The Scientific Editorial Council of The Annals of Legal History commits to the internationally accepted principles of publication ethics expressed in the recommendations of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and the Ethical Code of Academic Periodicals and takes into account the valuable experience of reputable international journals and publishers. To avoid any unfair practices in publishing activities (plagiarism, presenting false information, etc.) and to ensure a high quality of scientific publications and public recognition of the author’s scientific results, each member of the Editorial Board, publishers, authors, reviewers and institutions involved in the publishing process shall adhere to ethical standards, rules and regulations and take any reasonable steps to prevent their violations. Compliance with these ethical guidelines by all the parties ensures authors’ intellectual property rights, improves the quality of the Journal and excludes a possible misuse of copyright material in the interests of particular individuals.
Key terms used in the given provision:
Publication ethics is a system of professional conduct standards in relations between authors, reviewers, editors, publishers and readers when creating, disseminating and using scientific publications.
The Author is a person or a group of persons (group of authors) who produce a manuscript that contains the results of their scientific research.
The Editor-in-Chief is a person who heads the Editorial Board and makes final decisions concerning production and publication of the Journal.
The Publisher is a legal entity or a natural person responsible for publication.
The Paper is an author’s finished and published work.
Plagiarism is a wrongful appropriation of another author’s scientific or artistic work, ideas, discoveries or inventions. Plagiarism may be a violation of copyright law and patent law and, as such, can entail legal liability.
The Editor is a representative of the research journal or the publisher responsible for selecting and preparing materials for publication and encouraging communication between authors and readers of scientific papers.
The Editorial Board is an advisory body consisting of competent persons who assist the Editor-in-Chief in selecting, preparing and evaluating manuscripts.
The Reviewer is an expert acting on behalf of the research journal or the publisher and providing scientific evaluation of authors’ works in order to consider their publishing.
The Manuscript is an author’s work submitted for publication in the journal.
The Reader is any person who has familiarized themselves with the published materials.
1. The Code of Conduct for Publishers
In carrying out their activities, publishers are responsible for the publication of authors’ works, which implies that the Publisher shall:
1.1. Encourage the Editorial Board, the editorial and publishing group, reviewers and authors to fulfill ethical obligations in compliance with these requirements.
1.2. Assist the Editorial Board of the Journal in considering claims to ethical aspects of the published materials and promote interaction with other journals and/or publishers, if it favors the editors to perform their duties.
1.3. Ensure confidentiality of the submitted manuscript and any information until its publishing.
1.4. Recognize the fact that the activities of the Journal are noncommercial, without any profit motives.
1.5. Publish corrections, clarifications, retractions and apologies when needed.
1.6. Entitle the Editorial Board to reject publications containing plagiarism and false data.
1.7. Have a right to reject the manuscript or require its revision, if it does not comply with the standards of the Journal.
1.8. Make the manuscript, accepted for publication, available to the public on the website; with copyright holders retaining their rights.
1.9. Publish information about research funding, if the author gives such information.
1.10. Take measures to correct factual, grammatical, stylistic and any other errors when such are detected.
1.11. Discuss all editor’s alterations in the manuscript with the author to get their approval.
1.12. Publish the Journal on a timely basis.
2. The Code of Conduct for Authors
When submitting to The Annals of Legal History , authors (groups of authors) are aware that they bear primary responsibility for the novelty and validity of scientific results, which implies adhering to the following principles:
2.1. Authors shall provide reliable research results. Deliberately false or fraudulent statements are not acceptable.
2.2. Authors shall ensure that research results are completely original. Every borrowed fragment or statement must be accompanied by a mandatory reference to the author and the original source. Excessive borrowing and any form of plagiarism including non-documented citations, paraphrasing or appropriating another person’s research results are non-ethical and unacceptable. The Editorial Board regards borrowings without references as plagiarism.
2.3. Authors shall only provide authentic facts and data; give enough information for other researchers to be able to verify and repeat experiments; not use information obtained privately, without an open written consent; not allow data fabrication and falsification.
2.4. Authors shall avoid manuscript duplication (in the cover letter the author shall indicate that the work or any of its fragments have not been published before). If some elements of the manuscript have been previously published, the author shall refer to the earlier work and specify the differences.
2.5. Authors shall not submit the manuscript that has been submitted to another journal and is under consideration, as well as the manuscript already published in another journal.
2.6. It is important to recognize the contribution of all persons who, in one way or another, participated in the research; in particular, the manuscript should contain references to works that significantly influenced the research.
2.7. Authors shall adhere to ethical principles, when criticizing or commenting a third-party research.
2.8. All those who have made significant contributions are to be described as co-authors. It is not acceptable to list persons who did not take part in the research.
2.9. Authors shall respect the work of the Editorial Board and reviewers and eliminate the indicated inaccuracies or justify them.
2.10. Authors shall submit and prepare their manuscripts in compliance with the Journal standards.
2.11. If the author finds significant errors or inaccuracies in the manuscript under consideration or after its publication, they should immediately inform the Editorial Board.
2.12. Authors shall prove to the Editorial Board or the Publisher that their initial manuscript is valid or correct substantial errors, if the Editorial Board has become aware of them from a third party.
