Publication Ethics

Zeitschrift für Wortbildung / Journal of Word Formation (ZWJW) is committed to good scholarly practice by following the recommendations of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). These include the following obligations in detail:

Download ZWJW Publication Ethics (English)

1. Editorial Guidelines

a. Editorial Independence
The editorial team of ZWJW is committed to an independent and guideline-compliant process for selecting contributions.

In detail, this means:

  1. The editorial team decides on the acceptance or rejection of submissions solely based on their scientific quality, relevance, clarity, and originality.
  2. Personal characteristics of authors, such as origin, gender, political beliefs, etc., and institutional affiliations do not influence the publication decision.
  3. The assessment is conducted through a double-blind peer-review process, where authors and reviewers are not known to each other.
  4. Reviewers and the editorial team also consider adherence to the publication and editorial guidelines when deciding on the acceptance of a submission.
  5. Research papers that challenge previous work in the journal are particularly welcomed.
  6. Research papers presenting negative results are not excluded.

b. Confidentiality
The editorial staff of the ZWJW treats unpublished texts and personal information of authors confidentially.

In detail, this means:

  1. Submissions are not disclosed to anyone outside the editorial team and the (invited) reviewers.
  2. Members of the editorial team do not use unpublished texts for their own research.
  3. In case of conflicts of interest (cf. Section 2f), members of the editorial team do not participate in the review and publication process.

c. Dealing with Errors in Published Texts
If, despite quality control and scientific diligence on the part of the authors and editors, errors in the content of previously published articles become known, a corrected version of the erroneous text, transparently marked as such, will be made available.

d. Dealing with Scientific Misconduct
Scientific misconduct is essentially measured by a deceptive intention, which manifests in the actions or omissions of the deceptive party. Disregard for consequences or negligence can also constitute scientific misconduct.

In detail, this means:

  1. The editorial team reserves the right to retract already published texts or, depending on the severity of the misconduct, impose other consequences, including notifying the employing institution, if scientific misconduct on the part of those involved is revealed in the editorial process.
  2. Even merely submitted contributions may face consequences from the editorial team and the editors if there is suspicion of misconduct.
  3. Complaints and information regarding ethical misconduct should be addressed to Prof. Dr. Petra M. Vogel (vogel@uni-siegen.de).

e.  Advertising
The ZWJW does not contain any advertising.

f.  Author fees
The ZWJW does not charge any author fees.

 

2. Duties of authors

a. Good Scientific Practice
Submitted contributions and the underlying research must adhere to the principles of good scientific practice. Research projects should be well justified, well planned, appropriately designed, and ethically justifiable.

In detail, this means:

  1. Research designs should never aim solely at data collection but should always seek to answer specific questions.
  2. Research designs must be carefully agreed upon by all contributors, collaborators, and, if applicable, study participants.
  3. The final research design should be part of the research documentation.
  4. The editorial board of ZWJW recommends an early agreement on the specific roles of contributors and staff, as well as on issues of authorship and publication.
  5. Authors commit to a scientific practice that excludes conflicts of interest and unethical behavior.

b. Data Collection and Analysis

  1. Methods and results of data collection and analysis, including any electronic preprocessing, should be presented precisely and transparently to ensure the replicability of the study. Detailed explanations are particularly necessary where less established methods have been used.
  2. Research data should be documented and archived according to the standards of the discipline.
  3. Contributions or sections of text written from a specific subjective or disciplinary perspective are appropriately labeled as such.
  4. If there are issues related to distorting effects during data collection or analysis, these should be openly disclosed in the discussion of methods.

c. Authorship
Authors should take responsibility for at least one specific section of the study.

In detail, this means:

  1. Those individuals who were actively involved in research activities (i.e., conception, design, data acquisition and analysis, interpretation, and writing of the study results) can be named as authors.
  2. The assessment of each person's contribution to the research work leads to the decision of who is named as an author.
  3. The order of authorship corresponds to the individual contribution to the research work.
  4. To avoid ambiguities regarding authorship, it should be clarified early in the planning of the research project who will be named as an author and who may be acknowledged as a contributor.
  5. All authors have read the final proof of the article and agree to its publication. They take responsibility for the content of their contribution.
  6. Authors carefully read our "Author Guidelines" to eliminate any existing uncertainties and inquire with the journal's editorial team if necessary.

d. Redundant Publication
Redundant publication occurs when two or more papers share the same hypothesis, data, discussion points, or conclusions without full cross-references.

