Publication Ethics

I. For authors

I.1. Open access and copyright policies

ColNes Publishing publishes journal articles, book chapters and selected monographs (materials, from now on) in open access, making them freely available without any subscription or restriction. The license we use for content distribution is Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License (CC BY-NC 4.0). By this license, authors can copy and redistribute their publications in any medium or format, adapting, transforming, and building upon the material as long as they follow the license’s terms.

I.2. Article Processing Charges (APCs)

There is no fee or charge for the processing and publishing of materials.

I.3. Editorial process

I.3.1. Post-submission stage

After submitting every material, the respective Editor (s) check elements like content relevance, completeness of metadata, technical quality, and presentation. At this stage, the Editor(s) might reject the proposal if they consider it unsuitable for peer review.

I.3.2. Editorial assignment and review phase

When the Editor(s) moves the material to the peer review stage, a minimum of two external reviewers of considerable expertise in the field are assigned. We employ the double-blind model for all our publication titles. Reviewers perform voluntary work; nevertheless, we encourage them to consider timeliness, confidentiality, possible conflict of interests, and ethical behavior.

I.3.3. Editorial decision

When the reviewer completes the review process, the Editor(s) makes a final decision, which can be one of the following:

  • Accepted
  • Considered with minor revisions
  • Considered with major revisions
  • Rejected

When materials are ‘considered with minor revisions’, ‘considered with major revisions’ or ‘rejected’, the author(s) will receive the comments resulting from the evaluation process. Authors of accepted materials may obtain more detailed comments regarding the content format adherence before the final publication process. Once performed all the necessary review rounds, the author(s) should consider all the suggestions raised by the reviewers and editors.

I.4. Editorial policies

We ensure high-quality content derived from transparent and trusted research practices. We follow all the guidelines and best publication practices defined by the Committee of Publication Ethics (COPE).

I.4.1. Authorship

ColNes Publishing demands that all authors listed in the materials have real responsibility during the research process and content generation. We encourage the corresponding authors, project leaders, or institutions to avoid adding people who did not contribute to the research output (Gift authors) or exclude those who contributed (Ghost authors). Authors should define the authorship before the project writing.

Authors should also define, before submission, who will act as ‘corresponding author’ and how will be the ‘order of authors’. The corresponding author will play an administrative role since the Editorial Office will contact them during the editorial process.

Authors must upload a Contribution Statement as a separate document. This Statement will define the role of every author in the research work based on the CRediT Taxonomy. For those who made contributions and the function does not appear in the CrediT Taxonomy portal, their names will appear in the Acknowledgements section.

In case of withdrawal or claim for inclusion requests, all authors should send a signed agreement letter to the Editorial Office.

I.4.2. Complaints

If authors detect some misconduct or questionable practices during the editorial process, they should report it to the Editorial Office immediately. We will follow the COPE’s Core Practices to decide on any ethical issue.

I.4.3. Conflict of interest

A Conflict of Interest (COI) occurs when authors have personal, academic, or financial relationships with third parties that could influence the research work submitted for publication. That is why authors, during the submission process, must submit a COI Statement to declare any potential conflict, emphasizing:

  • The institution that received direct or indirect resources to complete the research project.
  • The entities that supported the research project financially.
  • Whether pending, issued or licensed, any patent or copyright from which authors received royalties for the research project.
  • People who might influence the research content given some personal relationships.

These are some examples of COI statements:

  • ⦍Author name⦎ has received ⦍state the received benefits⦎ from ⦍Institution Name or equivalent⦎.
  • ⦍Author name⦎ has ⦍type of relationship⦎ with ⦍Institution name or equivalent⦎.

If there is no conflict of interest, the authors must declare:

  • The author(s) declare that there is no conflict of interest.

I.4.4. Research data, reproducibility, and transparency

The authors are encouraged to share the data behind the research work. Our policy is to make all scientific data open since we follow the Guidelines on Open Access to Scientific Publications and Research Data defined by the European Commission. The data sharing process can occur in the following ways:

  • Depositing data in a public repository. The Registry of Research Data Repositories can help select a platform to host the data. Authors should include the link(s) to access the data in the material.
  • Data as supplementary material. Authors can submit supplementary files containing relevant data to share during the submission stage. These files will be available during the peer-review process and will be published together with the manuscript’s main text.
  • Data on request. Before the publication process, editors and reviewers might ask authors for the research data.

Citations to research data should appear in the reference section of the full text. Authors need to follow the Joint Declaration of Data Citation Principles to provide the correct citation and referencing of the data.

I.4.5. Statement of data consent

To make science more transparent, open, and reproducible, we encourage authors to submit a data statement (Statement of data consent) as a separate document. We will place this Statement in the final published material. These are some examples of how to elaborate the Statement:

  • The [Name/type of data] generated during the development of this study has been deposited in [Repository name], and it is accessible at [Data URL].
  • The [Name/type of data] generated during the development of this study has been included in the manuscript.
  • The [Name/type of data] generated during the development of this study has been published as supplementary material.
  • The [Name/type of data] generated during the development of this study cannot be freely available due to [reasons], but they might be requested to [contact information].
  • The [Name/type of data] generated during the development of this study cannot be freely available due to restrictions imposed by name of the restrictor].
  • No data have been generated during the development of this study.

