Menu
0 items 0,00 €

Publication ethics

I. For authors

I.1. Open access, copyright and archiving policies

Journal articles and book chapters are published in open access without subscription or restriction.

Each manuscript is published under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License (CC BY-NC 4.0) license. Authors can redistribute the material in any medium or format. They can also adapt, transform, and build upon the material as long as the license terms are followed.

Authors retain rights to their journal articles, book chapters, and monographs. However, the rights to a full journal and edited book are shared with the publisher. Under these terms, the publisher can sell and distribute full versions to keep providing APC-free options to authors.
Our publications are archived in CLOCKSS, LOCKSS, and the National Library of Estonia.

I.2. Article Processing Charges (APCs)

Authors are not charged for processing and/or publication in our journals and book series.

I.3. Editorial process

I.3.1. Post-submission stage

Once a journal article, book chapter, or full book (manuscript, from now on) is submitted, the Editor-in-Chief (EiC) check its content relevance, completeness of metadata, technical quality, text similarity using iThenticate, and presentation. At this stage, the EiC might reject the proposal if they consider it unsuitable for peer review.

I.3.1. Post-submission stage

Two external reviewers of considerable expertise are assigned when the EiC moves the manuscript to the peer review phase. Double-blind is the peer-review method employed by all our journals and book series. Reviewers perform voluntary work but are asked to consider timeliness, confidentiality, possible conflict of interest, and ethical behavior.

I.3.3. Editorial decision

Once the review process is completed, the EiC makes a final decision, which can be one of the following:
  • Accepted
  • Considered with minor revisions
  • Considered with major revisions
  • Rejected
For each decision, the authors will receive a notification with the details and the next steps.

I.4. Editorial policies

We ensure high-quality content is published from transparent and trusted research practices. We follow all the guidelines and best publication practices defined by the Committee of Publication Ethics ( COPE ).

I.4.1. Authorship

Pro-Metrics demands that all authors listed in the manuscripts have taken real responsibility during the research process and article creation. We encourage the corresponding authors, project leaders, or institutions to avoid adding people who did not contribute to the research output (Gift authors) or excluding those who did. Its name is not finally included (Ghost authors). To prevent any conflict, deciding the authorship before the project writing is strongly recommended.
Before considering a manuscript for possible publication, a decision must be made regarding the definition of ‘corresponding author’ and ‘order of authors’. The corresponding author will play a communicative role since the Editorial Office will contact them during the evaluation, production, and post-publication processes.

A Contribution Statement needs to be submitted with the manuscript where the roles per author are described based on the CRediT taxonomy. This information will be published together with the full text. All those whose contributions are not listed in this Taxonomy; names can be listed in the Acknowledgements section.

If someone requests to withdraw their name from a manuscript or even claim for inclusion, a formal declaration must be submitted to the Editorial Office . This request will be considered once all authors sign an agreement letter.

I.4.2. Complaints

Any misconduct or questionable practice allegation must be reported to the Editorial Office during the pre-or post-publication stages. We will follow the COPE’s Core Practices to decide on any ethical issue.

I.4.3. Conflict of interest

A Conflict of Interest (COI) occurs when authors have personal, academic, or financial relationships with third parties that could influence the content of research work submitted for publication. When submitting any manuscript, authors are requested to complete the COI Statement by which all potential interests are declared, if applicable. In this statement, the authors should state the following:
  • Any institution receives direct or indirect resources to complete the research work.
  • Financial relationships with entities that supported the performance of the research work.
  • Patents and copyrights, whether pending, issued, licensed, and/or receiving royalties related to the research work.
  • Personal relationships with people who can influence the research content.
These are some examples of COI statements:
  • ⦍Author name⦎ has received ⦍state the received benefits⦎ from ⦍ Institution name or equivalent⦎.
  • ⦍Author name⦎ has ⦍ type of relationship⦎ with ⦍ Institution name or equivalent⦎.
If there is no conflict of interest, the authors must declare the following:
  • The author(s) declare that there is no conflict of interest.

I.4.4. Research data, reproducibility, and transparency

The authors are encouraged to share the data behind the research work. Our policy is to make all scientific data of open access since we follow the Guidelines on Open Access to Scientific Publications and Research Data defined by the European Commission . The data-sharing process can occur in the following ways:

  • Depositing data in a public repository. The Registry of Research Data Repositories can help select a platform to host the data. The link(s) to access the data should be included in the manuscript.
  • Data as supplementary material. Authors can submit supplementary files containing relevant data to share during the submission stage. These files will be available during peer review and published with the manuscript’s full text.
  • Data on request. Before the publication process, authors may be asked for research data at the request of editors or reviewers.
Citations to research data should appear in the full text in the reference section. Authors need to follow the Joint Declaration of Data Citation Principles to provide the correct citation and referencing of the data.

I.4.5. Statement of data consent

To make science more transparent, open, and reproducible, we encourage authors to submit a data statement, which will be publicly available. These are some examples:
  • The (Name/type of data) generated during the development of this study has been deposited in (Repository name), and it is accessible at (Data URL).
  • The (Name/type of data) generated during the development of this study has been included in the manuscript.
  • The (Name/type of data) generated during the development of this study has been published as supplementary material.
  • The (Name/type of data) generated during the development of this study cannot be freely available due to (reasons), but they might be requested to (contact information).
  • The (Name/type of data) generated during the development of this study cannot be freely available due to restrictions imposed by (Name of the restrictor).
  • No data have been generated during the development of this study.

