Code of Ethics for Scientific Publishing

The journal Geschichte und Region/Storia e regione observes and promotes specific guidelines for a responsible scientific publishing process. The following code of ethics is based on Cope’s Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors.

 

Responsibilities of the editor-in-chief and editorial staff of the journal

Geschichte und Region/Storia e regione is aligned with current practices of scientific publishing and publishes only original contributions that conform to high scientific standards, observe all applicable rights of the authors, and were not simultaneously offered to other journals. Geschichte und Region/Storia e regione subjects all contributions to a double-blind peer review process prior to publication in order to ensure their scientific quality. Furthermore, “Geschichte und Region/Storia e regione” supports and promotes the independence of scientific research and condemns plagiarism and copyright violations.

The editor-in-chief and editorial staff of the journal decide whether to publish submitted articles exclusively on the basis of content-related criteria and avoid any discrimination of authors based on their origin, gender, sexual orientation, religion, ethnicity, citizenship, or political preference. The editor-in-chief and editorial staff are responsible for the decision to accept or refuse submitted articles. All submitted articles are discussed during regular editorial meetings and a preselection is performed. Only the articles (conditionally) accepted by the editorial staff in this preselection process are subjected to double-blind peer review by two reviewers.

The editorial committee nominates one or two members as editors for the monographic section of each issue. As experts on the topic of the respective issue, these issue editors are tasked with ensuring the quality of the contributions in the issue.

The articles published in the topical, monographic section of the journal and in the section “Aufsätze/Contributi” are submitted to an anonymous double-blind peer review process. The majority of the national and international reviewers are not members of the journal’s scientific advisory board. They are experts on the respective topics and are suggested by the editorial committee, and they review the articles sent to them by the editorial office, replying with a well-founded review report stating whether the respective article possesses sufficient quality for publication. The editorial committee considers two negative reviews to be binding for the refusal of an article, whereas it reserves the final decision regarding publication in the event of diverging reviews. The authors are encouraged to take the observations and comments of the reviewers into consideration and adapt their articles accordingly.

The editor-in-chief and editorial staff are prohibited from disclosing any information about the submitted articles to anyone except the respective author and reviewers of the article. The identity of the author of the article remains anonymous and may not be disclosed to the reviewers prior to publication of the article. The anonymity of the reviewers is likewise guaranteed, including after publication of an article they have reviewed respectively after an author is informed of the refusal of their article. An up-to-date list of all reviewers in alphabetical order can be found on the journal website.

The editorial committee is responsible for ensuring pursuance of the journal’s alignment in terms of content, for making a preselection from the submitted articles and deciding which submissions to subject to the review process, for making the final decision in the case of diverging recommendations by the reviewers, and for observing all applicable legal regulations relating to defamation, copyright infringement, and plagiarism. The members of the editorial staff are prohibited from disclosing any information on submitted articles except to the respective authors and reviewers as well as to persons explicitly authorized in advance. Submitted but not yet published texts may not be used by members of the editorial staff for their own research without the explicit consent of the respective author.
 

Obligations of the reviewers

The double-blind peer review process supports the editorial committee in its decision regarding acceptance or refusal of each submitted article and offers the respective author a possibility for improving and expanding their text.

The reviewers undertake to adhere to the deadlines for submission of their review reports as agreed with the journal. Each review report must meet the criteria of objectivity and provide clear and comprehensible arguments. Reviewers may not accept any article for review for whose contents they do not consider themselves sufficiently qualified or which could lead to a conflict of interest in terms of the contents of the article respectively in terms of cooperation, competition, or other connections between the reviewer and the author or any circumstances in which the author is involved. Each reviewer shall identify bibliography that is not cited in the respective article but nevertheless relevant to the topic, recommend possible improvements to the article, and point out any existing weaknesses of the article.

The purpose of the peer review process is to ensure the scientific quality of each submission and provide suggestions for improvement if necessary. Reviewers should therefore consider the following questions while filling out the review report form: What changes could make the article clearer and more coherent? With what adaptations could the article represent a more relevant contribution to the scientific literature on the topic? How might potentially debatable or controversial passages be rephrased?

The manuscripts submitted for review must be treated confidentially by the reviewers and may not be disclosed to or discussed with persons who have not been expressly authorized by the editorial office.
 

Obligations of the authors

The author is responsible for the contents of his or her article.

The author guarantees that the submitted article was written entirely by the author himself or herself, is previously unpublished, and was not simultaneously submitted to any other journal. The author agrees to the evaluation criteria of the editorial committee and the review process. If an author’s article is accepted for publication, the author consents to publication of the article in the journal.

The author is obligated to disclose any possible conflict of interest that could have influenced the manuscript’s contents prior to the review process. Any existing financial support for the corresponding research project must likewise be disclosed.

The author guarantees the truthfulness of the contents of his or her article and is required to disclose all used sources and provide a bibliography. The author is also required to obtain permission in accordance with applicable authorial rights to publish any images, tables, or previously published contents included in the article. All publications having an influence on the content and thrust of the submitted article must be specified. The manuscript must contain sufficient evidence to allow others to retrace the performed research.

All persons involved in the actual writing of the manuscript must be identified as co-authors. If any other persons made significant contributions to the article or a part thereof, they must likewise be identified by the author.
Should the author become aware of any serious errors or inaccuracies in the published article, he or she is obligated to inform the editorial office immediately and provide the information required for rectification of the discovered issue or issues.
 
 
The Editorial Board
Geschichte und Region/Storia e regione
A.-Diaz-Str. 8/b
I-39100 Bozen
storiaeregione.eu
info@geschichteundregion.eu