Publication Ethics & Malpractice Statement
Our Publication Ethics and Publication Malpractice Statement are based on the Best Practice Guidelines for Authors, Reviewers, Editor and Publishers and the position statements developed by the COPE's Best Practice Guidelines of the Committee on Publication Ethics.
All manuscripts submitted to the SWS Scholarly Society journals, proceedings and books are subject to double-blind peer review, with acceptance (without guarantees), based solely on the peer review evaluations of 2 or 3 independent reviewers. We believe that anonymous peer reviewers are the best way to evaluate the manuscripts honestly. Therefore, the SWS Scholarly Society International Scientific Committee excludes direct contact of the reviewers with the authors.
We consider and keep the COPE's Ethical Guidelines for every submitted article during the whole peer review processing.
Publication Ethics and Publication Malpractice Statement
For all parties involved in the act of publishing (the Author, the Editors, the Reviewers and the Publisher), it is necessary to agree upon standards of expected ethical behavior. Therefore, the ethics statements for SWS Scholarly Society journals, proceedings, and books are based on the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors.
The Author declares that the manuscript is original and in its present form has not been published elsewhere in any form, that it has not been submitted to any journal/proceedings, and that it will not be submitted to any other journal/proceedings if it is accepted for publication in the SWS Scholarly Society journals, proceedings and books.
The Authors are responsible for the research and for the results described in the article. Suppose the article is a joined work of several authors (co-authors). In that case, the Author who submits the article declares that any person named as the Author (co-author) of the Article is aware of the requirements of this agreement and has agreed to be so named.
The Author warrants that the article does not infringe upon any copyright, contains no libelous or otherwise unlawful statements and does not otherwise infringe on the rights of others.
The Author transfers the copyright for this publication/article to the Publisher.
The Author licenses the Publisher the right to distribute the article as a part of SWS Scholarly Society proceedings or journals or books or archives, or any other issue managed by the Society;
The Author has the rights to:
- Distribute non-commercially individual hard copies of the article to the interested parties, with proper citation to the published source.
- Use, after publication, part or all of the article, properly acknowledging the source and the Publisher.
Authors of original research articles should present an accurate account of the work performed and an objective discussion of its significance. Underlying data should be represented accurately in the manuscript. It should contain sufficient detail and references to permit others to replicate the work. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behaviour and are unacceptable.
Data Access and Retention
Authors are 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 and be ready to retain such data for a reasonable time after publication.
Originality and Plagiarism
Authors should ensure that the submitted work is original and has not been published elsewhere in any language. If the authors have used the work and/or words of others, this has been appropriately cited or quoted.
Applicable copyright laws and conventions should be followed. Copyright material (e.g. tables, figures or extensive quotations) should be reproduced only with appropriate permission and acknowledgment.
Multiple, redundant or concurrent publication
An author should not generally publish manuscripts describing the same research in more than one journal/proceedings or primary publication. Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal/proceeding concurrently constitutes unethical publishing behaviour and is unacceptable.
Acknowledgment of sources
Proper acknowledgment of the work of others must always be given. Authors should cite publications that have influenced the nature of the reported work.
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 co-authors. Others who have participated in certain substantive aspects of the research project should be acknowledged or listed as contributors.
The corresponding Author should ensure that all appropriate co-authors and no inappropriate co-authors are included on the paper and that all co-authors have seen and approved the final version of the paper and have agreed to its submission for publication.
Therefore author/s should fill in and send the Publishing Copyright Agreement to the Editorial Board by e-mail or fax.
If the work involves chemicals, procedures or equipment that have any unusual hazards inherent in their use, the Author must identify these in the manuscript.
Reporting of research involving humans or animals
Appropriate approval, licensing or registration should be obtained before the research begins, and details should be provided in the report (e.g. Institutional Review Board, Research Ethics Committee approval, national licensing authorities for the use of animals).
If requested by editors, authors should supply evidence that the reported research received the appropriate approval and was carried out ethically (e.g. copies of approvals, licenses, participant consent forms).
Researchers should not generally publish or share identifiable data collected during research without specific consent from the individual (or their representative).
The appropriate statistical analyses should be determined at the start of the study and a data analysis plan for the pre-specified outcomes should be prepared and followed. Secondary analyses should be distinguished from primary analyses and those set out in the data analysis plan. Researchers should publish all meaningful research results that might contribute to understanding.
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. 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 their published work, it is the Author’s obligation to promptly notify the editor or Publisher and cooperate with the editor to retract or correct the paper.
Any manuscripts received for peer review must be treated as confidential documents. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be confidential and not used for personal advantage.
Reviews should be conducted objectively, and observations should be formulated clearly with supporting arguments so that authors can use them to improve the paper. Any selected referee who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows its prompt review will be impossible should notify the editor and excuse himself from the review process.
Reviewers should not consider manuscripts with conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers.
Contribution to editorial decisions
Peer review assists the editor in making editorial decisions and, through the editorial communication
with the Author, may also assist the Author in improving the manuscript.
An editor at any time evaluates manuscripts for their intellectual content without regard to the nature of the authors or the host institution's race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy.
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 so that alternative reviewers
can be contacted.
