Publication ethics

Cadernos de Estudos Sefarditas complies with the principles of publication ethics and publication malpractice statement based on theCode of Conduct and Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors of the COPE – Committee on Publication Ethics.

1. Editors are responsible for deciding which of the papers submitted to the journal will be published. Editors’ evaluation is exclusively based on the paper’s importance, originality, clarity and relevance to the journal’s scope, without regard to the author(s)’s gender, sexual orientation, ethnic origin, citizenship, religious belief, political philosophy or institutional affiliation.

2. Editors will not disclose any information about a submitted manuscript to anyone other than the author(s), reviewers, potential reviewers, other editorial advisers, and the publisher, as appropriate.

3. Editors will not use unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript for their own personal advantage and/or research purposes without the authors’ explicit written consent. Editors will recuse themselves from considering manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest.

4. Editors ensure that all submitted papers will be subject to blind peer-review by at least two experts in the field. The ultimate resolution regarding the publication of the submitted papers is left to the discretion of the editorial board based on the reviewers’ comments, its relevance for the field and its conformity with current legal requirements regarding libel, copyright infringement, and plagiarism.

1. Reviewers assist editors in making editorial decisions and authors in improving their manuscripts, through their comments on submitted papers.

2. Any invited referee who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a paper or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should notify the editors and withdraw from the review.

3. Any paper received for review must be treated as confidential documents. They must not be shown to or discussed with others except if authorized by the editors. This applies also to invited reviewers who decline the review invitation.

4. Reviews should be conducted objectively. Reviewers should express clearly their views with supporting arguments. Reviewers should express clearly their views with supporting arguments. Personal criticism and rude or offensive language are inappropriate.

5. Reviewers should suggest relevant published work that has not been cited by the author(s). Any statement that is an observation, derivation or argument that has been reported in previous publications should be accompanied by the respective citation. Reviewers should also notify the editors of any substantial similarity or overlap between the paper under consideration and any other published or unpublished paper or book of which they have personal knowledge.

6. Any invited referee who has conflicts of interest with any of the authors or institutions connected to the paper under consideration and/or the work described therein should immediately notify the editors and withdraw from the review.

7. Reviewers must not use any unpublished material disclosed in submitted papers for their own research without the express written consent of the author(s). 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.

1. Authors of original research should present an accurate account of the work performed, as well as an objective discussion of its significance. The paper should contain sufficient detail and references to permit others to replicate the work. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behaviour and are unacceptable.

2. Authors should ensure that they have submitted entirely original works and that they have appropriately cited or quoted the work and/or words of others. Publications that have been influential in determining the nature of the work reported in the manuscript should also be cited. Plagiarism in all its forms constitutes unethical publishing behaviour and is unacceptable.

3. Authors should not submit papers that have been entirely or partially published in another journal or book. Submission of a manuscript concurrently to more than one journal is unethical publishing behaviour and unacceptable.

4. Authorship should be limited to persons who made significant contributions to the conception, design, execution, data acquisition, or analysis/interpretation of the study; drafted the manuscript or revised it critically for important intellectual content; and have seen and approved the final version of the paper and agreed to its submission for publication. All persons who made substantial contributions to the work reported in the manuscript (such as technical help, writing and editing assistance, general support) but who do not meet the above criteria must not be listed as an author, but should be acknowledged in a section of the paper (for instance, in a footnote).

5. Authors should disclose any conflicts of interest that might be construed to influence the results or their interpretation in the manuscript. All sources of financial support for the work should be disclosed (including the grant number or other reference number if any).

6. Authors are obliged to cooperate with the peer review process, responding promptly to editors’ requests for raw data, clarifications, and proof of ethics approval and copyright permissions. In the case of a first decision of “revisions necessary”, authors should respond to the reviewers’ comments systematically in a timely manner, revising and re-submitting their manuscript to the journal by the deadline given.

7. When authors discover significant errors or inaccuracies in their own published work, it is their obligation to promptly notify the editors. If the editors or publisher learns from a third party that a published work contains a significant error or inaccuracy, then it is the authors’ obligation to promptly correct or retract the paper or provide evidence to the journal editors of the correctness of the paper.

Sources:

Committee on Publication Ethics, “Code of Conduct and Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors”

Elsevier, “Publication Ethics and Publication Malpractice Statement”