Publication Ethics

Edinburgh University Library seeks to ensure that all publications published through our Edinburgh Diamond platform adhere to industry standards of ethical behaviour throughout the publication process.

The below guidance is in place to help all Edinburgh Diamond users – editors, peer reviewers and authors across books and journals – work ethically throughout the publication process. Guidance should be followed on a best endeavours basis, and processes might vary slightly journal to journal and book to book.

This publication ethics statement has been compiled using Edinburgh University Press’s publication ethics statement and guidance from the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

Table of Contents

Edinburgh Diamond Publishing Best Practice

Dignity & Respect

Edinburgh Diamond follows the University of Edinburgh’s Dignity and Respect Policy. We expect people to be treated with dignity and respect and do not tolerate any form of harassment or abuse. Edinburgh Diamond and our editors reserve the right to remove someone engaging in such behaviour from our publishing process, whether by removing content, challenging abusive peer review comments or asking people to step down from their role.

Inclusive Language Guidance

Edinburgh Diamond follows – and encourages all editors, authors and reviewers to follow – the Inclusive Language Guidance produced by Edinburgh University Press. 

Principles of Transparency

For journals, the journal editor(s) and Edinburgh Diamond will work together to ensure the journal adheres to COPE’s Principles of Transparency. 

COPE’s Principles of Transparency

Edinburgh Diamond reserves the right to remove content from its site where there is clear evidence that the editor or author has acted in a serious unethical way. Reasons include publishing content that infringes upon any person's rights or applicable UK laws, or that is found to be in breach of copyright. Please see ‘Publication Ethics for Editors>Corrections & Retractions’ for more information on other correction stages before removal.

Name Changes

Authors and editors are entitled to request an update to their published information following a name change because of marriage, divorce, religion, gender identity, or other personal reasons. To ensure authors receive credit for their work and to create a supportive and inclusive environment, names, email addresses, biography photos, pronouns and more will be updated upon request. Edinburgh Diamond will work with the editors (if applicable), to update the PDF, HTML and metadata, and to resubmit the metadata to Crossref and relevant indexing databases (please note: we cannot enforce new metadata on external platforms). No correction notice will be published (unless requested).

We are unable to make changes to correct spelling errors, out-of-date affiliation information or changes that have not resulted from a name change such as a new email address.

To request a name change, contact edinburgh.diamond@ed.ac.uk and the editor (if applicable) with relevant information about the work and information to be updated.

Content Removal

Edinburgh Diamond reserves the right to remove content from its site where there is clear evidence that the editor or author has acted in a serious unethical way. Reasons include publishing content that infringes upon any person's rights or applicable UK laws, or that is found to be in breach of copyright. Please see ‘Publication Ethics for Editors: Corrections & Retractions’ for more information on other correction stages before removal.

Complaints

All allegations of misconduct will be investigated fully. If you want to make a complaint, in the first instance reach out to the journal editor, or book editor/author. Where necessary, Edinburgh Diamond will work with our authors and editors on complaints and, if needed, a complaint may be escalated to the Edinburgh Diamond Service Board.

 

Publication Ethics for Editors

Accountability

All book and journal editors using the Edinburgh Diamond platform are responsible and accountable for content published in their books and journals. It is an editor’s responsibility to put quality assurance measures in place and to ensure the publication process is done in a fair manner. Articles must be decided upon based on quality and suitability. There should be no influence or interference from the journal owner, publisher or commercial organisations (for example, if an issue is funded, editorial decisions should still be made on academic merit). There should be no discrimination on characteristics protected by law, including race, gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation, religious or political beliefs. Edinburgh Diamond, Edinburgh University Library and the University of Edinburgh cannot be held accountable for material published, as it is not involved in the editorial decisions process.

Author Appeals

Authors have the right to appeal editorial decisions on the grounds of (1) significant factual errors and misunderstandings made by the editor or reviewer, or (2) evidence of compromised integrity of the editorial decision-making process. Editors should consider appeals fairly. Decisions made by the Editor are final. The process for an appeal is:

  1. The author should write and send a response letter to the editor which includes counterpoints to the decision and rebuttals to comments provided by the editor and peer reviewers.
  2. The editor should fairly consider the appeal, looping in the editorial board as necessary.
  3. If the authors appeal is granted, their article should be sent to another independent reviewer. The peer review should be used to make a final decision on the article.
  4. If the authors appeal is denied, provide the authors with clear reasoning.
  5. The editors’ decision is final. An appeal decision cannot be appealed.