3. The Code of Conduct for Reviewers
Reviewers provide scientific expertise of the authors’ material, hence, all their actions shall be impartial, and the following principles shall be adhered to:
3.1. The manuscript received for reviewing shall be treated as a confidential document which cannot be passed for discussion or examination to a third party unless authorized by the Editorial Board.
3.2. Reviewers shall know that the manuscripts they receive are the intellectual property of authors and are not to be disclosed. Confidentiality may only be breached if the reviewer declares unreliability or falsification of the information in the manuscript.
3.3. Reviewers shall inform the Editor-in-Chief about any substantial or partial similarity of the manuscript under consideration and any other work, as well as the absence of references to statements, conclusions or arguments which have been previously published in the papers of this or another author.
3.4. The Reviewer shall note the relevant published works that are not quoted (in the paper).
3.5. Reviewers shall give an objective and reasoned evaluation of the research results, as well as clearly justified recommendations. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate.
3.6. Reviewers’ comments and suggestions shall be objective and essential, aimed at improving the scholarly value of the manuscript.
3.7. Reviewers shall make decisions basing on particular facts and justify them.
3.8. Reviewers are not allowed to make copies of the manuscript for personal use.
3.9. Reviewers cannot take advantage of their awareness of the manuscript content until its publication.
3.10. Reviewers shall request the Editor to exclude them from the reviewing process in case they do not possess the required expertise, or cannot be objective, as in case of competing interests with any of the authors or institutions.
3.11. The manuscript review is confidential. Only the Executive Editor and the Editor-in-Chief know the name of the reviewer; this information shall not be disclosed.
4. The Code of Conduct for the Editor-in-Chief
In carrying out their activities, the Editor-in-Chief is responsible for making authors’ works public, which implies abiding by the following basic principles:
4.1. When deciding on publication, the Editor-in-Chief shall be guided by the validity and scientific significance of the manuscript.
4.2. The Editor-in-Chief shall evaluate the intellectual content of the manuscript regardless of race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, religious beliefs, origin, citizenship, social status or political preferences of the author.
4.3. Unpublished data from the submitted manuscripts shall not be used in personal interests or passed to a third party without the author’s written consent. The information or ideas obtained in the course of editing and related to possible advantages shall stay confidential and not be used for personal benefit.
4.4. The Editor-in-Chief shall not allow the information to be published if there are sufficient grounds to believe that it is plagiarism.
4.5. The Editor-in-Chief shall:
– continuously improve the Journal;
– follow the principle of freedom of opinion;
– strive to meet the needs of the readers and authors of the Journal;
– eliminate the influence of business or political interests on decision-making when publishing materials;
– decide on the publication of materials according to the following main criteria: appropriateness of the manuscript for the Journal; relevance, novelty and scientific significance of the submitted manuscript; clarity; reliability of results and completeness of conclusions. A decision on publication is made on the basis of the quality of the research and its relevance;
– take all reasonable steps to provide a high quality of the published materials and protect the confidentiality of personal information.
– consider recommendations of reviewers when making a final decision on publishing the manuscript. The responsibility for a decision on publication is entirely borne by the Editorial Board of the Journal;
– justify decisions regarding acceptance or rejection of the manuscript;
– allow the author of the reviewed material to substantiate their research viewpoint;
– not revoke the decision on publication made by the previous Board, if the list of the Editorial Board members has been updated.
4.6. The Editor-in-Chief, together with the Publisher, shall not leave unanswered the complaints regarding the peer-reviewed manuscripts or published materials; they also shall detect conflicts and take all necessary measures to restore the rights that have been infringed.
5. Publishing Principles
5.1. Compliancewith publication ethics by the Editorial Board.
5.2. Compliance with the basic principles when rejecting manuscripts.
5.3. Maintenance of the integrity of academic writing.
5.4. Protection of intellectual property and ethical standards in case of any commercial considerations.
5.5. Willingness to publish corrections, clarifications, rejections and apologies when needed.
5.6. Prevention of publication of plagiarism and fraudulent data.
6. Conflict of Interest
To avoid any breach of publication ethics, it is crucial to eliminate any conflicts of interest of all the parties involved in publishing. Conflicts of interest arise when authors, reviewers or members of the editorial board have financial, scientific or personal relations that may influence their actions. Such relations are known as dual commitments, competing interests or competing loyalties.
In order to prevent conflicts of interest and in accordance with the ethical standards adopted by the Journal, each party shall bear the following responsibilities.
The Editor shall:
– pass the manuscript for consideration to another Editorial Board member if the initially appointed reviewer has a conflict of interest with the author of the manuscript;
– ask that all the parties involved in publishing report a potential conflict of interest;
– make decisions to publish the information from the letter of the author concerning scientific and / or financial conflicts of interest if it is not confidential and may affect the published work evaluation by readers or academia;
– publish corrections if a conflict of interest arose after the paper was published.
The Author shall:
– indicate his employer and the source of research funding.
The Reviewer shall:
– inform the Editor-in-Chief about conflicts of interest (dual commitments, competing interests) and decline to review the manuscript.
If publication ethics is breached by the editor, authors or reviewers, a mandatory investigation is required. This applies to both published and unpublished materials. The Editorial Board shall seek clarification, without involving those who may have a conflict of interest with any of the parties.
If the material containing significant inaccuracies has been published, it shall be immediately modified in a way accessible to readers and indexing systems.