Publication Ethics & Publication Malpractice

Research and Publication Ethics

1.1. Publication Ethics Statement

The editorial panel of the Journal of Ethnic Microhistory (JEMH), which includes publisher Dr Walther Friesen acting on behalf of the registered association Training and Research Centre ETHNOS (Ausbildungs- und Forschungszentrum ETHNOS e.V., AFZ ETHNOS) and
the journal’s editorial board, fully complies with the Committee on Publication Ethics’ (COPE) Code of Conduct and Best Practice Guidelines (https://publicationethics .org/).

The editorial panel is responsible for ensuring that the journal’s publications are of high scientific quality and adhere to strict academic standards. The panel also enforces rigorous peer review and upholds the highest ethical standards in scholarly publishing. Any ethical issues raised by readers of the journal will be examined by the editorial panel in accordance with COPE guidelines (https://publicationethics.org/files/u7141/1999pdf13.pdf).

1.2. Ethics in Publishing
JEMH abides by the COPE’s Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing registered as a COPE user (https://members.publicationethics.org/user/1308464/edit), among other things. For handling potentially unethical behaviour by authors, reviewers, or editors, JEMH adheres to COPE’s policies. The editorial panel has received training in spotting and handling ethical issues (e.g.: https://www.afz-ethnos .org/index.php/aktuelles/329-obs-seminar-medienkompetenz). The directions for JEMH authors include information on ethical considerations for submitting manuscripts (https://ethnicmicrohistory.com/privacy-policy/).
The editorial panel investigates any ethical concerns brought up by journal readers using the COPE-recommended processes. It can resolve disagreements over the reliability of research reported in articles that have been published.
Disagreements regarding authorship, data ownership and author misconduct can be submitted to external bodies such as university ethics committees when appropriate. Authors are urged to respond to any allegations made against them with evidence.
The editorial panel adheres to COPE principles, notably How to spot authorship problems, when handling authorship disputes (https://publicationethics.org/guidance/flowchart/how-spot-authorship-problems).

Copyright Notice and Licensing

In case of acceptance, JEMH will publish contributions on the Journal’s website (https://ethnicmicrohistory.com/). The authors may publish their contributions on his/her personal Web page or any other web page if he/she creates a link to the mentioned issue of
JEMH. Similarly, JEMH may publish the contribution in other databases and web pages provided that a link to the mentioned issue of JEMH is created.

The author warrants that his/her contribution is original, except for such excerpts from copyrighted works as may be included with the permission of the copyright holder and does not infringe on any copyright, trademark, patent, statutory right, or propriety right of others.
The author also agrees for and accepts responsibility for releasing this material on behalf of all co-authors. For all articles published in the JEMH, copyright is retained by the author in the context of an open-access Creative Commons CC BY 4.0 license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode.en), meaning that readers can download and study the paper for free. Upon submission of a paper to JEMH, authors agree to comply with an open access Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license.
In the case of previously published content, it is important to underline that prior to submission, authors have obtained written permission to reproduce any published material.

3. Editor Code of Conduct

The JEMH editors comply with the code of conduct and COPE guidelines to advance knowledge within the journal’s fields of research. The editors ensure this essential role by:

Maintaining and improving the quality of manuscripts published by the journal and the integrity of its peer review process,
Supporting the journal’s authors and reviewers,
Maintaining and improving the journal’s reputation in collaboration with the journal’s editorial team.
The editorial panel ensures that authors comply with the institutional review board guidelines regarding issues related to the participation of human subjects (e.g. https://irb.byu.edu/the-irb-process#richtext-criteria-of-app) and vulnerable populations (e.g.
children and parent/guardian consent). These guidelines are presented in the following link: https://irb.byu.edu/the-irb-process.

3.1. Publication Decisions
It is the responsibility of the editorial panel to decide which papers submitted to the journal will be published. Manuscripts are evaluated regardless of the authors’ race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship or political philosophy. Decisions are
based on the importance, originality, clarity and validity of the study, as well as its relevance to the scope of the journal. Current legal requirements regarding libel, copyright infringement and plagiarism are also considered.

3.2. Confidentiality
The editorial panel does not disclose any information about a submitted manuscript to anyone other than the corresponding author, the reviewers and the printing houses (https://www.bod.de/; https://www.rediroma-verlag.de/).

