Publication Ethics

Eksistenz, a peer-reviewed scholarly journal, is committed to upholding the highest standards of publication ethics in accordance with the guidelines of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). All parties involved in the publication process – authors, editors, reviewers, and publishers – are expected to adhere to these ethical principles.

1.  Ethical Principles for Editors：

  • ​Editorial decisions to accept or reject manuscripts must be based solely on academic merit, originality, and relevance to the journal’s scope.
  • Factors such as authors’ nationality, gender, institutional affiliation, or personal relationships must not influence decisions.
  • Editors must protect the confidentiality of submitted manuscripts and peer review processes. Unpublished content must not be disclosed or used for personal gain.
  • Editors are responsible for selecting qualified, impartial reviewers with relevant expertise and ensuring timely evaluations.
  • Reviewers must be free from conflicts of interest; editors should intervene if bias is suspected.
  • Editors must recuse themselves from handling submissions where they have competing interests (e.g., collaborations with authors or financial ties to the research).
  • Internal submissions (e.g., from editorial board members) require independent handling to avoid bias.
  • Clear communication with authors regarding submission status, revisions, and rejections is mandatory. Rejections should include constructive feedback.
  • Suspected misconduct (e.g., plagiarism, data fabrication) must be investigated following COPE guidelines, with corrective actions (e.g., retractions) implemented as needed.
  • Editors must promote diversity in authorship and reviewer pools, avoiding discrimination based on non-academic criteria.
  • Editors should regularly review journal policies to align with COPE’s evolving best practices and address emerging ethical challenges (e.g., AI-generated content)

2. Ethical Principles for Peer Reviewers: ​

  • Reviewers must treat submitted manuscripts as confidential documents. They should not share, discuss, or use any part of the unpublished work for personal or professional gain.
  • If reviewers suspect misconduct (e.g., plagiarism, data fabrication), they must report it to the editor but refrain from investigating independently.​
  • Reviews should be based solely on scholarly merit, free from bias related to authors’ identity, nationality, gender, institutional affiliation, or personal beliefs.
  • Critiques must be constructive, supported by evidence, and avoid derogatory or unprofessional language.​
  • Reviewers must disclose any competing interests (e.g., collaboration with authors, financial ties to the research) and decline invitations where impartiality cannot be ensured.
  • If reviewers recognize authors’ identities despite blind review, they should notify the editor.​
  • Reviewers should only accept assignments within their expertise and commit to completing evaluations within the agreed timeframe. Delays must be communicated promptly.
  • If unable to review, reviewers may suggest qualified alternatives.
  • Reviewers using AI tools must ensure compliance with journal policies, avoid uploading confidential manuscripts to public platforms, and disclose AI assistance in their reports.
  • They should not request authors to cite their own work unless academically justified.

3. Ethical Principles for Authors:​​

  • Submitted manuscripts must be original work, neither plagiarized nor published elsewhere. Proper acknowledgment of others’ work through citations is mandatory.
  • Authors must disclose any overlap with their own or others’ prior publications, including preprints or translations.​
  • All funding sources, institutional affiliations, or personal relationships that could influence the research must be disclosed.
  • AI tools used in writing or analysis must be declared, with human oversight ensured.​
  • Authors must respond constructively to reviewer comments, addressing critiques transparently. Disputes should be raised formally with the editor.
  • Attempts to manipulate peer review (e.g., fake reviewer suggestions) will result in rejection.​
  • Authors must promptly notify the journal of significant errors in published work and cooperate in issuing corrections or retractions.
  • Authors are fully accountable for their work’s content and validity, must rigorously substantiate their claims with properly documented sources, and should provide adequate methodological transparency to enable scholarly verification and further discourse.

For ethical concerns, contact editors@eksistenz.net.