PUBLICATION ETHICS AND PUBLICATION MALPRACTICE STATEMENT

Epistemology and Philosophy of Science is committed to maintaining the highest ethical standards.

For all parties involved in the act of publishing (the author, the journal editor(s), the peer reviewer and the publisher) it is necessary to agree upon standards of expected ethical behavior. The ethics statements for our journal are based on the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors.

Duties of the Editor-in-Chief and Assistant Editors:

Fair play

Submitted manuscripts are evaluated for their intellectual content without regard to race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy of the authors.

Confidentiality

The Editor-in-Chief and the Assistant Editors must not disclose any information about a submitted manuscript to anyone other than the corresponding author, reviewers, potential reviewers, other editorial advisers, and the publisher, as appropriate.

Disclosure and conflicts of interest

Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in an Editor's own research without the explicit written consent of the author(s).

Search of peer reviewers

The Editor-in-Chief and the Assistant Editors are engaged in the selection of two qualified peer reviewers. The peer reviewers could be selected from the Editorial Board or be outsourced.

Publication decisions

The Editor-in-Chief should confer with the Editorial Board in making the decision about which of submitted papers should be published. This decision should be based on the principles of Journal policy and constrained by such legal requirements as shall then be in force regarding libel, copyright infringement and plagiarism.

Duties of peer reviewers

Contribution to editorial decisions

Peer review assists the Editor-in-Chief and Editorial Board in making editorial decisions and, through the editorial communication with the author, may also assist the author in improving the manuscript.

Promptness

Authors will normally receive feedback about the acceptance of his/her paper for the reviewing process within three weeks and in another three weeks s(he) will normally receive the first response from the reviewers.

Confidentiality

Any manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents.

The previewing process is anonymous both for the author(s) and the peer reviewers.

Standards of objectivity

Reviews should be conducted objectively. Personal criticism of the author is inacceptable. Referees should express their views clearly with appropriate supporting arguments.

Any invited referee who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its timely review will be impossible should immediately notify the Editor-in-Chief so that alternative reviewers can be contacted.

 

Conflict of interest

Reviewers should decline from evaluating manuscripts in which they

have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the submission.

Acknowledgement of sources

Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors. Any statement, observation, derivation, or argument that had been previously reported should be accompanied by the relevant citation. A reviewer should also call to the Editor's attention any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published data, of which they have personal knowledge.

Duties of authors

Reporting standards

Authors are accountable for the soundness and honesty of their research. Authors must use appropriate methods for reporting their research and provide sufficient details for other researchers to repeat their experiments. Authors must publish the complete results of their research and not withhold findings that are inconsistent with their hypothesis.

Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behavior and are unacceptable.

Originality and Plagiarism

Authors must comply with academic integrity standards, particularly with respect to plagiarism, data falsification, image manipulation and the like. Authors must appropriately quote and cite all sources used in their research and refrain from including indirect quotations from sources that they have not consulted.

Authors must obtain permission to use any third party images, figures and the like from the respective copyright holders.

Multiple, redundant or concurrent publication

By submitting a manuscript to Epistemology and Philosophy of Science, the author(s) warrant that the manuscript is their own, original work and that it has neither been published previously nor is currently being considered for publication elsewhere.

An author should not in general publish manuscripts describing essentially the same research in more than one journal or primary publication. Parallel submission of the same manuscript to more than one journal constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable.

Authorship of a manuscript

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 coauthors. The corresponding author should ensure that all appropriate co-authors (according to the above definition) and no inappropriate co-authors are included in the author list of the manuscript, and that all co-authors have seen and approved the final version of the paper and have agreed to its submission for publication.

Fundamental errors in published works

When an author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in his/her own published work, it is the author’s obligation to promptly notify the journal’s Editor-in-Chief or Assistant Editors and cooperate with them to either retract the paper or to publish an appropriate erratum.