Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement

 

Introduction

Although the editorial board of each journal is allowed to have its publication ethics, the Department (hereafter publisher) insists on the below publication ethics as the minimum benchmark. As a publisher, we are committed to the integrity of our academic content and publishing process. Therefore, we encourage researchers to conduct their research work in line with best practices and the code of conduct of relevant professional or international regulatory bodies.      

Research Integrity

We uphold the same high standards at the Department of Mass Communication, University of Nigeria, Nsukka.  As a result, we encourage our prospective contributors to consider and abide by the following principles: 

  1. Intellectual honesty in all aspects of research;
  2. Painstaking thoroughness, accuracy and excellence in research practice;
  3. Communicating research report with transparency and integrity; and
  4. Care and respect for and protection of all participants in and subjects of research.

Editorial Process

We are committed to ensuring the highest form of standard in the process through which contents are created and separated from simple data or information. The editorial process for each journal is interactive and highly subjective. Our overall editorial procedures are presented as follows:

  1. We start a pre-check process following a submission. A submission will only be accepted for peer review when:
  • the manuscript falls within the scope of the journal it is submitted to;
  • the information regarding authorship is reliable;
  • presentation meets the journal’s selection standards;
  • required information regarding research ethics is included in the manuscript; and
  • the manuscript does not potentially suffer plagiarism. The combination of plagiarism and AI score for each manuscript must not be more than 20%.
  •  
  1. In the case where a submission is not rejected, qualified and suitable reviewers will be contacted to peer-review it.
  2. Upon the completion of peer review and evaluation of reviewers’ comments, editors must decide on whether to accept, reject, or require authors to revise (i.e., major or minor revision) their manuscripts.
  3. Following the authors’ revision, reviewers are once again contacted for a repeat of the review. Following this procedure, editors must either reject or accept the revised manuscripts.
  4. In any case, if a manuscript is eventually accepted, attention must be paid to lay-out editing, language editing, author proof reading, and format conversion before publication.

Peer Review

We recognise the invaluable role of peer review in the integrity of the scholarly record.  The Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers set out the basic principles and standards to which all peer reviewers should adhere during the peer-review process. Accordingly, we have outlined the basic principles to which our peer reviewers should adhere for all our journals: These are:

  1. Reviewers should only agree to review manuscripts for which they have the subject expertise required to carry out a proper assessment and which they can assess in a timely manner
  2. Reviewers should respect the confidentiality of peer review and not reveal any details of a manuscript or its review, during or after the peer-review process, beyond those that are released by the journal
  3. Reviewers should not use information obtained during the peer-review process for their own or any other person’s or organisation’s advantage or to the disadvantage of others
  4. Reviewers should declare all potential conflicting interests, seeking advice from the journal if they are unsure whether something constitutes a relevant interest
  5. Reviewers should not allow their reviews to be influenced by the origins of a manuscript, by the nationality, religious or political beliefs, gender or other characteristics of the authors, or by commercial considerations
  6. Reviewers should be objective and constructive in their reviews, refraining from being hostile or inflammatory and from making libellous or derogatory personal comments
  7. Reviewers should acknowledge that peer review is largely a reciprocal endeavour and undertake to carry out their fair share of reviews and in a timely manner
  8. Reviewers should provide journals with personal and professional information that is accurate and a true representation of their expertise
  9. Reviewers should recognize that impersonation of another individual during the review process is considered a serious misconduct.

Authorship

Any form of intellectual contribution to the development and completion of a research work has important academic implications. This also implies that authorship comes with responsibility and accountability for published work. As a result, in making a list of authors for a research work, prospective authors must be aware of the following:   

  1. All papers submitted must contain contributorship statements. This must be done to avoid dishonest authorship attribution.
  2. Individuals with substantial contributions to the conception, design of the work, or the acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data and drafting of the work or its revision must be listed as authors.
  3. The position of a corresponding author is not superior to other authors or collaborators; rather the corresponding author assumes primary responsibility for communicating with the journal during the manuscript submission, peer review, and publication process.
  4. For those individuals (e.g., data collector, data managers, professional writing assistants, etc.) whose contributions did not justify authorship, a short acknowledgement section should be made to highlight what they have done during the research endeavour.

Special issue policies

If a journal decides to plan for a special issue, the following guide should be used:

  1. A guest editor should be appointed who must be an expert in the theme of the special issue.
  2. The role of the Guest editor will be to screen submitted manuscripts, invite reviewers, coordinate the review process and make decisions regarding submitted manuscripts.
  3. When the Guest Editor or Editors share the same institutional affiliations as the authors, the final decision to accept or reject a manuscript will be made by the Editor-in-Chief or another assigned editorial board member.
  4. The review process for the special issue should follow the same procedure as the regular issue.
  5. It is possible to have a special issue with authors drawn from a single institution, but the peer-review process must follow the journal's standard. The theme of the special issue must also fall within the scope of the journal. 

Publication Model

All the journals in the Department use the open-access model. A modest Article Process Charge is applicable. This should be determined by the editorial board of the individual journal

Paper Preparation Template

Each journal should have its manuscript preparation template that should be made available on the website. The following information should be made clear:

  1. The title of the manuscript.
  2. Word count.
  3. Abstract structure.
  4. Referencing style.
  5. Any other relevant information

Libel, Defamation, and Freedom of Expression

By any means, we discourage any form of false publication or statements that harm the reputation of individuals, groups, and organizations. If any such situation arises, our legal team will act appropriately.   

Retractions, Corrections, and Expressions of Concern

We encourage retraction, correction and expression of concern for papers that are published in our journals. A retraction may be initiated by our editors, or by the author(s) of the papers (or their institution).

Falsification, Fabrication, and Image Manipulation

We recognize that results of data collected or presented as images may be misleading if they are not adequately modified.

Fraudulent Research and Research Misconduct

In the event that we detect fraudulent research and or research misconduct in any of our journals, our response will be to collaborate with the relevant editor(s), COPE, and other appropriate institutions or organisations to investigate. Any publication found to include fraudulent content will be retracted, or an appropriate correction or expression of concern will be issued.

Data and Supporting Evidence

We encourage authors to be open and transparent with the data code and materials used in the research process. Authors are, therefore, expected to supply accurate data and supporting evidence related to their research in a repository or storage location. The purpose of doing this is to ensure that we create access for others to understand, verify and replicate new findings from the data authors supplied.