Manuscript Review and Journal Publication Ethics

Abstract

Translate Article

This issue marks the APA (American Psychological Association) era of Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly ( JMCQ ). At the same time, I am pleased to announce that JMCQ is the first communication journal published by SAGE to become a member of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). The AEJMC Publications Committee had approved all AEJMC flagship journals to become member of COPE. But JMCQ is the first one to implement all the standards and carry the COPE logo on its cover. Our COPE membership means that we comply with the highest ethical standards set on the academic refereed journal review process as in other fields of research. I will use this essay to highlight some of the COPE standards and our journal's practices, focusing on those that would be of interest to our readers, authors, and reviewers.Reviewer EthicsReviewing is a privilege and a service to the scholarly community. As COPE states, Peer review in all its forms plays an important role in ensuring the integrity of the scholarly record. The process depends to a large extent on trust, and requires that everyone involved behaves responsibly and ethically (Hames, 2013). Some of the important principles of reviewing ethics stated in COPE are that peer reviewers should1. 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 manner2. 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 journal3. Not use information obtained during the peer-review process for their own or any other person's or organization's advantage, or to disadvantage or discredit others4. Declare all potential conflicting interests, seeking advice from the journal if they are unsure whether something constitutes a relevant interest5. 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 considerations6. Be objective and constructive in their reviews, refraining from being hostile or inflammatory and from making libelous or derogatory personal comments7. Acknowledge that peer review is largely a reciprocal endeavor and undertake to carry out their fair share of reviewing and in a timely manner8. Provide journals with personal and professional information that is accurate and a true representation of their expertise9. Recognize that impersonation of another individual during the review process is considered serious misconduct. (Hames, 2013, p. 1)Before accepting the review invitations from our journal, our reviewers are requested to read the COPE reviewer guidelines and agree to the standards.Fairness in Handling SubmissionsOur journal is committed to fair treatment of all submissions as part of the editorial code of conduct of COPE, which means that editorial decisions are not determined by origins of the submissions such as race, ethnicity, nationality, religion, or gender of the authors, but by their appropriateness for the journal.Authors whose writings need help are strongly recommended to hire professional editing service or seek help from proficient English writers to edit their work, prior to submission. A well-written manuscript is much easier to follow for our busy reviewers. It lets them focus on the substance of the manuscript, rather than trying to second-guess what the author means. In fact, both Riffe's (2006) and Neuman, Davidson, Joo, Park, and Williams's (2008) studies of reviewers found that poor writing of the manuscripts is a common concern of reviewers. Yet, good writing is a necessary but not sufficient condition for acceptance. Originality of research ideas with evidence and significant contribution to the field of journalism and mass communication are the two main criteria of acceptance we tell our reviewers to focus on, in giving us publication recommendation. …