fair play

An editor at any time evaluates manuscripts for their intellectual content without regard to race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy of the authors.

 

Confidentiality

The editor and any editorial staff must not disclose any information about a submitted manuscript to anyone other than the corresponding author, reviewers, potential reviewers, other editorial advisers, and the publisher, 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Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in an editor's own research without the express written consent of the author. Editors will recuse themselves from considering manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships/connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers.

 

Duties of Reviewers

Contribution to Editorial Decisions

Peer review assists the editor in making editorial decisions and through the editorial communications with the author may also assist the author in improving the paper.

 

Promptness

Any selected referee who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should notify the editor and excuse himself from the review process.

 

Confidentiality

Any manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. They must not be shown to or discussed with others except as authorized by the editor.

 

Standards of Objectivity

Reviews should be conducted objectively. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate. Referees should express their views clearly with supporting arguments.

 

Acknowledgment 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 paper 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 manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers. Reviewers must not upload or process submitted manuscripts through generative AI or LLM tools (e.g., ChatGPT) to maintain confidentiality and protect author intellectual property.

 

Duties of Authors

Reporting standards

Authors of reports 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 paper. A paper should contain sufficient detail and references to permit others to replicate the work. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behavior and are unacceptable.

 

Originality and Plagiarism

The 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. Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal concurrently constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable.

 

Acknowledgment of Sources

Proper acknowledgment of the work of others must always be given. Authors should cite publications that have been influential in determining the nature of the reported work.

 

Authorship Criteria and Responsibilities

Authorship must be limited strictly to individuals who have made significant contributions according to the 4 COPE criteria:

1. Significant contributions to the conception, design, execution, or interpretation of the reported study; AND
2. Drafting the manuscript or revising it critically for important intellectual content; AND
3. Approval of the final version to be published; AND
4. 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 those who meet these criteria should be listed as co-authors. Contributors who participated in certain substantive aspects (e.g., funding acquisition, data collection, or technical editing) should be acknowledged in an "Acknowledgments" section. The corresponding author should ensure that all appropriate co-authors and no inappropriate co-authors (such as "ghost" or "gift" authors) are included, and that all co-authors have approved the final version and agreed to submission. Generative AI tools (e.g., ChatGPT) cannot be listed as an author or co-author.

 

Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest

All authors should disclose in their manuscript any financial or another substantive conflict of interest that might be construed to influence the results or interpretation of their manuscript. Authors must explicitly state all sources of financial support for the project (including grant numbers/sponsors, if applicable) and declare any non-financial conflicts of interest (such as personal, professional, or institutional relationships) that could impact the objectivity of the research.

 

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 editor or publisher and cooperate with the editor to retract or correct the paper.

 

Institutional and Governance Policies

In handling allegations of misconduct

1. PROLEV takes all allegations of research and publication misconduct seriously (including plagiarism, citation manipulation, data fabrication/falsification, duplicate submission, and undisclosed conflicts of interest);
2. The Editorial Board handles suspected misconduct cases strictly in accordance with COPE Flowcharts;
3. When misconduct is alleged or suspected (pre- or post-publication), the Editor-in-Chief will conduct an initial investigation. Authors will be given an opportunity to respond;
4. If misconduct is substantiated, the journal reserves the right to reject the manuscript, issue an Expression of Concern, or publish a formal Retraction, and may report the infraction to the author’s affiliated institution.

Post-Publication Discussions, Corrections, and Retractions

1. Post-Publication Discussions: The PROLEV encourages academic debate and permits readers to submit comments, letters, or critiques regarding published papers. These submissions will be peer-reviewed and sent to the original authors for a response;
2. Corrections (Erratum/Corrigendum): If minor errors or unintentional inaccuracies occur that do not invalidate the scientific integrity of the work, the journal will publish a Correction notice cross-referenced with the original paper;
3. Retractions: If published work is found to contain major invalidating errors, severe ethical breaches, or proven research misconduct, the Editor-in-Chief will issue a formal Retraction Notice following COPE Retraction Guidelines. The original PDF will remain accessible in the archive but clearly watermarked as "RETRACTED".

Archiving Policy and Digital Preservation

1. Long-Term Preservation: To ensure permanent availability and preservation of published legal scholarship, The PROLEV archives all articles through digital preservation networks including Portico, LOCKSS, and CLOCKSS via the Public Knowledge Project Preservation Network (PKP PN);
2. Repository Policy: Authors are permitted and encouraged to self-archive the published version (Publisher's PDF) in institutional or disciplinary repositories immediately after publication.