Changes to the Scholarly Record

Editors should be transparent about any changes to the scholarly record – including new versions and corrections – and include links to previous versions where applicable.

Confidentiality

Information about submitted work must be kept between the editorial team, corresponding author, reviewers and the publisher, as appropriate. Information should not be shared with anyone else. Editors should keep peer reviewer’s identities anonymous, unless there is an open peer review policy in place.

Conflict of Interest

Editors should inform their team if they have competing, or conflicting, interests with a submission. Competing interests include rivalry and financial gain. Editors should not handle submissions where they have a competing interest, unless all parties are aware of the conflict and measures are put in place to ensure it doesn’t affect the fairness with which the submission is treated.

For peer-reviewed journals, the journal editor should not be involved in the editorial decisions of papers which they have written themselves, or those written by colleagues or family members. Papers submitted by the journal editor should go through the journal's usual evaluation and peer review processes, with peer review being handled independently of the author and their research groups.

Corrections and Retractions

Editors are responsible for decisions on corrections and retractions and can loop Edinburgh Diamond in for guidance when needed. Editors reserve the right to issue erratum's, expression of concerns, corrections or retractions if there is proof of author or research misconduct or inaccurate content. When investigating allegations of misconduct, the editor will follow the COPE guidance as the basis for decisions.

COPE Allegations of Misconduct Guidance

There are five correction notices an editor may apply.

(1) Expression of Concern

The editor will consider issuing an expression of concern if:

  • There is an ongoing investigation or lawsuit into alleged misconduct or publication of falsified/fabricated data
  • There is inconclusive evidence of misconduct from the authors
  • The authors’ institution will not investigate misconduct
  • There isn’t the possibility of an impartial, fair or conclusive investigation into the alleged misconduct. 

The expression of concern will be published on the article or book landing page, linking directly to the related version of the work. 

(2) Erratum 

The editor will consider issuing an erratum is an important error has been made by the editorial team that affects the integrity of the work. 

The erratum will be published on the article or book landing page, linking directly to the related version of the work. 

(3) Correction 

The editor will consider issuing a correction if an important error has been made by the authors, including if: 

  • A small amount of an otherwise reliable article is misleading
  • Scientific accuracy is comprised
  • An author needs to be added or removed from the authorship list post-publication
  • An author conflict of interest has been disclosed post-publication (which isn’t significant enough to potentially change the conclusions of the work, in the judgement of the editor). 

The correction will be published on the article or book landing page, linking directly to the related version of the work. 

(4) Retraction 

The editor will consider issuing a retraction notice if: 

  • There is clear evidence that findings are unreliable due to misconduct (such as data fabrication and plagiarism) or honest error (such as a miscalculation)
  • The work is a duplicate publication (the findings have been published elsewhere without cross-referencing or permission)
  • The work constitutes plagiarism
  • The work reports unethical research
  • The peer review process has been compromised to the point where the integrity of the work cannot be guaranteed
  • An author conflict of interest has been disclosed post-publication (which is significant enough to potentially change the conclusions of the work, in the judgement of the editor). 

The retraction notice will be published on the article or book landing page, linking directly to the related version of the work. The version of record PDF will not change, other than for a watermark with the word “retracted” on each page. The HTML version, if one exists, will be removed. The retraction statement should include the reason for retraction (to distinguish misconduct from honest error) and avoid defamatory or libellous statements. 

Editors should follow COPE’s Retraction Guidelines, looping Edinburgh Diamond in. 

(5) Removal 

In very rare cases an article may need to be removed. The editor will only consider a removal: 

  • If the work is the subject of a court order or injunction
  • In the case of defamation
  • If a serious medical error (such as an incorrect dosage that could lead to significant harm) has been published
  • If a serious breach of privacy or confidentiality has been published. 

The removal notice will be published on the article landing page, with a clear reason explaining the removal. 

