Publication Ethics and Publication Malpractice Statement

These ethic statements are based on COPE’s Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors, Cope Flawcharts, a Short Guide to Ethical Retraction Guidelines and adapted to the profile of the journal.

General responsibility of the editors

The editor of the Mākslas Vēsture un Teorija (Art History and Theory) and its Editorial Board is fully responsible for the analysis of the submitted articles from the ethical standpoint and subsequent  decisions regarding possible plagiarism, disputed authorship and questionable data.

The editors should evaluate submitted articles for their scientific achievements without regard to gender, race, ethnic origin, religious belief, sexual orientation, social status of the authors.

The editors should ensure that submitted articles have been reviewed by suitably qualified reviewers.

The editors must not disclose any information about a submitted article to anyone other than the corresponding author, reviewers and members of the Editorial Board.

The editor or any member of the Editorial Board should not exploit her/his position in order to publish in her/his own journal; their submitted articles should be also properly peer- reviewed. Unpublished information from a submitted article of any other author must not be used in an editor's own research.

Relations with authors

The editor-in-chief (further – the editor) provides clear instructions about submission and guidance about criteria for evaluated articles.

The editor should require all contributors to declare that they have written entirely original works, and if the authors have used the work and/or words of others that this has been appropriately cited or quoted.

The editor should require all authors to declare that a submitted article was not published as an original work in another journal.

In the case of an article based on a collective research the editor should require contributor to list all researchers who made a significant contribution to the performed project. They can be named as co-authors, if they have made substantial contribution to the concept of an article or to the interpretation of a research object.

The editor should respect requests from authors that a person should not review their submission, if these are well-reasoned.

In the case of the necessity to retract an article the editor should carefully examine the text and corresponding peer-reviews in order to classify the submission (seriously flawed or redundant publication, an article with only small part of flawed data or overlapping information which could be eliminated or corrected, etc.)

The editor should support authors who have been victims of plagiarism or whose copyright has been breached.

Relations with reviewers

The editor uses wide range of sources (not just personal contacts) to identify potential reviewers (suggestions made by other members of Editorial Board, bibliographic databases).

The editor provides clear advice to reviewers, offering, if necessary, peer-review questionnaire produced by Editorial Board. He/she develops a database of competent reviewers and updates it on the basis of their performance.

The editor requires reviewer to evaluate an article taking in account: a) choice of the theme, motivation and topicality in the field, b) objective of research and article, c) used materials and methods, d) originality of presented information, e)the level of interpretation, f) presentation (language, structure of the article, illustrations).

The editor should follow the COPE flowchart in cases of suspected reviewer misconduct.

Relations with readers

The editor should ensure that readers are informed about peer-review process, Editorial Board members, financial support, inclusion in data bases, publication types and structure of the journal.

The editor should supervise all editing process in order to encourage accuracy and clarity of research and its presentation (including technical editing, admitting published mistakes and publishing erratum).

Relations with editorial board members

The editor should identify competent editorial board members who can contribute to the development and good management of the journal.

The editor should provide clear guidance to editorial board members about their expected functions, these might include: a) supporting and promoting the journal, b) seeking out the best authors, c) reviewing submissions to the journal, d) attending to editorial board meetings.

The editor should consult editorial board members regularly (at least once a year) in order to get their opinions about the journal, inform them, if necessary, of any changes in journal policies.

Relations with journal publisher

The editor should coordinate his/her publication policy with the research and educational strategy of Art History Institute of Art Academy of Latvia, the publisher of the journal.

The editor should communicate regularly with the Scientific Board of the Institute.

Financial considerations

The editor should publish the income sources of the journal (state institutions which support the journal, private sponsors).

The editor should ensure that sponsors do not affect editorial decisions. The articles should be accepted solely on the basis of academic merit and interest to readers.