Publication Ethics

The Open Gender Journal commits to the Code of Conduct “Guidelines for Safeguarding Good Research Practice”, published by the DFG, and contributes to its principles through procedures of quality assurance and publication processes. The journal applies various measures which have been developed in accordance to the core practices of the Committee On Publication Ethics (COPE). The critical examination of power dynamics within science, as well as a reflective approach to the challenges of inter- and transdisciplinarity, are integral to the identity of the journal and inform our publication ethics standards and the design of workflow processes.

The specific responsibilities and tasks of authors, editors, and reviewers are listed below:

Compliance and Review of Scientific Standards

  • Authors are obliged to work according to scientific standards. All information that either draws on the sense of or is taken verbatim from other sources must be indicated through clear references.
  • Prior to the review process, the editors examine each contribution as to whether it meets the minimum scientific standards. Only if a contribution meets the minimum scientific standards, the manuscript will be submitted for review.
  • Reviewers inform the editors in case of any scientific misconduct. They pay attention to identifying passages that have been borrowed from other academic works in terms of meaning or varbatim but have not been marked as quotations or borrowings. They will specifically indicate which literature needs to be incorporated.

Quality Assurance

  • Editors are obliged to evaluate the manuscripts based on their content only. References to affiliation, nationality, religious, political and other positionings as well as gender, age etc. should not influence the evaluation of the manuscript.
  • The editorial team will consider the specific challenges that pertain not only to inter- and transdisciplinary approaches but also to the review of contributions that have been submitted in context of academic conferences. These considerations will gear the quality assurance processes and the selection of reviewers.
  • The critical approach to power relations within academia informs the development of quality assurance processes as well as the selection of reviewers through the editorial team.
  • Reviewers provide the editors in charge with a scientifically sound and argumentatively comprehensible assessment of the scientific suitability of a manuscript for the Open Gender Journal and formulate suggestions to optimize the manuscripts argumentatively.
  • Reviewers should review only those manuscripts for which they have professional expertise.
  • Reviewers commit to assess the manuscript based on its content only. References to affiliation, nationality, religious, political and other positionings as well as gender, age etc. should not influence the evaluation of the manuscript. Critique can and should be presented in context of a clear, reasonable, and professional argumentation. Any form of discrediting and personal criticism is not acceptable.
  • In the case of conflicting expert recommendations, editors decide on the evaluation, obtain further expert opinions if necessary, and propose a solution with which they approach the authors.
  • Authors may have to make several changes to their manuscript. In doing so, they enter into a dialog with the editorial team and explain how they deal with expert recommendations. They have the scientific freedom to implement the recommendations of the reviewers according to their own assessments.
  • Once the review process is complete, editors make the decision to accept or reject a manuscript.

Scientific Misconduct

  • In case of a scientific misconduct, the editors commit to develop procedures that align with the principles of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE Council. COPE Flowcharts and infographics — Plagiarism in a submitted manuscript — English. https://doi.org/10.24318/cope.2019.2.1) and decide about the further publication process.
  • In case of suspicion of unethical publication behavior, such as plagiarism or other scientific misconduct in already published articles, the Open Gender Journal will initiate a two-step process following the procedures of the Committee on Publication Ethics. First, the authors will be informed by the editors about the suspicion of their scientific misconduct and will also be asked to comment within a set period of time. The authors commit to submit a statement. If the suspicion of scientific misconduct is confirmed, the editorial office commits itself to inform the authors about the consequences and to mark the respective publication according to the guidelines of COPE. Scientific misconduct may result in a marked correction of the published article or a retraction of the article. In the case that no statement is made, the Open Gender Journal reserves the right to take legal action and to inform the authors' institutions.

Transparency and Conflict of Interest

  • Authors are obliged to transparently disclose funding that has contributed to the research conducted in the manuscript. This includes the disclosure of the funding number or the reference number of the funding.
  • Authors are obliged to indicate potential conflicts of interest. For this, it is sufficient to declare competing interests in a separate conflict of interest statement.
  • Editors should be aware of the funding which has significantly contributed to the research conducted in the manuscript and thoroughly consider any resulting conflicts of interest.
  • Editors are obliged to communicate conflicts of interest that grow from personal and collaborative relationships and agree to withdraw from the editorial supervision of the manuscript.
  • Reviewers are obliged to communicate conflicts of interests that grow from personal and/ or collaborative relationships and agree to withdraw from reviewing the manuscript.
  • Reviewers should not pursue own academic interests with the review of manuscripts.

Time Management

  • The Open Gender Journal is committed to ensuring optimized scheduling for all those involved in the publication process. By means of this, the Open Gender Journal minimizes the risk that authors withdraw their article due to lack of time resources.
  • Editors communicate the formalities concerning the submission of reviews at an early stage and, at best, in the initial correspondence with the reviewers. This applies in particular to the time limit for submitting the reviews.
  • Reviewers take care to meet the agreed deadline for submission of reviews and communicate transparently to the editorial team if they need an extension of the deadline.
  • Authors are made aware of the duration of the publication process at an early stage and are in turn obliged to communicate to the editorial team if changes to the manuscript require more time.

Authorship

Confidentiality

  • Editors, Reviewers and Authors are obliged to treat the content of the manuscripts and reviews as well as all personal data confidential.
  • Editors and Reviewers are not allowed to use and share information from unpublished manuscripts for the benefit of their own research without the written consent of the authors.