Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement
The Annals of the „Ovidius” University of Constanta – History Series is committed to ensuring ethics and quality in the publication of articles, according to the current standards for Ethics and Publication Malpractice set by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). In consequence, all parties involved – Authors, Editors, Reviewers, and the Publisher – are expected to comply with standards of ethical behaviour as described below:
Authors:
Authors should present an objective discussion of the significance of research work as well as sufficient details and references to permit others to replicate their work. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behaviour and are unacceptable. Authors should notify promptly the editor if a significant error is identified in their publication, and cooperate with the editor to publish an erratum, addendum, corrigendum notice, or to re-tract the paper, where it is deemed necessary. The authors should ensure that their work is entirely original, and if the work and/or words of others have been used, this has been appropriately acknowledged. Plagiarism in all its forms constitutes unethical publishing behaviour and is unacceptable. Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal concurrently constitutes unethical publishing behaviour and is unacceptable. The corresponding author (if there is more than one author) should ensure that there is a full consensus of all co-authors in approving the final version of the paper and its submission for publication. Financial support and help/guidance of others should be acknowledged if appropriate. Authors are invited to participate in the peer review process by revising their manuscript in accordance with the recommendations (adding of or renouncing to parts of manuscript content – if necessary, providing more references on given topics, clarifying their conceptual / methodological approaches etc).
Editors:
Editors have the authority to reject or accept a manuscript. They are expected to act according to the moral obligation of commitment to the constant improvement of the journal while meeting the needs of readers and Authors. Editors should evaluate manuscripts exclusively on the basis of their academic merit. An editor must not use unpublished information in the editor’s own research without the express written consent of the author. Editors should take responsive measures when ethical complaints have been presented concerning a submitted manuscript or published paper.
All Editors must follow the COPE’s Code of Conduct and Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors.
Reviewers:
Peer review is a key component of formal scholarly communication and is essential for the scientific life.
All manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept 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 for improving their manuscript. Any selected referee who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should notify the editor and excuse himself from the review process. Reviewers should not consider manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors connected to those manuscripts.
All Reviewers must follow the Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers Outlined by the Committee on Publication Ethics.