In Eidos. A Journal for Philosophy of Culture we maintain the best standards of publication ethics and take all available measures against publication malpractices. Ethical behavior, based on the proper and commonly accepted standards, are expected from all the parties participating in the publishing process. Accordingly, following instructions provided by Elsevier and by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), we respect the following rules concerning the role of the editors, the authors and the reviewers.
Duties of Editors
The Editor-in-Chief with the help of the Deputy Editors-in-Chief monitor the whole editorial process ensuring its neutral, honest and transparent character. They also guarantee that the editorial process fulfills, at every stage, the generally accepted ethical standards. They guarantee the compliance with the copyright law and support contributors whose copyright has been violated or whose work has been plagiarized.
The final decision as to the publication of submitted articles is the sole responsibility of the Editor-in-Chief of Eidos. A Journal for Philosophy of Culture. This decision is always underwritten by the articles’ objective quality and their importance for the scholars and readers and based on the assessment of assigned editors and anonymous reviewers (see section Submissions). The final decision is further constrained by legal requirements concerning issues such as copyright infringement and plagiarism.
1. Evaluate papers objectively taking into account only their quality and compatibility with the thematic scope of the journal. The political world-views, religious beliefs, sexual orientation, race, gender of the authors are NOT being taken into account.
2. Require that the contributors disclose any actual or potential conflict of interests resulting from competing, collaborative, personal or other relations with the editors, reviewers or relevant institutions (or research groups) and publish necessary corrections if such conflicts will be discovered after the publication.
3. Select two competent anonymous reviewers to fairly assess the objective value of papers. The editors also review whether there is no actual or potential conflict of interests as well as monitor reviewers’ suggestions for self-citation with regard to their relevance and objective validity.
4. Keep in confidence the authors’ and reviewers’ identity during the review process. Moreover, the editors do NOT reveal any information concerning a submitted paper to any other person than its author, reviewers/potential reviewers, other editors, members of Advisory Board (if necessary) or the publisher.
5. Must NOT use any part of an unpublished material for their research without a written consent of the contributor.
6. Should NOT suggest the contributors to cite any essay published in Eidos. A Journal for Philosophy of Culture as a condition of acceptance for publication. Any such recommendation can be made ONLY for genuine scholarly reasons, i.e., when such reference will clearly improve the overall quality of the final manuscript.
7. Following COPE guidelines will undertake appropriate measures in all cases of reported or suspected ethical misconduct such as: plagiarism, “ghost-writing,” “guest authorship,” “gift authorship,” redundant publication or fabrication of data etc. These measures will generally include contacting the contributor and giving due consideration to the issue. But, if necessary, they may also include: further communications to the relevant institutions and research groups, the publication of a correction, retraction, expression of concern. Every detected case of the ethical misconduct will be carefully analyzed, even if it would be discovered years after the publication.
Duties of Authors
The authors submitting their work to Eidos. A Journal for Philosophy of Culture:
1. Declare that it is their original work and whenever they have relied on the work of others this has been properly cited or quoted. Any form of plagiarism (e.g., presenting another’s paper as the author’s own paper, copying or paraphrasing substantial parts of another’s paper without proper reference) is considered as highly unethical behavior and as such shall NOT be accepted.
2. Properly quote the titles and page numbers of their own works dealing with a similar subject.
3. Declare that the submitted paper has not been published (or is not currently being processed for publication) elsewhere.
4. Inform of other persons’ contribution to their work, specifying its nature and scope. Authorship should be limited to those who have substantially contribute to the paper’s conception and content. All other persons who contribute to the paper (such as linguistic editors, advisors etc.) should be referred to in acknowledgments.
5. The corresponding author is responsible for providing, at the moment of original submission, a proper list of appropriate co-authors. He/She should also ensure that all co-authors have accepted the final version of the paper and agreed for its potential publication. In justified cases the list of co-authors can be extended in the course of editorial process (after both the editors’ and reviewers’ assessment). For more see COPE guidelines.
6. Disclose, at the earliest possible stage, any potential conflict of interest (e.g., employment, consultancies, extra paid testimony, grants or other funding) that might affect the results or interpretation of their work. Must list all sources of financial support for the work.
7. Are obliged to notify the Editorial Staff about any significant error/s or inaccuracy they discover in their published paper and cooperate with the editors as to how this issue should be handled (e.g., correction, retraction). The same holds for a situation in which a third party informs the Editorial Staff (or the publisher) about any error/s or inaccuracy – the authors are obliged either retract the paper, correct it or provide the evidence of its correctness.
8. Give content-related comments on remarks and suggestions presented in the reviews. In principle, they are obliged to implement the editors’ and reviewers’ suggestions. However, the authors have the right to not implement them whenever well-justified and convincing reasons are provided. Each such case shall be carefully analyzed by the Editor-in-Chief.
9. Papers submitted by the editors or members of the Advisory Board are subject to the same procedures (editorial assessment and double blind review process) and rules as all other submissions. In all these cases the editor/member of the Advisory Board is not involved, at any stage, in the editorial process.
Duties of Reviewers
Peer-Reviewers cooperating with Eidos. A Journal for Philosophy of Culture:
1. Support the Editorial Staff in making editorial decisions and may help the authors (via editors) to improve their papers.
2. Provide a reliable and objective assessment of the papers, i.e., taking into account their scholarly value. Personal criticism is NOT to be accepted as part of a standard peer-review procedure.
3. Inform editors whenever they feel unqualified to properly evaluate the submitted papers or being unable of timely assessment.
4. Formulate their opinions in a clear way and support them with proper arguments.
5. Maintain confidentiality of all information concerning the reviewed papers. They must NOT be shared or discussed with others except as authorized by the Editor-in-Chief.
6. Even though the peer-review process is in principle double-blind the reviewers may request, in some justified cases, to contact the author. However, this must always be authorized by the Editor-in-Chief.
7. Must NOT use any part of an unpublished paper for their own research without a written consent of the contributor.
8. Inform the Editorial Staff about any information in the paper which might indicate the author’s identity.
9. Inform the Editorial Staff about any suspected conflict of interests resulting from competing, collaborative, personal or other relations with the authors or relevant institutions (or research groups).
10. Notify the Editorial Staff of plagiarism, derivation, redundancy or other instances of misconduct incompatible with scientific integrity standards.
11. Any suggestion to cite their own work can be made ONLY for genuine scholarly reasons, i.e., when any reference to these works will objectively increase the value the article.