Peer Review

Editors should have a clear peer review policy in place. The policy should clearly state whether the journal is peer-reviewed and describe which type of review is used (e.g. double anonymous, single anonymous, open). For anonymous review, the peer reviewer’s identity must be kept private.

Plagiarism

Editors should use best endeavours within their means to identify plagiarism in submissions. As defined by COPE, plagiarism includes “unattributed use of large portions of text and/or data, presented as if they were by the plagiarist” and “minor copying of short phrases only with no misattribution of data”, as well as redundant publication/salami publishing (splitting one study across several articles and submitting to multiple journals), duplicate publication (publishing a piece of work multiple times in various journals), text recycling (reusing text, images or equations with no attribution which has potential copyright ramifications), mosaic plagiarism (using synonyms to alter reused sentences while keeping the same structure and meaning), and machine-generated or disguised plagiarism (such as re-translated work).

COPE Flowchart for Plagiarism in a Submitted Manuscript

COPE Flowchart for Plagiarism in a Published Manuscript

Suspected Misconduct

Editors should refer to COPE flowcharts in cases of suspected misconduct, including systematic manipulation of the publication process, such as peer review manipulation or paper mills. Editors can reach out to Edinburgh Diamond for guidance where needed.

COPE Flowchart for Systematic Manipulation of the Publication Process

 

Publication Ethics for Peer Reviewers

COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers

Bias

Reviewers must remain unbiased by characteristics of the authors or editors. There should be no discrimination on characteristics protected by law, including race, gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation, religious or political beliefs.

Confidentiality

Information about submitted papers must be kept between the editorial team, corresponding author, reviewers and the publisher, as appropriate. Information should not be shared with anyone else.

Reviewers should destroy any downloaded copies of the paper or book once a decision has been made by the editor. This is to comply with data protection regulations. No information from the paper or book should be used for the reviewer's gain, or to discredit the authors.

Conflict of Interest

Reviewers must declare all potential competing or conflicting interests. Competing interests include rivalry and financial gain. Talk to the editor if you are unsure.

Constructive Criticism

Reviewers should take care to ensure their comments are objective, respectful, constructive and help to improve the quality and academic rigour of an article. The editor reserves the right to challenge any hostile or unprofessional comments.

Plagiarism

Reviewers must inform the editor of any suspected plagiarism or falsified data in the content they are reviewing, or of any similarities between the articles and others, whether published or in review.

As defined by COPE, plagiarism includes “unattributed use of large portions of text and/or data, presented as if they were by the plagiarist” and “minor copying of short phrases only with no misattribution of data”, as well as redundant publication/salami publishing (splitting one study across several articles and submitting to multiple journals), duplicate publication (publishing a piece of work multiple times in various journals), text recycling (reusing text, images or equations with no attribution which has potential copyright ramifications), mosaic plagiarism (using synonyms to alter reused sentences while keeping the same structure and meaning), and machine-generated or disguised plagiarism (such as re-translated work).

COPE Flowchart for Suspected Plagiarism in a Submitted Manuscript

 

Publication Ethics for Authors

Appeals

Authors have the right to appeal editorial decisions on the grounds of (1) significant factual errors and misunderstandings made by the editor or reviewer, or (2) evidence of compromised integrity of the editorial decision-making process. Any appeal will be considered by the Editor fairly. Decisions made by the Editor after the appeal is final. The process to appeal is:

  1. Write and send a response letter to the editor which includes counterpoints to the decision and rebuttals to comments provided by the editor and peer reviewers.
  2. The editor will consider your appeal fairly, looping in the editorial board as necessary.
  3. If your appeal is granted, your article will be sent to another independent reviewer.
  4. Based on the reviewer’s comment, the editor will make a decision on your article. The editors’ decision is final.
  5. If you have evidence of editor misconduct, contact the Edinburgh Diamond team.

Artificial Intelligence (AI)

Authors and editors should follow COPE’s guidance on the use of AI. This states that AI tools cannot be listed as an author as they cannot take responsibility for submitted work, including providing conflict of interest statements or managing copyright agreements.

If an author has used AI, they must declare this to the editor. Information given should include:

  • Which tool was used
  • How the tool was used
  • Which material(s) was generated from the AI tool e.g. text generation, image generation, translation, heavy text editing (not including common spell-check tools), bibliography or references generation.

