Über die Zeitschrift

Our publi­ca­ti­on ethics and publi­ca­ti­on mal­prac­ti­ce state­ment is main­ly based on the Code of Con­duct and Best-Prac­ti­ce Gui­de­lines for Jour­nal Edi­tors (Com­mit­tee on Publi­ca­ti­on Ethics, 2011, see http://publicationethics.org/files/Code_of_conduct_for_journal_editors_Mar11.pdf).

Editors’ responsibilities

Publi­ca­ti­on decis­i­ons

The edi­tor is respon­si­ble for deci­ding which of the papers sub­mit­ted to the jour­nal will be published. The edi­tor will eva­lua­te manu­scripts wit­hout regard to the aut­hors’ race, gen­der, sexu­al ori­en­ta­ti­on, reli­gious belief, eth­nic ori­gin, citi­zen­ship, or poli­ti­cal phi­lo­so­phy. The decis­i­on will be based on the paper’s importance, ori­gi­na­li­ty and cla­ri­ty, and the study’s vali­di­ty and its rele­van­ce to the journal’s scope. Cur­rent legal requi­re­ments regar­ding libel, copy­right inf­rin­ge­ment, and pla­gia­rism should also be con­side­red.

Con­fi­den­tia­li­ty

The edi­tor and any edi­to­ri­al staff 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 paper will not be used by the edi­tor or the mem­bers of the edi­to­ri­al board for their own rese­arch pur­po­ses wit­hout the author’s expli­cit writ­ten con­sent.

Reviewers’ responsibilities

Con­tri­bu­ti­on to edi­to­ri­al decis­i­ons

The peer-revie­w­ing pro­cess assists the edi­tor and the edi­to­ri­al board in making edi­to­ri­al decis­i­ons and may also ser­ve the aut­hor in impro­ving the paper.

Prompt­ness

Any sel­ec­ted refe­ree who feels unqua­li­fied to review the rese­arch repor­ted in a manu­script or knows that its prompt review will be impos­si­ble should noti­fy the edi­tor and with­draw from the review pro­cess.

Con­fi­den­tia­li­ty

Any manu­scripts recei­ved for review must be trea­ted as con­fi­den­ti­al docu­ments. They must not be dis­c­lo­sed to or dis­cus­sed with others except as aut­ho­ri­zed by the edi­tor.

Stan­dards of objec­ti­vi­ty

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

Ack­now­led­ge­ment of sources

Review­ers should iden­ti­fy cases in which rele­vant published work refer­red to in the paper has not been cited in the refe­rence sec­tion. They should point out whe­ther obser­va­tions or argu­ments deri­ved from other publi­ca­ti­ons are accom­pa­nied by the respec­ti­ve source. Review­ers will noti­fy the edi­tor of any sub­stan­ti­al simi­la­ri­ty or over­lap bet­ween the manu­script under con­side­ra­ti­on and any other published paper of which they have per­so­nal know­ledge.

Dis­clo­sure and con­flict of inte­rest

Pri­vi­le­ged infor­ma­ti­on or ide­as obtai­ned through peer review must be kept con­fi­den­ti­al and not used for per­so­nal advan­ta­ge. Review­ers should not con­sider 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 asso­cia­ted with the papers.

Authors’ duties

Report­ing stan­dards

Aut­hors of ori­gi­nal rese­arch reports should pre­sent an accu­ra­te account of the work per­for­med as well as an objec­ti­ve dis­cus­sion of its signi­fi­can­ce. Under­ly­ing data should be repre­sen­ted accu­ra­te­ly in the paper. A paper should con­tain suf­fi­ci­ent detail and refe­ren­ces to per­mit others to repli­ca­te the work. Frau­du­lent or kno­wing­ly inac­cu­ra­te state­ments con­sti­tu­te une­thi­cal beha­vi­or and are unac­cep­ta­ble.

Data access and reten­ti­on

Aut­hors could be asked to pro­vi­de the raw data of their stu­dy tog­e­ther with the paper for edi­to­ri­al review and should be pre­pared to make the data publicly available if prac­ti­ca­ble. In any event, aut­hors should ensu­re acces­si­bi­li­ty of such data to other com­pe­tent pro­fes­sio­nals for at least ten years after publi­ca­ti­on (pre­fer­a­b­ly via an insti­tu­tio­nal or sub­ject-based data repo­si­to­ry or other data cen­ter), pro­vi­ded that the con­fi­den­tia­li­ty of the par­ti­ci­pan­ts can be pro­tec­ted and legal rights con­cer­ning pro­prie­ta­ry data do not pre­clude their release.

Ori­gi­na­li­ty, pla­gia­rism and ack­now­led­ge­ment of sources

Aut­hors will sub­mit only enti­re­ly ori­gi­nal works, and will appro­pria­te­ly cite or quo­te the work and/or words of others. Publi­ca­ti­ons that have been influ­en­ti­al in deter­mi­ning the natu­re of the repor­ted work should also be cited.

Mul­ti­ple, red­un­dant or con­cur­rent publi­ca­ti­on

In gene­ral, papers describ­ing essen­ti­al­ly the same rese­arch should not be published in more than one jour­nal. Sub­mit­ting the same paper to more than one jour­nal con­sti­tu­tes une­thi­cal publi­shing beha­vi­or and is unac­cep­ta­ble.

Manu­scripts which have been published as copy­righ­ted mate­ri­al else­whe­re can­not be sub­mit­ted. In addi­ti­on, manu­scripts under review by the jour­nal should not be resub­mit­ted to copy­righ­ted publi­ca­ti­ons. Howe­ver, by sub­mit­ting a manu­script, the author(s) retain the rights to the published mate­ri­al. In case of publi­ca­ti­on all artic­les, images and any other parts of the publi­ca­ti­on are copy­right reser­ved. Any usa­ge out of the nar­row limits of the copy­right law requi­res the accordance of the publisher Dun­cker & Hum­blot GmbH. Plea­se note that any copy is for per­so­nal use only. Expli­cit­ly not allo­wed is the trans­fer to third par­ties by any means, e.g. through publi­shing on home­pages or in repo­si­to­ries as well as through spre­a­ding via mai­ling lists and news­let­ters.

Aut­hor­ship of the paper

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 co-aut­hors.

The cor­re­spon­ding aut­hor ensu­res that all con­tri­bu­ting co-aut­hors and no unin­vol­ved per­sons are included in the aut­hor list. The cor­re­spon­ding aut­hor will also veri­fy that all co-aut­hors have appro­ved the final ver­si­on of the paper and have agreed to its sub­mis­si­on for publi­ca­ti­on.

Dis­clo­sure and con­flicts of inte­rest

All aut­hors should include a state­ment dis­clo­sing any finan­cial or other sub­stan­ti­ve con­flicts of inte­rest that may be con­strued to influence the results or inter­pre­ta­ti­on of their manu­script. All sources of finan­cial sup­port for the pro­ject should be dis­c­lo­sed.

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 edi­tor or publisher and to coope­ra­te with the edi­tor to retract or cor­rect the paper in form of an erra­tum.