Duties of Editors and Editorial Board Members

1. Submitted manuscripts are evaluated solely on the basis of their academic merit and relevance to the journal’s scope.
2. The Editor-in-Chief has full authority over the entire editorial content of the journal and the timing of publication of that content.
3. Editors and editorial board members are responsible to ensure that any information about a submitted manuscript will not be disclosed to anyone other than the corresponding author, reviewers, editorial team, and the publisher, as appropriate.
4. Editors and editorial board members will not use unpublished information disclosed in a submitted manuscript for their own research purposes.
5. The editors ensure that all submitted manuscripts being considered for publication undergo peer-review by at least two reviewers who are expert in the field.
6. The Editor-in-Chief is responsible for deciding which of the manuscripts submitted to the journal will be published, based on the validation of the work in question, its importance to researchers and readers, the reviewers’ comments, and such legal requirements as are currently in force regarding libel, copyright infringement and plagiarism.
7. Editors will take responsive measures when ethical concerns are raised.

 

Duties of Reviewers

1. Peer review assists editors in making editorial decisions and, through editorial communications with authors, may assist authors in improving their manuscripts. It is an essential component of formal scholarly communication and lies at the heart of scientific endeavour.
2. Any invited referee who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should immediately notify the editors and decline the invitation to review so that alternative reviewers can be contacted.
3. Any manuscripts received for review are confidential documents and must be treated as such. This applies also to invited reviewers who decline the review invitation.
4. Reviews should be conducted objectively and observations formulated clearly with supporting arguments so that authors can use them for improving the manuscript. Personal criticism of the authors is inappropriate.
5. Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors. Any statement that is an observation, derivation or argument that has been reported in previous publications should be accompanied by the relevant citation.
6. A reviewer should also notify the editors of any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other manuscript (published or unpublished) of which they have personal knowledge.
7. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for the reviewer’s personal advantage. This applies also to invited reviewers who decline the review invitation.

 

Duties of Publisher

1. In cases of alleged or proven scientific misconduct, fraudulent publication or plagiarism, MMU Press, in close collaboration with the editors, will take all appropriate measures to clarify the situation and to amend the article in question.
2. MMU Press is committed to the permanent availability and preservation of scholarly research and ensures accessibility by partnering with organizations and maintaining our own digital archive.