Code of Ethics
Journal Code of Ethics
The following are the standards of ethical behaviour expected of all parties involved in publishing in the journal Ricerche Slavistiche: the author, the editorial board, the reviewers and the publisher.
All articles submitted for publication in Ricerche Slavistiche are peer-reviewed for authenticity, ethical issues, and usefulness.
OBLIGATIONS OF EDITORS
Monitoring of ethical standards: the editorial board is monitoring the ethical standards of scientific publications and takes all possible measures against any improper publication practices.
Fair play: submitted manuscripts are evaluated on the basis of their intellectual content without regard to race, gender, sexual orientation, religious beliefs, citizenship or political ideology.
Publication decisions: the editorial board is responsible for deciding which of the submitted articles should or should not be published. The decision to accept or reject an article for publication is based on its importance, originality, clarity and relevance to the journal's purpose.
Confidentiality: the editor and members of the editorial board must ensure that all materials submitted to the journal remain confidential during review. They must not disclose any information about a submitted manuscript to anyone other than authors, reviewers, potential reviewers, other editorial advisors, and the publisher.
Disclosure and Conflict of Interest: Unpublished materials disclosed in the submitted manuscript must not be used by the publisher and editorial board in their own research without the written consent of the authors. Publishers will always prevent business needs from compromising intellectual and ethical standards.
Preservation of the record: Editors will safeguard the integrity of the published academic record by issuing corrections and retractions when necessary and by pursuing suspected or alleged research and publication misconduct. Plagiarism and fraudulent data are not acceptable.
The editors will always be available to issue corrections, clarifications, retractions and apologies when necessary.
Withdrawal of articles: journal editors will consider withdrawing a publication if they
- they have clear evidence that the results are unreliable, due to misconduct (e.g. fabrication of data) or honest error (e.g. calculation error or experimental error)
- results have been previously published elsewhere without adequate cross-referencing, authorisation or justification (cases of redundant publication)
- constitutes plagiarism or indicates unethical research.
The withdrawal notice should be linked to the withdrawn article (including the title and authors in the withdrawal header), clearly identify the withdrawn article and indicate who is withdrawing the article. Withdrawal notices should always mention the reasons for the retraction to distinguish honest error from misconduct.
Withdrawn articles will not be removed from printed copies of the journal or from electronic archives but their withdrawn status will be indicated as clearly as possible.
AUTHORS' OBLIGATIONS
Reporting standards: authors of original research reports should present an accurate account of their work, as well as an objective discussion of its significance. The underlying data should be accurately represented in the document. The document should contain sufficient detail and references to allow others to replicate the work. Fabricating results and making fraudulent or inaccurate statements constitutes unethical behaviour and may result in the rejection or retraction of a manuscript or published article.
Originality and plagiarism: authors must ensure that they have written entirely original work and, if authors have used the work and/or words of others, they must be quoted or cited. Plagiarism and fraudulent data are not acceptable.
Retention of access to data: authors may be asked to provide raw data for editorial review, should be prepared to provide public access to this data, and should be prepared to retain this data for a reasonable time after publication of their article.
Multiple or simultaneous publication: authors should generally not publish a manuscript describing essentially the same research in more than one journal. Submission of the same manuscript to more than one journal at the same time constitutes unethical publication behaviour and is unacceptable.
Authorship of the manuscript: authorship should be limited to those who have made a significant contribution to the conception, design, execution, or interpretation of the study report. All contributors should be listed as co-authors.
The corresponding author should ensure that all appropriate co-authors and no inappropriate co-authors are included in the paper and that all co-authors have seen and approved the final version of the paper and consented to its submission for publication.
Acknowledgement of sources: due acknowledgement must always be given to the work of others. Authors should cite publications that have been influential in determining the scope of the work reported.
Fundamental errors in published work: when the author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in their published work, it is the author's obligation to inform the journal editor or publisher promptly and to work with the editor to withdraw or correct the article.
OBLIGATIONS OF REVIEWERS
Contribution to editorial decisions: peer reviews assist the editor in making editorial decisions and can also help authors improve their manuscript.
Timeliness: any selected referee who feels unqualified to review the research in a manuscript or knows that timely review will be impossible must notify the editor and excuse themselves from the review process.
Confidentiality: all manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. They must not be shown or discussed with others except those authorised by the editor.
Standard of objectivity: reviews must be conducted objectively. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate. Reviewers should clearly express their opinions with appropriate supporting arguments.
Acknowledgement of sources: reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors. Any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under review and any other published paper should be reported to the editor.
Disclosure and conflict of interest: privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review should be kept confidential and not used for personal gain. Reviewers should not consider evaluating manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest arising from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships with the authors, companies, or institutions involved.
