Publication Ethics and Misconduct

Ethical Guidelines for Social Sciences and Humanities Reviews

1. Ethical Behavior in Publishing
Social Sciences and Humanities Reviews is a peer-reviewed journal. This statement outlines the ethical responsibilities of all parties involved in publishing articles, including authors, editor-in-chief, editorial board, peer reviewers, and the publisher, SPDFHarmony. These guidelines are based on the COPE Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors.

2. Guidelines for Journal Publication Ethics
Articles published in Social Sciences and Humanities Reviews play a crucial role in the development of a coherent and respected knowledge network. They reflect the quality of the authors' work and the institutions that support them. Peer-reviewed articles are essential in upholding the scientific method. It is therefore essential that all parties involved in publishing agree on the ethical standards expected in publishing: authors, journal editors, peer reviewers, publishers, and the public.

3. Publisher's Responsibility
CV. DYOQU Management Publishing, the publisher of Social Sciences and Humanities Reviews, takes its responsibility to ensure the integrity of all publishing stages very seriously. We are committed to maintaining ethical standards and ensuring that advertising, reprints, or other commercial revenues do not influence editorial decisions.

4. Alleged Research Infringement
Research infringements refer to falsification, manipulation of citations, or plagiarism in producing, conducting, or reviewing research, and in writing articles by authors or in reporting research results. If authors are found to be involved in research violations or irregularities in articles that have been published, the editor is responsible for maintaining the scientific record's accuracy and integrity.

In cases of suspected violations, the editor and editorial board will apply COPE best practices to resolve complaints fairly. This includes investigating the allegations by the editor. Submissions found with such issues will be rejected. If a published paper is found to contain such errors, a retraction may be issued and will be linked to the original article.

5. Investigation of Allegations
The first step in addressing allegations is to determine whether the accusations align with research misconduct definitions. This step includes assessing any potential conflicts of interest related to the alleged infringing party.

If significant errors or other research issues are identified, the allegations are shared with the authors, who are asked to provide detailed responses. Once these responses are reviewed, further review from experts (such as statistical reviewers) may be involved. In cases where infringement is unlikely, clarification and additional analysis, often published as a letter to the editor with corrections to the article, may be sufficient.

Institutions are expected to conduct proper investigations into suspected misconduct. Authors, journals, and institutions share the responsibility to ensure scientific records' accuracy. Social Sciences and Humanities Reviews will continue to fulfill its duty by making corrections, retractions, or replacements when necessary, ensuring the validity of the scientific record.

6. Publication Decisions
The editor is responsible for deciding which articles to publish. Decisions are based on editorial board guidance, along with legal considerations (such as defamation, copyright infringement, and plagiarism). Editors may consult other editors or reviewers when making publication decisions.

7. Complaints and Appeals
Social Sciences and Humanities Reviews has a clear process for handling complaints against the journal, editorial staff, editorial board, or publisher. Complaints will be addressed respectfully. They can relate to any part of the journal’s operations, including editorial processes, citation manipulation, unfair editorial or peer review practices, and other related issues. Complaints are processed in line with COPE guidelines.

8. Post-Publication Discussions
Post-publication discussions are allowed and may be published on the journal's website, through letters to the editor, or in moderated external sites.

9. Fair Play
An editor evaluates manuscripts based solely on their intellectual content, regardless of the authors' race, gender, sexual orientation, religious beliefs, ethnic origin, nationality, or political philosophy.

10. Confidentiality
Editors and editorial staff must not disclose any information about submitted manuscripts to anyone other than the respective authors, reviewers, or relevant editorial staff.

By adhering to these ethical guidelines, Social Sciences and Humanities Reviews ensures that the publishing process remains fair, transparent, and committed to the integrity of scientific communication.

Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest
Unpublished material disclosed in submitted manuscripts must not be used by the editor for their own research without the written consent of the author.

Data Sharing Policy
Social Sciences and Humanities Reviews is committed to fostering a more open research landscape by enabling faster and more effective research discovery. We encourage authors to share their research data, including but not limited to raw data, processed data, software, algorithms, protocols, methods, and materials. This practice supports reproducibility and verification of data, methodologies, and reporting standards.

Duties of Reviewers

1. Contribute to Editorial Decisions
Peer reviewers assist editors in making editorial decisions. Their feedback helps improve the manuscript and the communication between editors and authors.

2. Appropriateness
Any reviewer who feels unqualified to review the manuscript or knows that they cannot provide a timely review must inform the editor and withdraw from the review process.

3. Confidentiality
Manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. Reviewers are not allowed to show or discuss the manuscript with others unless permitted by the editor.

4. Review Standards Objectivity
Reviews should be conducted impartially and objectively. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate. Reviewers should provide clear, reasoned arguments to support their views.

5. Acknowledgment of Sources
Reviewers must identify any relevant published work that the authors have not cited. Any observation, derivation, or argument that has been previously reported must be cited appropriately. Reviewers should also notify the editor if there are substantial similarities or overlaps between the manuscript under review and other published works they are aware of.

6. Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest
Reviewers must keep any privileged information obtained during the peer review process confidential and must not use it for personal gain. Reviewers should not accept manuscripts in which they have a conflict of interest due to a competitive, collaborative, or other relationship with the author, institution, or any entity related to the manuscript.

Author’s Duties

1. Reporting Standards
Authors must present an accurate account of the work performed, along with an objective discussion of its significance. The underlying data should be represented accurately, and sufficient detail and references should be provided to allow others to replicate the work. Any deceptive or intentionally inaccurate statements are unethical.

2. Originality and Plagiarism
Authors must ensure that their work is entirely original. If the author uses the work or words of others, these sources must be properly cited.

3. Multiple, Redundant, or Concurrent Publications
An author may not publish a manuscript describing essentially the same research in more than one journal or major publication. Submitting the same manuscript to multiple journals simultaneously is considered unethical and unacceptable.

4. Acknowledgment of Sources
Proper acknowledgment of the work of others is essential. Authors should cite publications that significantly influenced the development of the reported work.

5. Authorship
Authorship should be limited to those who have made significant contributions to the conception, design, conduct, or interpretation of the research. All individuals who have contributed substantially must be listed as co-authors. Those who have participated in specific aspects of the research but not in its core contributions should be acknowledged as contributors.

Corresponding authors must ensure that all appropriate co-authors are included in the paper and that they have approved the final version and the submission for publication.

6. Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest
All authors must disclose any financial or other conflicts of interest that may influence the results or interpretation of their work. All financial support sources for the project must be disclosed.

7. Fundamental Errors in Published Work
If an author discovers significant errors or inaccuracies in their published work, it is their responsibility to promptly inform the editor or publisher and cooperate to retract or correct the paper.

8. Ethical Oversight
If the research involves chemicals, humans, animals, or hazardous procedures, authors must clearly identify these in the manuscript to comply with ethical standards for research involving animals and human subjects. If necessary, authors must provide legal and ethical approval from relevant associations or organizations.

If the research involves confidential data or business/marketing practices, the author must justify whether such data will be securely hidden.