Code of Conduct-Ethics
Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement
The publication of an article in the peer-reviewed journal Simmel Studies is an essential building block in the development of a coherent and respected network of knowledge. It is a direct reflection of the quality of the work of the authors and the institutions that support them.
Peer-reviewed articles support and embody the scientific method. It is therefore important to agree upon standards of expected ethical behavior for all parties involved in the act of publishing: the author, the journal editor, the peer reviewer, the publisher and the society.
Authors are obliged to participate in peer review process. All authors have significantly contributed to the research, statement that all data in article are real and authentic. All authors are obliged to provide retractions or corrections of mistakes. When an author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in his/her ownpublished work, it is the author's obligation to promptly notify the journal editor or publisher and cooperate with the editor to retract or correct the paper. If the editor or the publisher learns from a third party that a published work contains a significant error, it is the obligation of the author to promptly retract or correct the paper or provide evidence to the editor of the correctness of the original paper. Authors should cite publications that have been influential in determining the nature of the reported work. Authorship should be limited to those who have made a significant contribution to the conception, design, execution, or interpretation of the study, and these should be listed as coauthors. The corresponding author is the author responsible for communicating with the journal for publication.
S/he should ensure that all appropriate co-authors and no inappropriate coauthors are included in the paper. All co-authors must have seen and approved the final version of the paper and have agreed to its submission for publication.
Peer review assists the editors in making editorial decisions while editorial communication with the authors may also assist these in improving the paper. Any reviewer who feel sun qualified to review the assigned manuscript or unable to provide a prompt review should notify the editors and excuse herself/ himself from the review process. Reviewers Judgments are objective. Reviewers have no conflict of interest with respect to the research, the authors and/or the research funders. Reviewers point out relevant published work which is not yet cited. Reviewed articles must be treated confidentially. They must not be shown to, or discussed with, others except as authorized by the chief editors. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate. Referees should express their views clearly with supporting arguments.
Editors have complete responsibility and authority to reject/accept an article. Editors should have no conflict of interest with respect to articles they reject/accept, only accept a paper when reasonably certain, when errors are found, promote publication of correction or retraction, preserve anonymity of reviewers. Manuscripts shall be evaluated solely on their intellectual merit. The editors and any editorial staff must not disclose any information about a submitted manuscript to anyone other than the corresponding author, reviewers, potential reviewers, other editorial advisers, and the publish