Publication Ethics

Lexicon Philosophicum: International Journal for the History of Ideas (LPh) follows Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing.


Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement

This Publication Ethics and Publication Malpractice Statement is based on the Code of Conduct and Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors (Committee on Publication Ethics, 2011).

Duties of Editors

  1. Publication Decisions: The editor is responsible for deciding on accepting, rejecting or requesting modifications to the manuscript. In some instances, the editors may require multiple rounds of reviews and modifications. The editors communicate review result in a timely fashion.  The editor reserves the right to edit, clarify or shorten the manuscript as deemed necessary.
  2. Fair Review: The editor must ensure that each manuscript submitted to LPh is reviewed for its intellectual content without regard to the author’s race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship or political philosophy. The decisions will be based on the paper’s importance, originality, clarity, and relevance to the journal’s scope.
  3. Confidentiality: The editor and editorial staff must ensure that information regarding manuscripts submitted by the authors is kept confidential.
  4. Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest: The editor and members of the editorial board of this journal shall not use unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript for their own research without the author’s explicit written consent.

Duties of Authors

  1. Publication guidelines: Authors must follow the submission guidelines of the journal.
  2. Originality, Plagiarism and Acknowledgement: Authors must ensure that the work they are submitting as theirs is entirely original. Authors must certify that the manuscript has not previously been published elsewhere. Authors will appropriately cite or quote the work and/or words of others. Authors sign a declaration stating that the manuscript and the illustrations within are original, or that he/she has taken all the necessary steps to avoid breach of copyright.
  3. Multiple Submissions: Authors must certify that the manuscript is not currently being considered for publication elsewhere. Submitting the same paper to more than one journal constitutes unethical publishing behavior.
  4. Authorship of the Paper: All authors mentioned in the paper must have significantly contributed to the research. The author submitting the manuscript to the journal ensures that all contributing co-authors and no uninvolved person(s) are included in the author list.
  5. Conflict of Interest: Authors must notify the editors of any conflicts of interest that may be construed to influence the manuscript.
  6. Fundamental Errors: Authors are obliged to provide retractions or corrections of mistakes at any point in time if the author(s) discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in submitted manuscript.

Duties of Reviewers

  1. Confidentiality: Reviewers must keep all manuscripts received confidential.
  2. Acknowledgement of Sources: Reviewers must ensure that authors have cited all relevant published work referred to in the paper in the endnotes and bibliography. Reviewers will bring to the editor’s attention any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript and any other published paper they are aware of.
  3. Standards of Objectivity: Reviews should be conducted objectively. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate.
  4. Supporting Argument: Reviewers should express their views clearly with supporting arguments.
  5. Conflicts of Interest: Reviewers should not review manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative or other relationships, or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions associated with the paper(s).
  6. Promptness: In the event that a reviewer feels it is not possible for him/her to complete review of manuscript within the stipulated time he/she should notify the editor in a timely manner and withdraw from the review process.

LPh follows the standards of peer review as set out in the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers.

All research articles are subjected to thorough peer-review, usually by at least 2 external peer-reviewers. After initial assessment by the Journal editorial team for suitability in the Journal, the Editor will invite appropriate independent reviewers with sufficient and specific area of expertise. The Editors’ decision is made based on these reviewer reports, which are made available to the authors upon decision. Where the Editor of the Journal is an author in the submission, adequate steps are taken to ensure blinding the Editor from the submission during peer-review. Further information about the Journal’s peer-review model is found in the Journal's information pages.

Handling Complaints and Appeals

The process of handling complaints and appeals follows COPE guidelines.

 Corrections and Retractions

LPh will take all necessary steps to maintain the accuracy and quality of the papers published. Should an author discern a significant error or inaccuracy in their article, they are responsible for notifying the Journal, and should work together with the journal to correct the paper. If the journal learns that a published article contains a potential error, the author will be asked to assist verification by the Journal of the correctness of the original paper or correct the error. In cases of serious error or scientific misconduct, it might be necessary to ask the authors to retract their paper or to impose a retraction on them.

LPh also publishes Replies articles in cases where a paper warrants further discussion.

LPh has adopted the best practices and procedures of COPE concerning the procedures for corrections and retractions.

Please contact the Journal Manager for any questions concerning these procedures.