.svg)
The ethics statements of “Journal of Comparative Studies” are based on the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) CORE PRACTICES. All parties involved in the publishing (authors, reviewers, editors, publisher) respect and agree with these standards.
1. Publication and Peer Review Process
“Journal of Comparative Studies” accepts original research work that has not been published before. No plagiarism, copyright infringement or presentation of fraudulent data is allowed. Each submitted manuscript is checked for plagiarism with WCopyfind program Under Gnu Public License. All submitted manuscripts should include a list of used references.
All manuscripts submitted to “Journal of Comparative Studies” are managed by the journal’s EDITORIAL BOARD. The Board shall seek to ensure that the peer-review process is fair, unbiased, and timely. Two editors in cooperation with the Editorial Board are responsible for deciding which articles submitted to the journal qualify for double-blind peer review.
Manuscripts together with the signed AUTHOR(S) GUARANTEE FORM are submitted to the Editorial Board via email to kpc@du.lv or ilze.kacane@du.lv. Manuscripts are initially evaluated by the editors. The co-editor checks the paper’s arrangement against the Guidelines for Authors to make sure it includes the required sections and is “spell checked” and “grammar checked”. If the manuscript is appropriate, the editor-in-chief together with the co-editor evaluate its correspondence to the aims of the journal, originality and interest to the target audience. If the manuscript fails to meet the requirements, it is rejected without being reviewed further. If the manuscript has passed the initial check, the next stage – double blind peer-review process – is initiated. The EDITORS invite two external reviewers specializing in the theme of the manuscript – experts in the area – are invited to review it following the GUIDELINES FOR REVIEWERS. If necessary, the editors may seek an opinion from the third referee. The editors shall select reviewers who have suitable expertise in the relevant field and follow the best practices in avoiding the selection of fraudulent peer reviewers. During the double-blind peer review process, the following aspects of each manuscript are evaluated: suitability for the journal, originality, research significance, methodology and conceptualization, presentation (manuscript structure and flow), readability, clarity, and language. The reviewers may accept the articles for publication without any corrections, with minor or major corrections, or reject it as failing to meet the requirements for a scientific article. A complete REVIEW FORM following the GUIDELINES FOR REVIEWERS are returned to the editors via e-mail (kpc@du.lv or ilze.kacane@du.lv) within one (1) month. If the reviews differ widely, a reviewer from the EDITORIAL BOARD is invited to provide an additional opinion before making any further decision. If the reviews differ widely, the editors invite an additional reviewer from the Editorial Board to receive an additional opinion before making any further decision. The editor-in-chief informs all authors of the submitted manuscript about the reviewers’ decision via e-mail. If the article requires corrections, the authors also receive anonymous reviewers’ constructive comments and are provided on average 2 months to revise their article and re-submit it for reconsideration. If major corrections were required, the revised article is forwarded to the reviewers by the editor repeatedly. In case of minor revisions, the editors check the re-submitted article and decide if it follows recommendations of the reviewers and the journal.
The prepared content of the issue is presented by the EDITOR-IN-CHIEF in the meeting of Daugavpils University Institute of Humanities and Social Sciences Scientific Council who recommends it for publishing preserving the right to express any constructive comments for the improvement of the overall quality of the journal. The editors in cooperation with authors may prepare final corrections after the scientific discussion at the workplace of the editor-in-chief. The final decision to publish the journal is made by the Science Council of Daugavpils University based on the recommendation of the Institute of Humanities and Social Sciences Scientific Council.
“The Journal of Comparative Studies” copyright belongs to Daugavpils University. Authors publish in “Journal of Comparative Studies” free of charge. All published articles are open access and after publication immediately available to anyone. The authors are encouraged to share the published works via scientific networks online.
2. Author Responsibilities
General Standards
Researchers should conduct their research – from research proposal to publication – in line with best practices and codes of conduct of relevant professional bodies and/or national and international regulatory bodies. Authors of original research should present an accurate account of the work performed as well as an objective discussion of its significance. Underlying data should be represented accurately in the paper. A paper should contain sufficient detail and references to permit others to replicate the work. Knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behaviour and are unacceptable. Since the ethics statements of “Journal of Comparative Studies” are based on the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) CORE PRACTICES and the journal adheres to the Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing the authors should follow the good practices of ethics and research integrity. The research must be conducted in line with the best practices and codes of conduct of relevant professional bodies and national and international regulatory bodies. If authors research is based on the involvement of humans, they should ensure that it conforms with the Regulations of Humanities and Social Sciences Research Ethics Committee of Daugavpils University, which had been elaborated based on the Law of Scientific Activity of the Republic of Latvia, the Ethical Code of Scientist in consent with Latvian Academy of Sciences and Latvian Science Council, the Code of Ethics of Daugavpils University employees and students, and Daugavpils University Satversme.
