Publication ethics and malpractice state

Publication ethics and malpractice statement of the journal Modern Africa

 

Based on the publication ethics of COPE and their Code of Best Practise.

Duties of Redactions (Chief Editor and Executive Editor)

  1. Editors are accountable for every decision about the acceptance or rejection of a manuscript for publication in the journal.
  2. Editors make every decision about every submission objectively and unbiased.
  3. Redaction evaluate every submission on the bases of the scientific and academic merit.
  4. Every review is double-blind peer-reviewed by reviewers who are experts in the field of the manuscript.
  5. Information from unpublished manuscripts are not used for the own research of the editors.
  6. Editors will examine every possible case of copyright infringement or plagiarism or ethical concerns of the submitted or published paper.
Duties of Authors
  1. The submitted manuscript is original and has not been published before (except in the form of an abstract or as part of a published lecture, review, thesis or working paper), and it is not under consideration for publication elsewhere, that its publication has been approved by all the authors and that the authors have full authority to enter into this agreement.
  2. Authors should provide a detailed manuscript with references that permit the possibility of replicating the research.
  3. Editors may ask for the raw data for editorial decisions and the possible publication of data for a possible replication of the research.
  4. Authors ensure that their manuscript is original and that all works and authors used in making a manuscript are cited. Plagiarism in all forms is unethical and unacceptable.
  5. Authors will report to the redaction all mistakes in their paper that they discover after the publication and cooperate with the editors to correct them.
  6. Authors should name all co-authors.
Duties of Reviewers
  1. Peer review helps editors to make editorial decisions and helps authors to improve their manuscripts.
  2. Reviewers should make their reviews objectively, without any personal criticism and with clear arguments to help authors in improving the manuscript.
  3. Reviewers should state conflicts of interest (as the result of any relationship to any of the authors or institutions connected to the manuscript) in case there is any.
  4. Any information about the manuscript is private and confidential and should be treated as such.
  5. Information from unpublished manuscripts must not be used for the own research of the reviewers.