Publication and Research Ethics

PUBLICATION ETHICS

Publication Ethics and Prevention of Publication Malpractice
Archival Notes is dedicated to upholding ethical standards in publication and ensuring article quality. Plagiarism is strictly prohibited, and any papers found to be plagiarized will either be removed or not published. To prevent plagiarism, all submitted papers undergo thorough checks using plagiarism detectors before entering the review process.
Authors, upon signing the publication agreement, confirm that their article and associated materials are original and do not violate any copyrights. They must also warrant that all co-authors have reached full consensus on the submission and that the work has not been previously submitted or published elsewhere. Adhering to the COPE's Code of Conduct for Journal Publishers, Archival Notes ensures that publication ethics encompass crucial standards for all involved parties, including authors, editors, and peer reviewers. Any potential or emerging conflicts of interest are actively prevented by Archival Notes, and any deviations from these standards are promptly reported to the editor.
Editors, authors, and reviewers within Archival Notes are required to follow good publication practices and meet the responsibilities outlined by the COPE Code of Conduct for Journal Editors. COPE provides detailed guidelines available at http://publicationethics.org/resources/guidelines.

Publication and Authorship
Submitted articles for the “Articles” and “Focus” sessions are subject to double-blind peer review. The reviewers’ task is primarily to provide valuable scientific feedback and enhance the manuscript's content. This assessment covers various facets including relevance, validity, significance, originality, readability, and language proficiency. Potential decisions include acceptance, acceptance with revisions, or rejection. It's important to note that revision doesn't automatically guarantee acceptance, and rejected articles won't be reevaluated.
Paper approval aligns with legal criteria concerning defamation, copyright infringement, and plagiarism.

Authors’ Responsibilities
Authors confirm the originality of their submissions, asserting they have not been previously published. They must engage in the peer review process and guarantee that each listed author has made substantial contributions to the study. Authors vouch for the accuracy and truthfulness of all presented data and disclose any conflicts of interest to the Editors. Properly citing all utilized sources is the authors' duty. Authors should promptly inform Editors of any discovered inaccuracies in their published manuscript and uphold the intellectual property rights, copyrights, and privacy of third parties involved in the research.

Reviewers’ Responsibilities
Confidentiality must be maintained regarding all details of reviewed articles by reviewers.
Impartial reviews, devoid of personal attacks on the author, are expected.
Opinions should be accompanied by clear explanations and supporting evidence.
Relevant published work that authors may have omitted must be identified by reviewers.
Any significant similarities between the reviewed article and other published works known to reviewers should be notified to the Editor-in-Chief by reviewers.
Reviewers should refrain from assessing submissions entangled in conflicts of interest or personal affiliations with authors, organizations, or institutions linked to the articles.

Editors’ Responsibilities
Final authority over article acceptance or rejection lies with the Editor-in-Chief in coordination with the Editorial Board (regular issues) or the Guest Editor(s) (thematic issues).
Editors ensure the content and overall quality of publications.
Prioritizing the needs of both authors and readers, editors ensure high-quality articles while maintaining academic integrity.
Editorial decisions are guided by the importance, novelty, clarity, and relevance of articles to the journal's scope.
Editors are informed of the funding sources for each study and are committed to maintaining the integrity of the peer review process. They refrain from overturning their decisions or those of previous editors without compelling reasons. They uphold the anonymity of reviewers and ensure that published studies adhere to globally recognized ethical standards.
Editors are vigilant about addressing suspicions of misconduct in manuscripts, whether published or unpublished, and strive to resolve such issues. Suspicions alone are insufficient grounds for article rejection; evidence of misconduct must be substantiated.
Transparency is encouraged among staff, authors, reviewers, and editors regarding any conflicts of interest.
Editors oversee authors' compliance with intellectual property rights, copyrights, and privacy of third parties.

Disputes
The Editor-in-Chief, in coordination with the Editorial Board or the Guest Editor(s), determines which reviewers' comments to consider. Reviewers cannot insist on specific changes to a paper, especially if the requests exceed the prerogatives of the referees outlined in the Publication Ethics. In case of dispute between co-authors, the Editor-in-Chief will require them to resolve it before the publication proceeds. Any other disputes between authors, or between authors and reviewers, are handled in accordance with COPE guidelines.

RESEARCH ETHICS

All submissions must strictly comply with the Code of Conduct and Best-Practice Norms for Journal Editors, which endorse adherence to ethical guidelines for research and publishing established by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

Authorship and Contributorship
Authors must outline their contributions to the work in the cover letter. Only individuals meeting the criteria for authorship should be included in the manuscript, as they must be prepared to take public responsibility for the content. These criteria comprise (i) significant contributions to the conception, design, execution, data acquisition, or analysis/interpretation of the study; (ii) drafting or critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content; and (iii) review and approval of the final paper version before submission. The corresponding author bears responsibility for ensuring the inclusion of all appropriate coauthors and the exclusion of any inappropriate ones, as well as confirming that all coauthors have consented to the final paper version before submission.

