Publication Ethics and Publication Malpractice Statement

Publication Ethics and Publication Malpractice Statement

Science Dialectica is committed to upholding the highest standards of publication ethics and takes all possible measures against publication malpractice. This statement is based on the guidelines and standards of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).
Responsibilities of Editors

    Fair Play: The editors evaluate submitted manuscripts based on their academic merit, originality, and relevance to the journal's scope, without regard to the authors’ race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy.
    Confidentiality: The editorial team ensures that submitted manuscripts are handled with confidentiality, disclosing information only to the corresponding author, reviewers, and other relevant parties.
    Conflict of Interest: Editors must not use unpublished information in their research without written consent from the author(s). Any conflicts of interest must be disclosed.

Responsibilities of Authors

    Originality and Plagiarism: Authors must ensure that their works are original and appropriately cite or quote the work and ideas of others.
    Data Access and Retention: Authors should provide raw data for editorial review upon request and retain such data for a reasonable time after publication.
    Multiple or Concurrent Submissions: Authors must not submit the same manuscript to more than one journal concurrently.
    Acknowledgment of Sources: Proper acknowledgment of the work of others must be given. Authors should cite publications that have influenced their work.
    Authorship: All individuals who have made a significant contribution to the research should be listed as co-authors, and the corresponding author should ensure all co-authors have approved the final version of the paper.
    Disclosure of Conflicts of Interest: Authors must disclose any conflicts of interest that might influence the results or interpretation of their manuscript.

Responsibilities of Reviewers

    Contribution to Editorial Decisions: Peer reviewers assist the editorial team in making publication decisions and provide constructive feedback to authors to improve their manuscripts.
    Confidentiality: Reviewers must treat submitted manuscripts as confidential documents and not disclose their content to others.
    Objectivity: Reviews should be conducted objectively, with no personal criticism of the author. Feedback should be clear and supported with arguments.
    Acknowledgment of Sources: Reviewers should identify relevant published work not cited by the authors and report any overlap or similarity with other published works.
    Conflict of Interest: Reviewers should not consider manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest.

Responsibilities of the Publisher

    Science Dialectica ensures that all aspects of publishing ethics and malpractice are adhered to during the publication process.
    The publisher is committed to supporting editors, authors, and reviewers in performing their ethical responsibilities.
    The publisher ensures that no commercial interests compromise editorial decisions.

Dealing with Misconduct

    Allegations of misconduct are taken seriously, and Science Dialectica follows COPE’s guidelines for investigating and resolving such cases.
    When ethical concerns are raised about a manuscript, the editorial team will work with the authors and, if necessary, the authors' institution(s) to resolve the issue.
    In cases of proven misconduct, corrections, retractions, or expressions of concern will be issued as appropriate.

Plagiarism Policy

Science Dialectica uses plagiarism detection software to screen submitted manuscripts. Manuscripts with a similarity index above a certain threshold will be returned to authors for revision or rejected outright.