Editors reserve the right to reject work based on use of AI.

Please note: feeding any part of your work into a generative AI tool may lead to your work being reused elsewhere or used to train AI tools. This may go against the journal’s licensing policy.

Authorship

The listing of authorship should accurately reflect those who substantially contributed to the work. There is no one standard for determining authorship, but authors are responsible for deciding authorship appropriately, referring to authorship best practice within their discipline. The order of authorship should be agreed upon by all co-authors. All authors should be aware of the completed article and subsequent submission. This should be applied to text, any artistic, design or creative work, as well as any further elements suitable to your discipline. By agreeing to be listed as an author, an author accepts accountability for the work.

When determining authorship, we recommend that authors refer to the Contributor Role Taxonomy (CRediT).

Competing Interests

Authors must declare all potential competing or conflicting interests. Competing interests include financial, commercial, legal, rivalry, or relationships with any member(s) of the editorial team. Authors must include a disclosure statement in their submission if they have a competing interest. Talk to the editor if you are unsure.

Copyright & Third-Party Permissions

Authors are responsible for ensuring their work does not infringe any copyright, intellectual property rights, or third-party rights. It is the author’s responsibility to ensure permissions are obtained for all third-party and relevant content, including texts and images. Authors must inform the editor of any obtained or requested permissions. Edinburgh Diamond is unable to publish third-party content where permissions have not been obtained and reserves the right to remove content that infringes copyright.

Errors

Authors should immediately inform the editor if there are any major errors in the published work. The author will be responsible for working with the editor to publish the necessary expression of concern, erratum, correction, retraction or removal.

Ethical Oversight

Authors should adhere to the COPE definition of Ethical Oversight: “Ethical oversight should include, but is not limited to, policies on consent to publication, publication on vulnerable populations, ethical conduct of research using animals, ethical conduct of research using human subjects, handling confidential data and of business/marketing practices”.

Human/animal experiments: Data involving human or animal experiments should be descriptive about practices within the article. Authors are expected to have complied with prevailing ethical guidelines.

Human subjects: Authors should detail how consent was obtained from any participants in their study. All participants have a right to confidentiality in regard to their personal data, which should not be broken without their consent. No identifying information should be included, unless essential to the work and written informed consent has been obtained, after which it can be included in the work. No data on participants should be falsified or amended.

Fabrication & Falsification

Authors should not fabricate (invent) data or falsify data (manipulate real data such as omitting findings that don’t support your conclusion, altering images or lying about permissions approval).

Funding Acknowledgement

Any funding sources, or other sources of support such as sponsorship, should be noted as this increases funding transparency and ensures the appropriate funding agencies are credited in the work and metadata.

Libellous Content

Authors are responsible for ensuring their work does not contain libellous, false or derogatory content that harms the dignity, reputation or health of any individuals, groups or organisations. Authors should contact the editor and the Edinburgh Diamond team if they have concerns about potentially libellous content on the Edinburgh Diamond platform.

Licenses & General Permissions

Authors should seek the relevant permissions from the relevant authorities for all research, for example getting the appropriate license for an archaeological dig. The editor has the right to issue an Expression of Concern or Retraction to the article if research has found to have been undertaken without the relevant permissions.

Originality

Authors should ensure all the work reported in their article is original and that they own the copyright. Information and content from other sources must be cited and plagiarism avoided.

Plagiarism

Authors must not plagiarise. As defined by COPE, plagiarism includes “unattributed use of large portions of text and/or data, presented as if they were by the plagiarist” and “minor copying of short phrases only with no misattribution of data”, as well as redundant publication/salami publishing (splitting one study across several articles and submitting to multiple journals), duplicate publication (publishing a piece of work multiple times in various journals), text recycling (reusing text, images or equations with no attribution which has potential copyright ramifications), mosaic plagiarism (using synonyms to alter reused sentences while keeping the same structure and meaning), and machine-generated or disguised plagiarism (such as re-translated work).

Simultaneous Submissions

Authors should not submit their article elsewhere while under consideration by an Edinburgh Diamond book or journal. Any overlap in previously published content should be cited appropriately.