I.4.6. Post-publication discussions, corrections, and retractions

Retractions and corrections occur when a manuscript is published, errors, plagiarism, content falsification, data manipulation, or legal issues regarding privacy and copyright are detected. In each case, all actions will be made with the consent of the author(s) and from the Editorial Office, we will proceed according to the COPE’s Guidelines.

I.4.6. Post-publication discussions, corrections, and retractions

Authors can use preprint servers to host their chapters before submission to the book series. This will not count as multiple or redundant publications. Some preprint servers that can be used are  ArXiv ,  SSRN , bioRxiv ,  psyArXiv ,  SocArXiv ,  engrXiv ,  e-LIS ,  RePEc , etc.

II. For reviewers

II.1. Peer reviewing for Pro-Metrics

Peer reviewers lie at the core of the scholarly publishing process since they play a critical role in content quality control. For that reason, we encourage the reviewers to submit comprehensive, constructive, objective, and transparent reports.

Two ways to become a reviewer are by direct invitation from our editors or by registering as a reviewer. If you wish to be part of the pool of reviewers, providing accurate contact information including affiliation and research interests, is crucial.

Accepting a review invitation implies the following:

  • Agree to review if you have the required expertise to assess the manuscript.
  • Provide accurate personal and professional contact information to the editors.
  • Accept if there are no conflicting interests with the authors. Competing interests may be personal, financial, intellectual, professional, political, or religious.
  • Follow the publisher guidelines on peer review.
  • Undertake a response to the peer review within the required timeframe.

II.2. Steps to conduct a review

Read the manuscript and any supplementary material, if it exists. In case of missing materials or incomplete information, contact only the editor.

  • Confidentiality during the peer review process is essential. Therefore, do not use information derived from this process for your or others’ benefit; anyone else cannot be involved in reviewing the material.
  • If a competing interest is detected during the review process, the editor must be notified.

II.3. Writing the review report

The review report should be written in the format required by the publisher.

  • Reviewers are encouraged to be objective and constructive and, if possible, provide references to support general statements. Notice that peer review aims to help authors to improve the manuscript.
  • As a reviewer, you can provide confidential comments to the editor and a recommendation to accept, consider with minor revisions, consider with major revisions, or reject the manuscript. The final recommendation should be consistent with the comments of the authors. Please inform the editor about the assessed sections if you have not reviewed the whole manuscript.
  • The following criteria are asked at the time to assess the manuscript:
    • The objective, methodology, and results are consistent.
    • The research questions or hypotheses are valid.
    • The study is original.
    • Previous research findings have been presented, discussed, and compared with the study results.
    • The language and presentation of the figures and tables are clear.
    • The references are complete and coherent with the manuscript’s content and the field’s status.

II.4. Publication ethics

The COPE Guidelines inspire our editorial practices. Therefore, we invite reviewers to deepen into the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers . Any suspicious misconduct during the review process should be informed to the Editorial Office .

II.5 Acknowledgment to reviewers

All those who have acted as reviewers, their names will be publicly available on the publisher’s website.

III. For editors

III.1. Editors’ roles and responsibilities

The editors oversee the following:

  • Make initial reviews of manuscripts to ensure they are within the thematic scope and meet the basic requirements for possible peer review.
  • Handle manuscripts if they are within their research area.
  • Evaluate possible conflicts of interest that affect the transparency of the editorial process.
  • Invite a minimum of two external reviewers per manuscript.
  • Make decisions regarding peer-reviewed materials.
  • Ensure that the deadlines established within the editorial process are met.
  • Suggest changes to the thematic scope of the publication.
  • Assess special issues, edited volumes, and/or monograph proposals.
  • Promote the publication title (either journal or book series).
  • Manage the editorial team, which means they can remove inactive members and bring in new members who are experts in the field.

III.2. Peer review and decision making

Peer review ensures that the published materials have the highest quality standards. For this reason, it is considered the most critical phase in the scholarly publication process. The stages of this process are the following:

  • Initial review to ensure that the paper complies with a minimum of quality in terms of content and format.
  • Invite two external reviewers directly and carry out the remaining editorial process.
  • Invite two external reviewers to assess the manuscript. Reviewers should be experts in the topic they are proposing to assess, they must not be affiliated with the authors’ institution, and both reviewers should not belong to the same institution.
  • Make a final decision based on the reviewers’ comments. A third reviewer must be invited if the reviewers’ reports are entirely opposed. The review process closes when the manuscript has undergone all the necessary review rounds and the author has considered all recommendations. The decisions to make will be the following:
    • Accepted
    • Considered with minor revisions
    • Considered with major revisions
    • Rejected

III.3. Accepting thematic issues and volumes

Organizing special issues and edited volumes is an excellent opportunity for publishing manuscripts on a particular emerging topic. Editors-in-Chief assess all proposals. They are the ones who appoint Guest Editors based on their expertise and trajectory on the proposed subject. The editorial and review guidelines are the same as for the regular submissions (double-blind and external peer-review). However, the Editor-in-Chief is the one who makes a final decision over the manuscripts based on the Guest Editor’s recommendation.

III.4. Publication ethics

If an Editor detects any misconduct, including authorship disputes, plagiarism, a duplicate submission, conflict of interest, or content manipulation, they should report it to the Editorial Office . We will follow the COPE’s Guidelines to proceed in every single case.

Shopping cart
Close