SU Guidelines for Ethical Publishing in Dynamica

Basic Guidelines to Follow

When uploading a new document you must read and check that you have Read and Understood these guidelines. 

The platform intends to encourage open peer review and publication of academic material. As such, it encourages an academic debate and makes sure to champion the freedom of expression. The public peer-review procedure in this platform is set up to ensure published material is of high academic quality and is relevant to its intended audience.

To read more about Stockholm University’s commitment to Open Science, view within the link our Open Science Policy (Ref no. SU FV-3442-22) and Open Science Plan (Ref no. SU FV-3466-22)

Authors of posted items are responsible for editing materials under review and before publication. Reviewers of submitted items are responsible for their contributions to the evaluation process. Authors and reviewers should comply with academic and ethical standards and ensure that such considerations preclude business or institutional needs. Administrators will not interfere with the review process or uploaded items unless the material is considered unlawful, e.g. contain libellous material, infringe on copyright, including defamatory language or be subject to plagiarism. Items considered to be unlawful will be retracted and subjected to a separate evaluation. 

 

Author(s) responsibilities

The Author (s) is held accountable for the content uploaded for review by:

• Following the instructions provided for submitting content to the platform.
• Ensuring that the research presented is performed according to a high academic standard, precluding any business or institutional needs.
• Following guidelines about ethical research, g. adhering to rules and regulations for research that involves humans or animals, such as the Helsinki Declaration for clinical research, the AERA and BERA guidelines for educational research or similar.
• Striving to improve the quality of the published item based on the review comments.
• Maintaining the integrity of the academic record by referencing and version management.
• Ensuring that they follow the platform's Terms of service policy to deal with corrections, retractions, clarifications, and apologies related to published material when needed.
• Authors who wish to invite peer-reviewers of their work themselves are responsible for ethically inviting reviewers who are not authors of the current work, have not contributed to any parts of the work before submission and are not themselves or colleagues with the same affiliation.
• To read and understand the technical infrastructure of the platform, namely the SciFree Process, please follow the link here.

 

Reviewer(s) responsibilities

• Reviewers should accept invitations to comment on published items without bias and declare if there are any conflicts of interests or competing interests within all versions of the peer-review. 
• Reviewers should disclose their affiliation to ensure they do not work at the same institution or department as the corresponding author.
• Reviewers must focus on the quality, originality, and the interpretation of results of the research as well as ethical considerations such as bias, possible redundant information or plagiarism when submitting their comments.
• Reviewers must engage in honest feedback with the intention to improve and validate the work of the authors. Should the reviewers ask for a revision, they should accept to review the new version of the manuscript and proceed to read and validate new, missing, or commented on sections in a timely manner.

 

These guidelines are adapted from the COPE core practices

https://publicationethics.org/core-practices