Publishing Ethics and Publishing Malpractice Statement History 396 is dedicated to publishing articles under the highest standards of quality and ethics. We maintain these standards of ethical behavior throughout all publication stages and with all members of our journal, including: the author, the journal editor, the peer reviewer, and the publisher. Plagiarism or other unethical behavior is strictly forbidden. Responsibilities of the Editors: •
•
•
•
Publication Selection: The editor of History 396 is responsible for choosing which submitted articles will be published in the journal. The editor must adhere to the journal’s ethical standards and abide by all legal guidelines, including, but not limited to, those that forbid libel, copyright infringement and plagiarism. The editor is at liberty to discuss decisions related to article selections with the editorial board, the academic committee, or a reviewer. Nondiscriminatory Clause: The editor will review manuscripts and make decisions about the articles regardless of the race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political ideology of the authors. Privacy Agreement: The editor and any editorial staff are prohibited from revealing information about the submitted manuscript to persons other than the corresponding author, reviewers, potential reviewers, other editorial advisers, or the publisher. Transparency and Interests: The editor is forbidden to use unpublished material in his/her own research unless he/she has obtained the expressed written consent of the author. The editor should refrain from reviewing manuscripts that pose a conflict of interest as a result of any possible connection, either competitive or mutual, with any institutions, companies, authors, etc.
Responsibilities of the Reviewers: •
•
• •
•
Privacy: Any manuscript submitted for review is to be considered a confidential document. This manuscript must not be discussed or presented to other parties or individuals. Timeliness: Due to the time sensitivity of reviewing articles, reviewers should inform the editor and decline reviewing an article in the case that he/she knows they will be unable to review the material in a timely manner or if he/she lacks sufficient knowledge on the article’s subject matter. Requirements for Objectivity: Reviews must be done in a neutral manner and reviews must articulate their criticism based on reasonable arguments. Input in Editorial Assessment: Peer reviews provide critical feedback to the editor and for the decisions making process. Reviewers may also help editors by communicating with authors and offering suggestions to improve the article through editorial communication. Recognition of Sources: Reviewers must consider relevant published material that is not cited by the author and whether any considerable resemblance exists between published articles and the manuscript under consideration