MARGINALIA HISTORICA

Code of Conduct

Marginalia Historica is a scholarly peer-reviewed journal which publishes articles only following a double-blind peer-review process. All communication between the authors, editors, reviewers, and the editorial board follows the COPE Code of Conduct. Main rules for the authors, editors and reviewers are listed below.

Authors

The author guarantees that only their own and original texts are being submitted for publication, hitherto unpublished and offered to no other journal’s publisher. If the manuscript draws on any such work by the author, it has to be cited and referred to as such. However, reworked parts or sections of master’s, doctoral or similar thesis may be published after prior notification of the editors.

Plagiarism (including self-plagiarism) or deliberate presentation of other authors’ ideas without appropriate attribution as well as inaccurate statements is considered unethical and unacceptable. The author is aware that plagiarism constitutes a criminal offense, and therefore attributes all direct quotations by clear bibliographical references according to the citation standards of the journal and to copyright law.

The author is supposed to edit the text according to the Submission Guidelines and to stylistic and ortographical standards of the language. Furthermore, he is required to disclose all funds of their project or research, and to secure and attribute all copyright pertaining to all images or attachments submitted along with the text proper.

By submitting the manuscript, the author consents to it being published in both printed and electronic form and to inclusion of the article in databases in which the journal is or will be registered. The publication of the article does not entail any financial remuneration.

Editors

The journal’s editors guarantee that texts submitted for publication are suited for it and are supposed to ask the opinion of other editors and/or members of editorial board whenever in doubt. If a text is rejected before the review process, the editors pass their reasoning to the author. If accepted to it, it is sent to two independent experts for a double-blind review process.

The reviewers’ opinions are forwarded to the author to make amendments and corrections to the text or to explain why these recommendations are immaterial and not incorporated. If the reviewers’ recommendations are contradictory, the editors may ask another expert for a third review.
The editors guarantee that all communication with authors and reviewers is confidential.

Reviewers

The reviewers are required not to work in the same institution as the author. Their reviews are made willingly and free of charge and must not reflect any reviewer’s bias or prejudice against the author or any conflict of interests. Manuscripts are always assessed without regard to racial or ethnical origin, religion, political preference or nationality of neither the author nor the reviewer. The reviews are due in four weeks’ time unless arranged otherwise.

The reviewer is supposed to evaluate the ingenuity of the texts, their methodological approach, how they draw on recent research and literature, etc. The reviews should include recommendations for the author on how to improve the text whenever needed, as well as justify their opinions regarding the publication of the text to the editors.

Infringement of the Code of Conduct

The editors are obliged to prevent any infringement of publishing ethics, or otherwise to address any issues as such. Whenever in doubt about ethical aspects of either a submitted text or an already published article, they are required to deal with the issue accordingly. If they fail to resolve the matter on their own, they should invite two uninvolved editorial board members to form an internal ethics committee. Whenever applicable, the editors should follow the recommended COPE guidelines.