3.3. Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest
The members of the editorial panel will not use unpublished materials disclosed in submitted papers for their own research purposes without the author’s explicit written consent.

Editorial Process

4.1. Pre-check
The JEMH editorial panel conducts an initial inspection immediately after submission to determine the overall suitability of the manuscript for the journal and whether it meets the high academic requirements of accuracy necessary for additional review. Invited academic editors have the discretion to request amendments prior to peer review, reject a submission or continue with the peer review process.

4.2. Peer Review
4.2.1. General Guidelines for Peer Review and Editing
All submissions to JEMH for publication are expected to meet the highest academic standards and are subject to rigorous, well-established, fair and unbiased double-blind peer review by professionals. Upon arrival, each paper undergoes an initial review by the journal’s managing editor, who determines its acceptability and compliance with the journal’s guidelines. The editor will then consult with the editorial panel before deciding on appropriate next steps, which may include recruiting reviewers with specific expertise and assessment by additional editors.
The editorial panel will then organise the peer-review process for the independent experts and gather at least two review reports for each submission. The identities of the peer reviewers will remain anonymous to the authors. Before reaching a decision, the editors may
request that the authors make sufficient modifications and, if necessary, conduct a second round of peer review.

4.2.2. Peer-review Process
All submitted manuscripts are expected to meet standards of academic excellence and are subject to initial appraisal by the editorial panel and, if found suitable for further consideration, to peer review by independent, anonymous experts. No paper will be automatically rejected for being too applied or too theoretical. Skilled papers from any field of ethnic microhistory are encouraged. Authors are required to present their scientific findings clearly and stimulate a broad academic debate on the subject explored in the paper.
JEMH operates a double-blind peer review system, in which the author and reviewer are both unaware of each other’s identities.
At least two review reports are gathered for every article that is submitted. During pre-
check, any member of the editorial panel may suggest reviewers. The JEMH editorial panel will use qualified members of the editorial panel, qualified reviewers from the JEMH database, or fresh reviewers found through online searches for similar articles.
Authors may recommend potential reviewers. The JEMH editorial panel will check for any conflicts of interest and disqualify those who have them. When initially submitting their paper, authors can choose to provide the names of potential peer reviewers they would prefer

not to be considered for the manuscript’s peer review. Provided these requirements do not obstruct the editorial team’s ability to conduct an unbiased and complete evaluation of the submission, the editorial panel will abide by them. All reviewers are subjected to the following checks:

• have no financial ties to any of the authors;
• should not be affiliated with the authors’ institution;
• should not have co-authored a publication within the last three years with the authors;
• possess appropriate expertise and a track record of publications in the topic represented by the submitted article (Scopus, ORCID);
• are proficient academics in the subject matter of the research submitted;
• own a recognized and approved academic affiliation.

Reviewers who agree to examine a paper should:

• have no ties to any of the authors;
• possess the required knowledge to assess the level of a paper;
• throughout peer review, deliver high-quality review reports and show responsiveness;
• uphold moral and professional norms.

After accepting a review invitation, reviewers have the agreed time limit to complete their reviews. Requests for extensions can be considered.
The JEMH editorial panel may consult additional experts before deciding on appropriate actions.
The designated member of the JEMH editorial panel or employee is responsible for handling all correspondence with authors and reviewers, as agreed.

4.2.3. Option for Open Peer Review
JEMH publications use an open peer-review process that gives authors the option of publishing reviewer feedback and their responses alongside their work. If the review is published, reviewers also have the option of signing their reports. In this case, the reviewer’s
name will appear on the report (this is referred to as open identity). No information will be published if an article is rejected. Open peer review improves transparency in the review process and provides curious readers with more details about the publication.

4.3. Revision
If some changes are needed, the EMH editorial panel will ask the author to modify the article before sending it to the academic editor. Before deciding whether to offer adjustments to authors in cases of conflicting review reports or one or more rejection recommendations, the academic editor may request input and ask for more reviewers or review reports.

