Journal of Population and Social Studies: Statement of publication ethics
"The publication of an article in a peer-reviewed journal 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 editors, and the peer reviewer." (Elsevier, Publishing Ethics Guidelines)
Duties of authors
Original work: JPSS expects that manuscripts submitted to be considered for publication are the author(s) own original work, are not currently under review elsewhere and have not been previously published in any language. JPSS uses the Turnitin software to check for plagiarism and/or previous publication, and rejects articles that have substantial proportions of text that are copied from other sources. It uses Biomed Central's guidelines on text recycling to evaluate self-plagiarism (available at http://publicationethics.org/files/BioMed%20Central_text_recycling_editorial_guidelines.pdf).
Accuracy: Authors of papers that report on 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. Conclusions should be based on the evidence presented in the paper and not on personal opinions.
Acknowledgment of sources: A research paper builds upon previously published work. Author(s) should acknowledge ideas and previously published results by citing these works in the paper and listing them in the references. Making statements of facts or ideas without citing evidence to back up these statements is not good research practice.
Disclosure of financial support and conflicts of interest: All financial support for the research and the paper writing process should be disclosed in the acknowledgments and any conflicts of interest should be stated. Examples of potential conflicts of interest which should be disclosed include employment, consultancies, stock ownership, honoraria, paid expert testimony, patent applications/registrations, and grants or other funding. Potential conflicts of interest should be disclosed when the article is submitted.
Protection of human subjects and ethical review: JPSS expects that the research reported was conducted under international standards for the protection of human subjects and that research protocols were reviewed and approved by an Institutional Review Board (IRB); such approval and the name of the approving entity should be specified in the Methods section.
Authorship: JPSS recommends the use of the British Sociological Association guidelines for authorship (available at https://www.britsoc.co.uk/publications/guidelines-reports/authorship-guidelines.aspx) and will revert to these guidelines in the case of any authorship disputes. The corresponding author should ensure that all co-authors have seen and approved the final version of the paper and have agreed to its submission for publication.
Duties of editors
Confidentiality: The editors of JPSS use a "double-blind" peer review process where neither the authors nor the reviewers know each other's identity. The editors make all best efforts to protect the identity of author(s) and reviewers throughout the review process. Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be quoted or referenced by an editor without the express written consent of the author. Information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage.
Conflicts of interest: Editors recuse themselves from the review process when they have a conflict of interest or personal stake in the publication of a research work.
Objectivity: Decisions on publication are made objectively after reviewing the submitted manuscript and the peer reviews. The importance of the article's contribution to the existing research in its field, the quality of articulation of the argument, and the strength of the evidence provided are critical factors in the decision to publish.
Duties of reviewers
Confidentiality: Reviewers should respect the confidentiality of the review process. They should not discuss aspects of the work under review with other researchers until such time as the article is published. Unpublished materials disclosed in a manuscript under review must not be quoted or referenced by a reviewer without the express written consent of the author, requested through the editor. Information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage.
Conflicts of interest: If the reviewer realizes, after receiving a manuscript for review, that he or she has been involved in the research described, knows the researchers involved in the research, or for any reason cannot give an objective review of the manuscript, the reviewer should inform the editors and decline the review. Conflicts of interest can include competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the paper under review.
Objectivity: Manuscripts should be reviewed objectively in the context of the reviewer's expertise in the field. The importance of the article's contribution to the existing research in its field, the quality of articulation of the argument, and the strength of the evidence provided are critical factors in reviewing the quality of a manuscript. Personal opinions without backing evidence should not be used as criteria for review decisions.
Acknowledgment of sources: Reviewers should identify important relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors. A reviewer should also call to the editor's attention any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published paper of which they have personal knowledge.