In detail, this means:

  1. In principle, research papers in the described sense are not redundantly published unless further confirmation is required.
  2. The prior publication of an abstract during conference proceedings does not preclude subsequent submission for publication. A full disclosure regarding previously published content is then made at the time of submission.
  3. The republication of an article in another language is acceptable, provided that a full and clear disclosure of the original source is made at the time of submission.
  4. At the time of submission, authors disclose details of works related to the present one, even if written in a different language, as well as similar works that are still in press.

e. Copyright and Plagiarism
Plagiarism ranges from the unreferenced use of others' published and unpublished ideas, including research grant applications, to the submission under "new" authorship of a complete paper, possibly in a different language. It may occur at any stage of planning, research, writing, or publication and applies to both printed and electronic versions.

In detail, this means:

  1. Submitted contributions do not contain material that violates the copyright or personality rights of others.
  2. All thoughts and formulations originating from individuals other than the specified authors are appropriately marked as such and transparently referenced.
  3. When using significant amounts of external written or illustrative material, permission from the copyright holders must be obtained.
  4. By submitting a text to the ZWJW, the authors agree to its open-access publication under the CC-BY 4.0 license. The full copyright and publishing rights remain with the authors.

f. Conflicts of Interest and Transparency
Conflicts of interest encompass relationships and dependencies that may influence the judgment of authors, reviewers, and editors and may not be immediately apparent. Such cases are characterized by their potential to hinder an independent interpretation and presentation of the research results. If revealed later, they could give a reasonable reader the feeling of deception and misinformation. Conflicts of interest can be personal, commercial, political, academic, or financial. Personal, commercial, political, and academic forms include memberships and committee activities, personal relationships with involved individuals or institutions, or political beliefs. Financial interests may involve employment, receipt of fees or research funding, stock or equity ownership, consulting activities, and company support for employees. Detailed information on what constitutes a conflict of interest has been developed by PLOS Journals: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/competing-interests.

In detail, this means:

  1. Authors disclose personal, commercial, political, academic, or financial conflicts of interest to the editorial board. In the case of commissioned research, the funding institution is mentioned.
  2. The editorial board also discloses relevant conflicts of interest to their readers. If necessary, reviewers or members of the editorial board may need to withdraw from the review and selection process for the corresponding submission.

g. Errors in Published Articles
Should the authors discover fundamental errors in a published text, they should notify the editors and contribute to a corrected version or erratum. In serious cases, the article may be withdrawn by the editors.

3. Review Process and Duties of Reviewers

a. Peer Review Process and Selection of Reviewers
After an initial editorial review to assess the formal and thematic suitability of submitted manuscripts, potentially suitable contributions are anonymized and forwarded to two external peer reviewers. These reviewers are independent experts selected by the editorial board based on academic criteria, and they are tasked with providing written comments and evaluations. The purpose of the peer review process is to improve both the quality of the study and the clarity of its presentation. The editorial decision regarding the acceptance, revision, or rejection of a manuscript is based on two written reviews as well as the journal’s ethical and editorial guidelines. The standard review period typically ranges from eight to twelve weeks. In cases where the two reviewers’ assessments differ significantly, a third review is obtained. If only minor revisions are requested, the editorial board verifies whether the reviewers’ suggestions have been adequately addressed. In cases of more substantial revisions, the resubmitted manuscript undergoes another round of peer review. This process applies equally to articles published in regular issues as well as special issues.

In detail, this means:

  1. Research articles in the category of "papers" undergo double-blind peer review, where two reviewers assess the manuscript without knowledge of the authors.
  2. The editorial board invites individuals as reviewers who have conducted or are conducting relevant research and are considered experts in the submission's research field.
  3. Attention is given to the independence of the selected reviewers.
  4. Suggestions from authors, guest editors (of special issues), or others regarding potential reviewers are appreciated but not obligatory for the editorial board to use.
  5. Invited individuals decline to review
    • if they have conflicts of interest (see section 2e)
    • if they know or suspect the identity of the authors
    • if they believe that the submission's topic is outside their expertise.
  6. In cases of uncertainty about their suitability as reviewers, individuals can refer to the COPE Council's decision-making aid: https://publicationethics.org/files/publication-ethics-editorial-office-cope-flowchart.pdf.

b. Confidentiality
Submitted texts are subject to confidentiality, even if they are passed on to potential reviewers.

In detail, this means:

  1. Reviewers, regardless of whether they accept or decline the review, must not use texts and information made available to them for their own purposes before publication, unless they have the authors' permission.
  2. This confidentiality obligation also applies to the reviewer panel, which may be asked (with the editor's permission) for opinions on specific sections.
  3. The submitted manuscript will not be retained or copied after the review process.

c. Communication with the Editorial Office
Reviewers commit to collegial and appropriate communication with the editorial team and the authors.

In detail, this means:

  1. Reviewers should provide prompt, accurate, courteous, unbiased, and justifiable reviews.
  2. If reviewers suspect violations of good and ethical scientific practices, they should write confidentially to the editorial team.
  3. If review deadlines cannot be met, the editorial team should be informed at the earliest opportunity to avoid unnecessary delays.