Conflict of Interest
The corresponding author must disclose any potential conflicts of interest to the Editor or the Editorial Board that could impact the authors' data interpretation. Even if authors perceive no influence on their judgments during the paper's preparation, any possible conflicts of interest should be disclosed in the cover letter. Examples of such conflicts encompass financial support or personal affiliations with rights holders (authors, heirs, archives, publishers). The editor will decide if the conflict information should be included in the final manuscript and will consult with the respective author before publication. Full acknowledgment of all funding sources for a study is especially crucial.

Redundant Publication
"Redundant publication" refers to the practice of presenting substantially similar work more than once without duly acknowledging the original source(s). Indicators of significant similarity include: (a) Shared authorship across all reports (the absence of shared authors suggests plagiarism rather than redundant publishing); (b) Similar or overlapping topics or research populations; (c) Consistent or nearly identical methodology in most cases; and (d) Minimal differences in results and interpretation.
Authors should inform the editor of any potential overlap with previously published or under consideration material when submitting an article to Archival Notes. Additionally, they should emphasize how the work submitted to our journal differs significantly from any existing material.

Procedure for Addressing Research and Publication Misconduct
In instances where accusations of research and publication misconduct, such as redundant publication, plagiarism, data fabrication, authorship changes, conflicts of interest, ethical concerns with submitted manuscripts, or reviewer misconduct arise, Archival Notes adheres to the flowchart outlined by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) for resolution (http://publicationethics.org/resources/flowcharts). The Editor-in-Chief and the Editorial Board review the allegations and makes a final decision.

Handling Complaints and Appeals
The policy of the journal is designed to safeguard the interests of authors, reviewers, editors, and the publisher. Guidelines for managing complaints and appeals follow the regulations set forth by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), available at: https://publicationethics.org/retraction-guidelines.

Policies on Data Sharing and Reproducibility
Authors have the right to share and distribute their work post-publication, provided they acknowledge its original publication in Archival Notes.

Post-Publication Discussions and Corrections
Readers can engage in post-publication discussions via correspondence. Those with concerns regarding published articles can communicate them by writing a letter to the editor. Errata, corrigenda, and retractions are employed to address any identified errors or flaws in articles. Authors are accountable for promptly retracting or rectifying inaccuracies in their published works. Editors oversee revisions requested by authors, and upon acceptance, the document is updated and reissued on the journal's website, along with a Correction notice.

Plagiarism and Retraction
Plagiarism entails presenting someone else's work or ideas as one's own, either with or without permission, by incorporating it into their own work without proper acknowledgment. Plagiarism, whether in full or in part, is strictly prohibited and will lead to rejection. Therefore, before undergoing the review process, all submitted papers are subjected to plagiarism checks using dedicated software.
Any borrowed text must be placed within quotation marks and accurately cited with reference to the original source. Previous research influencing the study's design, manuscript structure, or language must be clearly referenced. If plagiarism is detected during the peer review process, the paper may face rejection. In cases where plagiarism is uncovered after publication, corrective actions such as issuing a Correction or withdrawing the paper may be taken.
Retractions, corrections, and expressions of concern are handled in accordance with the guidelines provided by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), accessible at: https://publicationethics.org/retraction-guidelines.

Ethical Guidelines for the Use of Human Participants in Research
Archival Notes invites research exploring practices of composition performance and archival work that may entail interaction with human subjects. The following principles guide human research endeavors:
Human research involves studies conducted on or with individuals, their data, behaviors, or bodies, thus carrying ethical implications.
'Ethical behavior' extends beyond mere adherence to rules and involves conducting oneself in a morally upright manner, guided by a profound respect and empathy for others.
Research should have a clear scientific objective. Investigators must disclose any aspects of the research or intervention that may reasonably influence participants' willingness to participate, providing explanations for any additional aspects inquired about by participants.
Failure to provide comprehensive information prior to obtaining informed consent necessitates additional measures to safeguard participants' well-being and dignity.
Throughout the investigation, researchers have a primary responsibility to protect participants from physical and emotional harm.
Archival Notes requires all authors to evaluate potential physical or psychological risks linked to research involving human participants. Investigators must thoroughly disclose any such risks or hazards participants may encounter. Obtaining informed consent from all human participants is obligatory to safeguard their well-being and dignity. Inadequate disclosure before obtaining informed consent may lead to manuscript delay or rejection.