4.4. Editor’s Choice
After peer review, the academic editor can decide whether to accept a manuscript after receiving at least two review reports. An academic editor (or another suitable editorial panel member) makes acceptance decisions. The editorial panel anticipates that the academic editor will look at the appropriateness of the chosen reviewers’ criticisms and the author’s answer, as well as the paper’s overall scientific quality before deciding.
The academic editor has the choice of accepting the work in its present form, accepting it with minor changes, rejecting it and declining resubmission, rejecting it but encouraging resubmission, asking the author to make improvements, or asking for a second reviewer.
The editorial panel or academic editors are free to disagree with the reviewers’ recommendations. If they do, they ought to include an explanation of why for the benefit of the authors and reviewers.
Sometimes a decision to accept a manuscript is supported by an academic editor despite a reviewer’s suggestion to reject it. Before sending a final decision to the authors, the JEMH editorial panel will request a second, independent opinion from an editorial board member.

4.5. Editorial Impartiality
All publications by JEMH are subject to peer review and evaluation by its independent editorial board. JEMH staff are not involved in selecting manuscripts for publication. The JEMH editorial panel expects the academic editor to decide exclusively on the basis of the
appropriateness of the reviewers’ criticisms and the author’s response, as well as the paper’s overall scientific quality.
JEMH rules are influenced by the objective to make science and research findings open and available as broadly and quickly as possible.

5. Ethical Guidelines for Authors

• Only those who have significantly contributed to the manuscript and claim authorship should be included as authors.
• Simultaneous submission of manuscripts to more than one journal is not acceptable.
• Original research outcome must be novel and not previously published.
• Appropriate funding statements need to be included in the manuscript.
• Appropriate acknowledgments are made within the manuscript.
• Research errors are disclosed immediately to JEMH editorial panel.
• Informed consent and responsible conduct are ensured to protect research participants’ rights.

5.1. Authors’ Duties
5.1.1. Reporting Standards
The authors of original research reports should provide an accurate account of the work performed, alongside an objective discussion of its significance. The underlying data should be accurately represented in the paper. The paper should contain sufficient detail and
references to enable others to replicate the work. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements are unacceptable and constitute unethical behaviour.

5.1.2. Data Access and Retention
Authors may be asked to provide the raw data from their study alongside the paper for editorial review, and they should be prepared to make the data publicly available where practicable. In any case, authors should ensure that such data is accessible to other competent
professionals for at least ten years after publication, provided that the confidentiality of participants can be protected and that legal rights concerning proprietary data do not prevent their release.
5.1.3. Originality, Plagiarism Policy, Data Fabrication, and Image Manipulation The journal publishes only original peer-reviewed articles.
Plagiarism is not acceptable. If plagiarism is detected, the manuscript will be rejected and the necessary action will be taken in line with the Publication Ethics Guidelines.
Plagiarism can occur in two forms:

Authors intentionally copy someone else’s work and claiming it as their own.
Authors copy their own previously published material, either in full or in part, without
providing appropriate references. This is also known as “self-plagiarism” or “duplicate
publication”.

The JEMH editorial panel considers each case of plagiarism on its own merits. If plagiarism is detected by the editors or peer reviewers at any stage before a manuscript is published – whether before or after acceptance, during editing, or at the page proof stage – the
editorial panel will alert the author(s) and ask them to either rewrite or correctly cite the plagiarised text. If the plagiarism is extensive, i.e. if at least 25% of the original submission is plagiarised, the article may be rejected and the author’s institution/employer notified.
Every manuscript submitted for publication is checked for plagiarism after submission, before being sent to an editor for review. The JEMH editorial panel uses effective plagiarism-checking software to detect instances of overlapping and similar text in the manuscript.
Authors must only submit entirely original works, appropriately citing or quoting the work and/or words of others where necessary.

5.1.4. Using Third-Party Material
To ensure compliance with copyright law, authors must obtain written permission from the relevant third party to include their material in their articles.
5.1.5. Citation Policy
Where text, images, illustrations, tables or other materials are taken from other sources (including the author’s previously published manuscripts), the source must be clearly indicated and cited. Appropriate permission must also be obtained.
Authors must avoid excessive or inappropriate self-citation, as well as prearranging to cite each other’s work inappropriately. Such behaviour can be considered a form of misconduct called citation manipulation. Please refer to the COPE guidance on citation manipulation (https://publicationethics.org/guidance/cope-position/handling-citation-manipulation).

The author(s) of a non-research article (e.g. a review or opinion piece) should ensure that the cited references are relevant and provide a fair and balanced overview of the current state of research or scholarly work on the topic. References should not show an unfair bias towards a particular research group, organisation or journal.