I.4.6. Post-publication discussions, corrections, and retractions

Retractions and corrections occur after the publication process, and it happens when we detect errors, plagiarism, content falsification, data manipulation, or legal issues regarding privacy and copyright. In each case, the Editorial Office will operate with the author’s consent (s) and based on the COPE’s Guidelines.

I. 5. Preprints

Authors can use preprint servers to host their materials before submission. On the Sherpa Romeo portal, authors can also find our self-archiving policies. Before submission, materials uploaded to preprint servers do not count as multiple or redundant publications. Authors are free to use like ArXivSSRN, bioRxivpsyArXivSocArXivengrXive-LISRePEc, and many others.

II. For reviewers

II.1. Peer reviewing for us

Peer-reviewers lie at the core of the scholarly publishing process since they play a critical role in content quality control. For that reason, we encourage the reviewers to submit comprehensive, constructive, objective, and transparent reports.

There are two ways to become a reviewer: (a) by direct invitation from a publication’s editorial board or by subscribing to the title of your interest. If you wish to be part of the pool of reviewers, it is essential to provide accurate contact information, including affiliation and research interests.

Accepting a review invitation implies to:

  • Agree if you have the required expertise to assess the research work
  • Provide accurate personal and professional contact information to the editors
  • Confirm you have no conflict of interest with the authors (Competing interests may be of private, financial, intellectual, professional, political, or religious type)
  • Follow the publisher guidelines on peer review
  • Review on time or, at least, inform the Editor about possible delays or cancellations.

II.2. Steps to conduct a review

  • Read the main text and any supplementary material if it exists. In case of missing documents or incomplete information, contact only the Editor.
  • Keep every action confidential, avoiding using data or information from this process for your own or others’ benefits. Bear in mind that no one else can be involved in the review of the material.
  • Notify the Editor immediately if you detect competing interests.

II.3. Writing the review report

The reviewer should write the report as requested by the publication, following some of the subsequent recommendations:

  • Be objective and constructive and, if possible, provide references to support your arguments. Notice that the peer review process aims to help authors improve the research work.
  • When providing personal comments to the Editor (accept, consider with minor revisions, consider with major revisions, or reject), try to make them consistent with the author’s recommendations. If you have not reviewed the whole document, please inform the Editor about the assessed sections.
  • Consider the following criteria when assessing the research work:
    • Consistency between the objective, methodology, and results
    • Validity of the research questions or hypotheses
    • Content originality
    • Presentation and discussion of previous research findings and antecedents
    • Clarity of language, tables, figures and general format
    • Completeness and coherence of the references with the scope of the research work.

II.4. Publication ethics

In ColNes Publishing, we follow the COPE Guidelines; that is why we invite reviewers to read the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers. Before any suspicious misconduct during the review process, the reviewers should immediately inform the Editorial Office.

II.5 Acknowledgment to reviewers

Reviewers may request a contribution’s certificates to the Editorial Office, specifying the publication title they reviewed. However, when it comes to journals, we publish the reviewer’s name in a single document at the time to close a volume. In the case of edited books, conference proceedings, and monographs, we include the reviewers’ names in the full text.

III. For editors

III.1. Editors’ roles and responsibilities

The editors are responsible for:

  • Make initial reviews of every submitted material to ensure that they are within the thematic scope of the series and that they meet the basic requirements for possible peer review
  • Manage submissions or assign other editors to handle them
  • Assess potential conflicts of interest that might affect the editorial process’ transparency
  • Invite a minimum of two reviewers per submission
  • Make final decisions based on the peer-review report
  • Ensure that reviewers or other Editors involved mee the deadlines
  • Suggest potential changes to the thematic scope of the publications
  • Assess publication proposals like special issues, edited volumes, or monographs
  • Promote the publication title (either journal, book series, or proceedings)
  • Manage the editorial team by adding new members or removing the inactive ones

III.2. Peer review and decision making

Peer review ensures that the published materials have the highest quality standards. For this reason, it is considered the most crucial stage in the scholarly publication process. The stages of this process are the following:

  • Preliminary assessment to ensure that the document is suitable for peer-review
  • Invite a minimum of two external reviewers. Reviewers should focus on the research work’s scope, their affiliation must differ from the authors’, and they must be from different affiliations
  • Make a final decision based on the reviewers’ comments. If the reviewers’ reports are wholly opposed, the Editor should invite a third reviewer. The review process closes when the material has gone through all the necessary review rounds, and the author(s) has considered all recommendations. The decisions to make will be the following:
    • Accepted
    • Considered with minor revisions
    • Considered with major revisions
    • Rejected

III.3. Accepting thematic issues and volumes

Organizing special issues and edited volumes is an excellent opportunity for publishing topical collections. Editors should assess the proposals’ scope and prospective editors.

III.4. Publication ethics

If an Editor detects any case of misconduct, including authorship disputes, plagiarism, a duplicate submission, conflict of interest, or content manipulation, they should report it to the Editorial Office. We will follow the COPE’s Guidelines to proceed in every single case.