and Publication Malpractice Statement
As increasingly complicated problems associated with the processes of globalization emerge in today’s world, the need for in-depth studies into glocalism is being recognised from several quarters. Globus et Locus, since its inception in the 1990s, has been at the forefront of research and glocal practises. Today, the association feels compelled to act as a locus serving those who intend to develop systematic thinking around these issues in a scientific context - a place where cultural contributions and insights into the glocalisation phenomena can come together and be encouraged. The objective of the journal “Glocalism: Journal of culture, politics and innovation” is thus to stimulate increasing awareness and knowledge, learning and research worldwide. To pursue this aim, the publisher requires accuracy and adopts a neutral position on issues treated within the Journal, which serves to further academic and professional discussions.
The act of publishing in a peer-reviewed journal involves many parties, each of which is fundamental in achieving the development of scientific research. Due to their importance, these subjects – the publisher, editors-in-chief, board members, authors and reviewers – have significant responsibilities and must comply with ethical standards at every stage of the process. Globus et Locus is committed to defending the rules of ethical behavior at all stages of the publication process by adopting and promoting the standards set by COPE in the Cope Code of Conduct for Journal Publishers.
Below is a summary of our key expectations of the editors-in-chief, editorial board members, peer-reviewers and authors.
1. Ethical expectations
The editorial board members of the journal are responsible for deciding which of the articles submitted to the journal should be published. In doing so, they are guided by the policy of the Journal’s publisher and constrained by such legal requirements as shall then be in force regarding defamation, copyright infringement and plagiarism. The editorial board seeks the support of at least two members of the scientific advisory board or other reviewers in making this decision, according to a double-blind peer review procedure. The editorial board undertakes to act in a balanced, objective and fair way while carrying out their expected duties, and to evaluate the manuscripts for their intellectual content without discrimination on grounds of gender, sexual orientation, religious or political beliefs, ethnic or geographical origin of the authors. In the case of sponsored issues, those articles are considered and accepted solely on their academic merit and without commercial influence.
The editorial board must not disclose any information about a submitted manuscript to anyone other than the corresponding authors, reviewers, potential reviewers, other editorial advisers and the publisher, as appropriate. Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in an editor’s own research without the express written consent of the author. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage.
Editors should recuse themselves (i.e. should ask a co-editor, associate editor or any other member of the editorial board instead to review and consider) from considering manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationship or connections with any of the authors, companies or (possibly) institutions connected to the papers. Editors should require all contributors to disclose relevant competing interests and publish corrections if competing interests are revealed after publication. If needed, other appropriate action should be taken, such as the publication of a retraction or expression of concern.
In the case of complaints of an ethical or conflictual nature, the editorial board will adopt and follow reasonable procedures, in accordance with the policy and procedure established by the Cope Code of Conduct for Journal Publishers.
The reviewers assist the editor in making editorial decisions and through the editorial communications with the author may also assist the author in improving the paper. The reviewers undertake to review the manuscript objectively, in a timely manner, and to maintain the confidentiality of any information supplied by the editor or author. They also comply to not retain or copy the manuscript, and to alert the editor to any published or submitted content that is substantially similar to that under review.
Referees should express their views clearly with supporting arguments. Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors. Any statement that an observation, derivation, or argument had been previously reported should be accompanied by the relevant citation.
Reviewers must be aware of any potential conflicts of interest (financial, institutional, collaborative or other relationship between the reviewer and the author) and alert the editor of these, and when necessary decline to review a manuscript for such reason. Similarly, any selected referee who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or who knows that its prompt review will be impossible, should notify the editor and excuse himself from the review process.
It is responsibility of the authors to write an entirely original work, maintain accurate records of data associated with their submitted manuscripts and to supply or provide access to this data, on reasonable request. If the authors have used the work and/or words of others, these must be appropriately cited. Proper acknowledgment of the work of others must always be given. Authors should cite publications that have been influential in determining the nature of the reported work. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behavior and are unacceptable. Authors of reports of original research should present an accurate account of the work performed as well as an objective discussion of its significance.
Manuscripts submitted must not have been published as copyrighted material elsewhere. Manuscripts under review by the Journal should not be submitted for consideration by another publication. Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal concurrently constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable. Publication of some kind of articles in more than one journal is sometimes justifiable, provided certain conditions are met. The authors and editors of the journals concerned must agree to the secondary publication, which must reflect the same data and interpretation of the primary document. The primary reference must be cited in the secondary publication.
Authorship should be limited to those who have made a significant contribution to the conception, design, execution, or interpretation of the reported study. All those who have made significant contributions should be listed as co-authors. Where there are others who have participated in certain substantive aspects of the research project, they should be acknowledged or listed as contributors. The corresponding authors should ensure that all appropriate co-authors and no inappropriate co-authors are included on the paper and that all co-authors have seen and approved the final version of the paper, having agreed to its submission for publication.
Authors should ensure that any studies involving human or animal subjects conform to national, local and institutional laws and requirements. The privacy rights of human subjects must always be observed.
Authors must declare any potential conflicts of interests, and disclose in their manuscripts any financial or other substantive conflicts of interest that might be constructed to influence the result or interpretation of their manuscript. All sources of financial support for the project should be disclosed. It is the responsibility of the authors to promptly notify the journal editor or publisher if a significant error in their publication is identified, as well as to cooperate with the editor and publisher to retract or correct the paper.
The publisher (Globus et Locus) shall ensure that good practice is maintained to the standards outlined above, and commits itself to periodically re-examining its Publication Ethics and Publication Malpractice Statement following the new COPE recommendations.
2. Procedures for dealing with unethical behavior
Anyone may inform the editors at any time of suspected unethical behavior or any type of misconduct by giving the necessary information/evidence to start an investigation. Misconduct and unethical behavior may include, but need not be limited to, the examples outlined above. All allegations should be taken seriously and treated in the same way until a successful decision or conclusion is reached.
The Editor-in-Chief will consult with the editor(s) in charge of decisions regarding the initiation of an investigation. During an investigation, any evidence should be treated as strictly confidential and only be made available to those strictly involved in the investigation. The accused will always be given the chance to respond to any charges made against them. If it is judged at the end of the investigation that misconduct has occurred, then it will be classified as either minor or serious.
Minor misconduct will be dealt with directly with those involved without involving any other parties. In any event, the author should be given the opportunity to respond.
The Editor-in-Chief, in consultation with the board of editors, should make any decision regarding the course of action to be taken using the evidence available and, when appropriate, by making further consultation with a small group of experts. The possible outcomes are as follows (these can be used separately or jointly): 1) publication of a formal announcement or editorial describing the misconduct; 2) informing the author’s (or reviewer’s) head of department or employer of any misconduct by means of a formal letter; 3) the formal, announced withdrawal of publications from the journal, including its removal from any abstracting and indexing services; 4) a ban on submissions from an individual for a defined period; 5) referring a case to a professional organization or legal authority for further investigation and action.