5.2. Conflict of Interests
The involvement of anyone other than the authors, who
1. has an interest in the outcome of the work;
2. is affiliated to an organisation with such an interest;
3. was employed or paid by a funder, in the commissioning, conception, planning, design,
conduct, or analysis of the work; the preparation or editing of the manuscript; or the decision
to publish
must be declared.

5.3. Competing Interests
Competing interests can be financial or non-financial in nature. To ensure transparency, the author(s) must also declare any associations which can be perceived by others as a competing interest.

5.4. Authorship
Authors listed on an article must meet all the following criteria:

Made a significant contribution to the work reported, whether that’s in the conception, study design, execution, acquisition of data, analysis and interpretation, or in all these areas.
Have drafted or written, or substantially revised or critically reviewed the article.
Reviewed and agreed on all versions of the article before submission, during revision, the final version accepted for publication, and any significant changes introduced at the proofing stage.
Agree to take responsibility and be accountable for the contents of the article and to share the responsibility to resolve any questions raised about the accuracy or integrity of the published work.

5.5. Corrections and Retractions
If errors are identified in a published article, the editorial panel will consider what action is required and may also consult the associate editors and the institution(s) of the author(s).
If errors are found that significantly affect the conclusions, or if evidence of misconduct emerges, this may require a retraction or an expression of concern, in accordance with the COPE Retraction Guidelines (https://publicationethics.org/guidance/retraction-guidelines).

6. Reviewers’ Ethics and Responsibilities

6.1. Contribution to Editorial Decisions
The peer-review process helps the editor and editorial panel make editorial decisions, and can also help authors improve their papers.

6.2. Promptness
Any referee who is selected but feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript, or who knows that she/he will be unable to review it promptly, should notify the editorial panel and withdraw from the review process.

6.3. Confidentiality
All manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. They must not be disclosed to or discussed with anyone else, except with the authorisation of the editorial panel.

6.4. Standards of Objectivity
Reviews should be objective. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate. Referees should clearly express their views, providing supporting arguments.

6.5. Acknowledgement of Sources
Reviewers should identify cases where relevant published work referred to in the paper is missing from the reference section. They should also check whether observations or arguments derived from other publications are accompanied by the respective source.
Reviewers should notify the editorial panel of any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published paper of which they are aware.

6.6. Disclosure and Conflict of Interest
Any privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and must not be used for personal gain. Reviewers should avoid considering manuscripts in which they have a conflict of interest arising from competitive, collaborative or other
relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies or institutions associated with the papers.

7. Open Access Policy

7.1. Open Access Information and Policy
JEMH publishes all articles under the open-access model, defined under Budapest, Berlin and Bethesda open access declarations:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Open_Access_Initiative
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berlin_Declaration_on_Open_Access_to_Knowledge_in_the_Sciences_and_Humanities
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bethesda_Statement_on_Open_Access_Publishing

The full content of articles published by JEMH is freely available for anyone to read, download, print, use, reuse and build upon. These articles are distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International Licence, which allows for unrestricted use,
distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author(s) and publisher are credited. The copyright of the published work is retained by the authors. JEMH will always provide free access to all articles published without obligation or restriction to readers
anywhere in the world.

http://creativecommons .org/licenses/by/4.0/

7.2. Copyright / Open Access
Articles published in JEMH are Open Access articles, distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution Licence (CC BY), irrespective of the following note that may be inserted at the end of the published text:
“© 20__ by the authors; licensee JEMH. This is an open access article, distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution License.”
Copyright is retained by the author(s).

7.3. Meaning of Open Access
In line with the key definitions of open access in scientific literature (specifically the Budapest, Berlin and Bethesda declarations), JEMH defines open access as follows:

There is no need for subscription or payment.
Published material can be reused without obtaining permission, provided an appropriate citation to the original publication is given.

7.4. Advantages of Open Access for Authors
The unlimited accessibility of the publication over the Internet vouches for the high availability and visibility of the JEMH open access articles.

• The popularity of open access articles leads to a higher citation impact.
• Open access publishers (including JEMH) offer lower publishing costs.
• Articles are more rapidly published in open access journals (including JEMH)

8. Legal Notice

Neither the JEMH editorial board nor any person acting on its behalf can be held responsible for how the information contained in the published articles is used, nor for any errors that may appear despite careful preparation and checking.