Publication ethic
Paginae historiae publication ethics
The journal’s publication ethics are governed by the standards of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). The goal is to avoid unlawful and unethical practices at all stages of the Paginae historiae publishing process.
Peer-review process
- The review process normally takes eight weeks. This period is calculated from the date on which the article to be reviewed, in a version drafted in line with the guidelines set out in the Instructions for Authors, is received by the Editorial Department.
- Each manuscript offered for publication in the journal is initially assessed by an editor and is then reviewed by at least two independent reviewers who do not have a conflict of interest with the author. Before a submitted manuscript is put forward for peer review, an editor may refuse it for failing to meet the requisite formal criteria and request that it be revised to comply with the Instructions for Authors.
- Authors and reviewers remain anonymous to each other throughout the review process.
- The reviewers who are approached fill in the review form to indicate whether they recommend the manuscript for acceptance, revision, or rejection. They justify their decision in their review report, which should also include recommendations for revisions to the text.
- Based on the reviews and the Editorial Board’s recommendations, the Editorial Department informs the author whether the text has been accepted for publication without changes, subject to minor revisions, or subject to major revisions, or whether it has been rejected for publication in the journal.
- Upon submission of a revised version of the article, the Editorial Department decides whether the revision is satisfactory. If it is not, the article may be returned to the author for further revision. If reviewers have recommended a fundamental reworking of the article, it then goes through another round of peer review, in which both the original and new reviewers may be involved.
- Authors who have reservations about the reviewers’ observations may contact the Editorial Department to express their opinion. This opinion is discussed by the journal’s Editorial Board and is also shared with the reviewers. The final decision on whether to accept or reject a submission is the responsibility of the editor-in-chief.
Duties of authors
- Authors guarantee that they have not offered the manuscript simultaneously to another journal and that the same manuscript has not been published elsewhere. They also guarantee that their submission is not plagiarised or redundant.
- Authors hold the copyright to their text.
- Authors cannot remain anonymous in their communication with the Editorial Department. Upon submitting their manuscript, they also provide their contact details for further communication with the Editorial Department.
- Authors are required to follow the instructions for authors as set out by the Editorial Department on the journal’s website and to comply with all formal requirements listed therein, including the rules for citing sources.
- Authors are obligated to respond to reviewers’ observations and to make suggested revisions based on those observations. Authors who do not consider the reviewers’ recommendations to be well justified have the right to direct their opinion to the managing editor, who has a duty to share this opinion with the reviewers and the Editorial Board.
- Authors are required to cite sources for each plate section they intend to publish as part of their paper. If they have not negotiated the rights to publish such sections, they are obliged to notify the Editorial Department in advance.
- Authors are obliged to mention any grants or other funding that have made the article possible.
Duties of reviewers
- Reviewers have a duty to alert the Editorial Department of any suspected plagiarism or other unethical publishing practices in the article under review.
- Reviewers follow the editorial guidelines, and are particularly careful to meet the deadlines set by the Editorial Department. Reviewers who know that they will not be able to submit the review by the deadline must notify the Editorial Department at once.
- Reviewers must remain objective and review papers without bias. They must substantiate all their views and observations with clearly explained arguments. Reviewers should avoid conflicts of interest, or, if any such conflicts arise, they must notify the journal’s Editorial Department thereof in good time and withdraw from the review.
- Submissions under review are confidential and must be treated as such. Reviewers may not redistribute a submission, provide it to others, or misuse the information or knowledge contained therein for personal or other purposes.
- The reviewer’s factual and general comments should be stated clearly in the review or in the manuscript. The conclusion of the review should clearly indicate whether and under what conditions the reviewer recommends the paper for publication.
Duties of the Editorial Department
- The Editorial Department is responsible for the overall content of the journal, its expert focus and the quality of the submissions published.
- The Editorial Department aims to prevent potential conflicts of interest between authors and reviewers. It is obliged to ensure that all parties remain mutually anonymous.
- The Editorial Department makes sure that those contacted to review a manuscript are experts in the field covered by that manuscript.
- The Editorial Department respects the authorial and literary style of the author of a paper, provided that it does not deviate from the standards of a scholarly text.
- The Editorial Department remains objective and unbiased, treats authors’ submissions as confidential and does not share them with any other party except the reviewers and the Editorial Board.
- The Editorial Department does not include a manuscript in the journal that is suspected of being unoriginal, a product of plagiarism, or otherwise in significant violation of the journal’s publication ethics.
- The Editorial Department draws up supporting documentation for the journal’s Editorial Board and notifies it if authors raise any objections to review observations or lodge any other complaints.
- It makes the final decision on whether to reject or accept a submission for publication.