Rhetorica Online is a peer-reviewed journal. This statement regulateя ethical behavior of all parties involved in the act of publishing an article in it and it adheres to the Codes of Conduct and Best Practice Guidelines of the Committee’s on Publication Ethics (COPE)
Duties of Editors:
Rhetorica Online’s editorial board takes all decisions for editing or publishing texts without other party influence. The editors ensure that all submitted manuscripts being considered for publication undergo peer-review by at least two reviewers – experts in the respective field. The decision for publication is based on the manuscript’s academic merit, on the comments and recommendations provided by reviewers and on its conformity with the journal’s requirements and guidelines (see here). The main consideration of editors when working on publication improvement or when making necessary corrections is always to be the interests of authors and readers.
Fair treatment: The editorial board of Rhetorica Online evaluates submitted manuscripts for their content, as adhering to the academic standards of originality, clarity, actuality and relevance, without regard to the authors’ race, gender, sexual orientation, ethnic origin, religious belief or political philosophy, social or institutional affiliation.
Confidentiality: Editors and editorial members will keep all information about a submitted manuscript confidential and will not disclose it to any other than those directly involved in the manuscript’s evaluation, review and publication. Information of a submitted manuscript will not be used by editors or editorial board members or shared with third parties without the author’s written consent. Information obtained as a result of handling the manuscript is considered confidential and will not be used for personal advantage. Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript will not be used in an editor’s own research without the author’s written consent.
Conflict of interest: Editorial members will recuse themselves from making editorial decisions of individual manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest as because of competitive, collaborative, or other relationships to any of the authors or connected institutions. Instead, another member of the editorial board will be asked to handle the manuscript.
Cases of misconduct: In cases of alleged or proven scientific misconduct, fraudulent publication or plagiarism, the editorial board will take the appropriate measures to address the situation. This may include, if necessary, the prompt publication of an erratum, clarification or even, retraction of affected work.
Duties of the reviewers:
Confidentiality: manuscripts received for review are to be treated in confidence and must not be shown to, shared or discussed with others unless approved by the editors (on exceptional and specific circumstances). Knowledge of their content must not be used for any purpose not related to the peer review process.
Constructive critique: Reviewers’ feedback to authors is to be provided on time, to be unbiased, clear and supported by arguments so that it can help the author to improve the manuscript. Reviewers’ comments must refer to the academic merits and scientific value of the work only, personal criticism of the author is inappropriate. The intellectual independence of the author should be respected.
Competence and timeliness: Reviewer’s acceptance of an assignment is to be based on their relevant expertise and ability to provide an objective assessment. Reviewers who realize that their expertise on the subject is limited and insufficient or that they cannot provide an assessment within the time requested should immediately notify the editors so that alternative reviewers can be contacted.
Disclosure of conflict of interest: A reviewer should aim at an objective and unbiased assessment of the submitted material and if the reviewer has any interest that interferes with this aim because of existing collaborative, competitive or other relationships between the reviewer and the authors or institutions related to the manuscript then the reviewer should disclose their conflict of interest to the editor so that alternative reviewers can be contacted.
Report of plagiarism: Science is a collaborative intellectual enterprise and that is why duly recognizing others’ contribution to one’s work is a cornerstone of the integrity of academic research. Thus, if the reviewer identifies relevant published work that has been used but not cited in the manuscript under review, or if substantial similarity is noted between the submitted manuscript and any other academic work known by the reviewer, the reviewer should alert the editors for a suspected case of plagiarism.
Duties of Authors:
Originality and acknowledgment of sources: Authors should ensure that the works submitted are entirely original and that all use of works and/ or words of other authors is indicated by means of appropriate citation or quotation according to the standards of the journal (for guidelines see here). Plagiarism in all its forms is considered unethical publishing behaviour and is unacceptable.
Multiple Publication: An author should not in general publish manuscripts describing essentially the same research in more than one journal or primary publication. Submitting the same manuscript simultaneously to more than one journal is considered unethical publishing behaviour and unacceptable.
Authorship: As manuscript’s authors or co-authors are to be listed those who have made a substantial contribution to the manuscript’s conception, to the processes of data acquisition, analysis and interpretation, to the drafting or substantial revision of the manuscript. Authors must be able to take public responsibility for the manuscript’s content.
Conflict of interest: Authors must disclose any relationships and interests (financial, professional or other) that might influence the presentation or interpretation of research’s results.
Compliance to journal’s publishing standards: Manuscript should be prepared according to the style and specifications of the journal’s policy.
Participation in reviewing process: It is authors’ obligation to take part in the peer review process and respond promptly to editors’ requests for raw data, clarifications and copyright permissions. Authors should respond to the reviewers’ comments in a timely manner, revising and re-submitting their manuscript to the journal when asked to.
Significant errors in submitted or published manuscripts: If authors discover significant errors or inaccuracies in their own published work, it is their obligation to promptly notify the journal editors and cooperate with them for the paper’s correction or retraction. If a third party reports that a published work contains a significant error or inaccuracy, then it is obligation of authors either to correct or retract the paper or provide evidence for its correctness.
Research transparency and replication: The manuscript should contain sufficient detail and reference to permit others to replicate the work. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements are considered unethical behaver and are unacceptable. Authors may be asked to provide the raw data of their study together with the manuscript for editorial review and should be prepared to make the data publicly available if practicable. Authors should ensure accessibility of such data to other competent professionals after publication, with respect to the proprietary legal rights and data authorship.