The editors and any editorial staff must not disclose information about a submitted manuscript to anyone other than the corresponding Author, reviewers, potential reviewers, other editorial advisers, and the Publisher, as appropriate. SWS Scholarly Society operates a web-based submission system, which is run in a way that prevents unauthorized access. In the case of a misconduct investigation, SWS Scholarly Society may disclose material to third parties (e.g., an institutional investigation committee or other editors).
Standards of objectivity
Reviews should be conducted objectively. Personal criticism of the Author is unacceptable. Referees
should express their views clearly with appropriate supporting arguments.
Acknowledgment of sources
Reviewers should identify relevant published work that the authors have not cited. Any
a 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
Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in an editor's own research without the author's express written consent.
When readers, authors, or editors point out genuine errors in published work that do not render the work invalid, a correction (or erratum) will be published as soon as possible. The paper's online version may be corrected with a modification date and a link to the printed erratum. If the error renders the work or substantial parts of it invalid, the paper should be retracted with an explanation as to the reason for retraction (i.e., honest error).
Ensuring the integrity of the published record – suspected research or publication misconduct
Suppose serious concerns are raised by readers, reviewers, or others, about the conduct, validity, or reporting of academic work. In that case, SWS Scholarly Society Publishing Team will initially contact the authors and allow them to respond to the concerns and will take this to the institutional level if that response is unsatisfactory. In cases when problems are very serious, SWS Scholarly Society may consider informing readers about these concerns by issuing an ‘expression of concern’, while the investigation is ongoing. Once an investigation is concluded, SWS Scholarly Society will publish a comment explaining the investigation's findings.
SWS Scholarly Society may retract a paper if the Editorial Board is convinced that serious misconduct has happened, even if an institution or national body investigation does not recommend it.
SWS Scholarly Society will respond to all allegations or suspicions of research or publication misconduct raised by readers, reviewers, or other editors. In addition, the journal or proceedings will assess possible plagiarism or duplicate/redundant publication cases. In other cases, SWS Scholarly Society may request an investigation by the institution or other appropriate bodies (after seeking an explanation from the authors first and if that explanation is unsatisfactory).
Retracted papers will be retained online and prominently marked as a retraction in all online versions, including the PDF, for the benefit of future readers.
COPE’s Guidelines will guide the editor for Retracting Articles when considering retracting, issuing expressions of concern about and giving corrections to articles published in SWS Scholarly Society journals, proceedings and books. Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in an editor’s own research without the Author's express written consent. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be confidential and not used for personal advantage.
The editors are committed to ensuring that advertising, reprint, or other commercial revenue has no
impact or influence on editorial decisions and should provide a fair and appropriate peer review process.
They should refrain from considering manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships with any of the authors or institutions connected to the papers. Editors should require all contributors to disclose relevant competing interests and publish corrections if competing interests are revealed after publication. If needed, other appropriate action should be taken, such as the publication of a retraction or expressing concern.
The editors are responsible for deciding which articles submitted to the journal/proceedings should be published. Moreover, he/she is accountable for everything published in the journal/proceedings. In making these decisions, the editor may be guided by the editorial board's policies and by legal requirements regarding libel, copyright infringement, and plagiarism. The editor may confer with other editors or reviewers when making publication decisions. The editor should maintain the integrity of the academic record, preclude business needs from compromising intellectual and ethical standards, and always be willing to publish corrections, clarifications, retractions, and apologies when needed.
The editor should evaluate manuscripts for intellectual content without regard to race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy of the Author (s). The editor will not disclose any information about a manuscript under consideration to anyone other than the author(s), reviewers and potential reviewers, and in some instances, the editorial board members, as appropriate.
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.
Involvement and cooperation in investigations
Editors should guard the integrity of the published record by issuing corrections and retractions when needed and pursuing suspected or alleged research and publication misconduct. Editors should
pursue reviewer and editorial misconduct. An editor should take reasonably responsive measures when ethical complaints have been presented concerning a submitted manuscript or published paper.
SWS Scholarly Society journals, proceedings and books are permanently archived on their own file servers, mirrored in a web-based cloud service, and independent of electricity and internet connection problems. Access to our accepted and published articles is provided through our electronic library https://ssalibrary.at
In cases of alleged or proven scientific misconduct, fraudulent publication or plagiarism the Publisher, in close collaboration with the editors, will take all appropriate measures to clarify the situation and to amend the article in question. This includes the prompt publication of an erratum or, in the most severe cases, the complete retraction of the affected work.
PUBLISHING COPYRIGHT AGREEMENT
Author/s should fill in and send the Publishing Copyright Agreement to the SWS Scholarly Society Review Committee by e-mail or fax. This signed statement must be received by the Review Committee when the manuscript is accepted for review for possible publication in SWS Scholarly Society journals or proceedings or books. Authors of manuscripts will assign Transfer of copyright Agreement to SWS Scholarly Society Scientific Committee the permanent right to distribute their papers, but they will retain their copyright. After the paper has appeared in the journal or proceedings, authors may republish their texts as long as they acknowledge SWS Scholarly Society as the original Publisher and the only source for citation purposes.