Originality and Acknowledgement of Sources
The authors should ensure they have written entirely original works. If the authors have used the work and/or words of others, they should ensure that this has been appropriately cited or quoted and permission has been obtained where necessary.
Proper acknowledgment of the work of others must always be given. Authors should cite publications that have influenced the reported work and that give the work appropriate context within the larger scholarly record. Information obtained privately, as in conversation, correspondence, or discussion with third parties, must not be used or reported without explicit, written permission from the source.
Plagiarism in all its forms constitutes unethical behaviour and is unacceptable.
The “Journal of Comparative Studies” publishes theory-driven, methodologically sophisticated and empirical research papers in English that have undergone a double-blind peer-review process. To increase the chances of publication and move through peer review, production and publication smoothly, the authors must ensure the manuscript meets the following criteria:
Authorship of the Paper
All those who have made substantial contributions should be listed as co-authors. In case there are others who have participated in certain aspects of the paper (e.g., language editing or translation), they should be recognised in the acknowledgements section.
Authors are expected to consider carefully the list and order of authors before submitting their manuscript and provide the definitive list of authors at the time of the original submission. All co-authors take collective responsibility for the work and are responsible for the accuracy and integrity of any part of the work. Each author is obliged to participate in the peer review process and provide retractions or corrections of mistakes. Authors should mention all sources of financial support for the work. Authors are obligated to notify the editor(s) of any conflict of interest.
Notification of Fundamental Errors
If authors have found a significant mistake or inaccuracy in their published work, they are obligated to inform the journal editors or publisher and cooperate with the editors to correct the paper if deemed necessary by the editors. If editors or publisher learn from the third party about the errors of the published work, the author will be required to correct these errors or provide evidence of the correctness of the errors to journal editors.
3. Reviewer Responsibilities
General Standards
Peer review is an essential component of formal scholarly communication. It lies at the heart of the scientific method. Peer review assists the editors in making editorial decisions and through the editorial communications with the author may also assist the author in improving the paper. Reviewers are asked to treat authors and their work as they would like to be treated themselves and to observe good reviewing etiquette. Reviewers are required to observe good reviewing etiquette.
Confidentiality
Any manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. Reviewers must not share the review or information about the paper with anyone or contact the authors directly without permission from the editor. Reviewers should first discuss all issues related to manuscripts with the editors in order to ensure that confidentiality is observed and that participants receive suitable credit. Likewise, reviewers’ confidentiality is observed – the names of reviewers are never disclosed to authors. There is no direct communication between author(s) and reviewer(s) concerning a manuscript; editors fulfil the role of mediators.
Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage. Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in a reviewer’s own research without the express written consent of the author. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage.
Ethical Issues
A reviewer should be alert to potential ethical issues in the paper and should bring these to the attention of the editor, including any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published paper of which the reviewer has personal knowledge. Any such argument should be accompanied by the relevant citation. Any selected referee who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should notify the editor and decline participation in the review process. In cases when a reviewer suggests including citations to the reviewer’s (or their associates’) work, this must be for genuine scientific reasons and not to increase one’s citation count or enhance the visibility of their work (or that of their associates). The editors shall review all disclosures of potential conflicts of interest and suggestions for self-citation made by reviewers.
Standards of Objectivity
Reviews should be conducted objectively. Reviewers should be aware of any personal bias and take this into account when reviewing a paper. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate. Referees should express their views clearly with supporting arguments.
Reviewers should consult the editor before agreeing to review a paper where they have potential conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers.
If a reviewer suggests that an author includes citations to the reviewer’s (or their associates’) work, this must be for genuine scientific reasons and not with the intention of increasing the reviewer’s citation count or enhancing the visibility of their work (or that of their associates).
Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate. Reviewers should express their views with clear supporting arguments and inform the editor of any potential conflict of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the possible authors, companies, or institutions connected to the paper.
Since the “Journal of Comparative Studies” publishes theory-driven, methodologically sophisticated and empirical research papers in English that have undergone a double-blind peer-review process, reviewers are requested to consider the following criteria:
Each reviewer evaluates the following aspects of each manuscript: suitability for the journal, originality, research significance, methodology and conceptualization, presentation (manuscript structure and flow), readability, clarity, and language. To evaluate a manuscript submitted to the “Journal of Comparative Studies”, the reviewer completes the REVIEW FORM following the general guidelines and returns it to the editors via e-mail (kpc@du.lv or ilze.kacane@du.lv) within one (1) month. The reviewers may accept the articles for publication without any corrections, with minor or major revisions, or reject them as failing to meet the requirements for a scientific paper or because it is outside the journal’s scope. It is expected that reviewers express their views clearly with supporting arguments, identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the author.
4. Editor Responsibilities
General Standards
Editors have responsibilities toward the authors, the peer reviewers, the journal readers and the scientific community. They guarantee the quality of the papers, relevance to the journal scope and the integrity of the academic record without regard to the author race, gender, sexual orientation, ethnic origin, citizenship, religious belief, political philosophy or institutional affiliation. The editors must protect the confidentiality of all material submitted to the journal and all communications with reviewers, unless otherwise agreed with the relevant authors and reviewers. Editors do not allow any conflicts of interest between staff, authors, reviewers and board members. Editors should preserve the anonymity of reviewers and have a clear picture of a research funding sources.
Peer Review
Research articles must typically be reviewed by at least two independent reviewers, and where necessary the editor should seek additional opinions. The editors shall ensure that the peer review process is fair, unbiased, and timely. The editors in cooperation with the Editorial Board shall select reviewers who have suitable expertise in the relevant field and shall follow best practice in avoiding the selection of fraudulent peer reviewers. The editor shall review all disclosures of potential conflicts of interest and suggestions for self-citation made by reviewers in order to determine whether there is any potential for bias
The editor-in-chief has the rights to make the final decision to reject or accept an article by taking into account research importance, originality, clarity, relevance to publication scope, and ensure that all research material conforms to internationally accepted ethical guidelines and associate editors-in-chief recommendations.
Editors should not reject papers based on suspicions. They should have proof of misconduct and not reverse their decisions nor overturn the ones of previous editors without serious reason. Editors of “Journal of Comparative Studies” will consider retracting the publication due to: 1) unreliable (major errors, result falsification) published research, 2) plagiarism, 3) previously published results without citation, 4) data without authorization to publish, 5) copyright violation, 6) unethical research, 7) falsified peer review procedure, 8) conflict of interest. Publication retraction process should follow Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) RETRACTION GUIDELINES. Editors publish errata pages or make corrections when needed and act if they suspect misconduct, whether a paper is published or unpublished, and make all reasonable attempts to persist in obtaining a resolution to the problem.
Editorial board members will not use unpublished information of the submitted manuscripts for their own research without the author clear written acceptance. If editors find a conflict of interest in the manuscript, they will ask another editorial board member to handle the manuscript.
5. Duties of the Publisher
General Standards
The Publisher uses a number of safeguards against unethical behaviour. In cases of alleged or proven misconduct, fraudulent publication or plagiarism, the Publisher in cooperation with editors will take action to seek clarity on the situation take the necessary measures following COPE Guidance.
Corrections and Retractions
Should authors report errors in their published manuscript (both originating from the publication process or from faults in the study methods or results), an Erratum will be published in the Journal as soon as possible, citing the original article and reporting relevant amendments.
Appeals and Complaints
Complaints from any party must be addressed to the Publisher who will provide full information on the handling policy for appeals and complaints.
6. Access and Archiving
The publisher of the journal guarantees free access to anyone and permanent availability and preservation (in case if journal will no longer be issued) of the journal in a digital archive. Published material can be used for further references (reproducibility) only if the appropriate citation is provided (author(s) name(s), year, title of the article, journal title, volume, number, page number). Hard and digital copies of “Journal of Comparative Studies” are deposited in the National Library of Latvia, Daugavpils University library and other libraries in the country. Authors retain the right to self-archive the article.
