Galactica Media: Journal of Media Studies (GMD) is an e-journal that has as its mission the development of deep, through academic discussion on topics regardless of their nature: they may touch upon issues of gender, religion, ethnicity, the environment, ethical, political and other controversial topics.
The editorial staff’s primary objective with regard to network publication, along with our international journal experience led GMD to develop special ethical guidelines derived from those created by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). COPE began developing ethics for e-journal publication beginning in 1997; consequently, this group of experts has an accumulated wealth of experience in this area. GMD chose to create its own ethical policy for the e-journal based upon COPE’s policy documents.
Materials published in GMD, a peer-reviewed journal, serve several functions, including quality control as well as protecting scientific work and research results. Therefore it is of the utmost importance that any and all published data is accurate and trustworthy. GMD’s publishing process relies upon people who have different areas of expertise, each of whom plays an important role in achieving our goals. All authors, editorial board members, experts and reviewers, publishers and founders of GMD are responsible for observing ethical standards at all stages of the e-journal’s preparation and publication.
Below is a brief overview of key requirements for editors, reviewers and authors working for GMD.
1. Ethical standards
1.1 Editors’ Responsibilities
- All people holding editorial positions with GMD (including but not limited to chief editor, section editor, literary or scientific editor) will act in a balanced, fair and objective manner when performing his/her duties. Discriminating against authors for any reason, whether based upon gender, ethnic, religious or political beliefs, is unacceptable.
- In the event of a perceived conflict of interest and/or receipt of complaints for non-compliance with the GMD ethical norms as described above, the editor will inform the manager or founder of the journal regarding the issue in a timely and professional manner.
- The editor shall provide any author the opportunity to reasonably respond to any comments. All complaints will be investigated regardless of when the original publication was approved.
- All final published documents, as well as editorial changes and original documents, shall be retained using the OJS platform that GMD editors choose for electronic document management.
1.2 Reviewers’ Responsibilities
- The reviewer is responsible for deciding whether or not to accept, refine, or reject materials.
- The reviewer must understand that his work contributes to the process of improving the quality of the published material through the timely review of the manuscript.
- Complying with and maintaining the confidentiality of any information provided by the author or editor is the direct responsibility of the expert reviewer. He/she does not have the right or privilege of saving or copying the author/s manuscript either in whole or in part.
- If the reviewer questions the manuscript either for its original content or its being produced by the author; or he becomes aware of the information that this manuscript has already been published or sent simultaneously to another journal, he must inform the section editor and the editor-in-chief as soon as possible.
- The reviewer is required to be aware of any potential conflicts of interest (institutional, joint or other relations between the reviewer and the author), to notify the editor with regard to the issue, and if necessary to decline review of the manuscript.
1.3 Author/Co-Author’s Responsibilities
- Submit the most accurate data in additional accompanying documents that are submitted with the manuscript, in accordance with the established rules for the processing of personal data.
- Confirm that the submitted manuscript is not being considered or not accepted for publication by another publisher. If any part of the submitted manuscript content exists in an article already published or a manuscript submitted for publication in another journal, author will provide pertinent publication details and/or provide references to sources.
- Verify that all work contained in a submitted manuscript is original, as well as confirm and give links to all information from other sources cited in the manuscript. In addition, author is responsible for receiving permission to play any content from other sources.
- Announce any potential conflicts of interest (for example, if the author has a competing interest, either explicit or implicit, that can be considered as having inappropriate influence on his or her responsibilities at any stage of the publication process).
1.4 Publication Founder’s Responsibilities
- To ensure that GMD’s best practices, as exercised, comply with the above stated principles, commitments and standards; and said best practices are applied in a fair and equitable manner to all submitted works.
- Follow-up with editors of the GMD e-journal in a regular, timely fashion to ensure that compliance with GMD’s stated ethical principles applies to all submissions.
2. Professional Remedies for Unethical Behavior
2.1 Defining and Recognizing Unethical Behavior
- Any incidence of unethical conduct as defined by the GMD stated ethical principles requires prompt and professional identification. The editor or founder of GMD needs to be informed about such conduct as soon as possible by any person who determines that conduct fails to meet the guidelines of the publication’s ethical principles.
- Any remedy to a reported incidence of unethical conduct must be confirmed by accurate information and reasonable evidence before the editor or founder of this online publication can initiate an internal investigation.
Only the editor or the founder of GMD can make decisions about the discussion of the any unethical behavior, defined as falling outside of the scope of stated ethical principles defined by GMD.
The entire procedure for investigating ethical violations will not go beyond the scope of internal proceedings and the circle of people who are required by virtue of their relationship with GMD to participate in any initiated investigation.
2.3 Minor Violations
Minor irregularities may be considered without the need for more extensive action. In all instances the author/s will be given the opportunity to respond to any comments.
2.4 Serious Violations
- Serious violations will force the editorial staff and the founder to conduct a more in-depth investigation.
2.5 Results (In order of increasing severity, used separately or in combination)
- The author or reviewer will automatically accept GMD’s ethical standards when submitting or reviewing a manuscript that prompts GMD to inform them about any misunderstanding, abuse or misuse of GMD ethical standards.
- A strictly worded letter will be sent to any party who violates GMD’s ethical standards, highlighting abusive behavior and requiring correction of said behaviors on the part of the party in the future.
- GMD reserves the right to publish an editorial describing the misconduct.
- GMD will submit an official letter to the employer or sponsoring organization in which the author or reviewer works.
- GMD will require and oversee the retraction or removal of published material from affected network publications containing information credited to either the author/s or reviewer/s, including any and all data storage and indexing organizations.
- GMD will include any offending author/s or reviewer/s in GMD’s official black list of the network publication, resulting in subsequent refusal to publish or review the manuscript.
- Presentation of the case and the results of the proceedings will be presented to relevant professional organizations and/or the highest authority for further investigation, including the seeking of judicial remedies under applicable civil law.
GMD hopes that this detailed list of ethical standards will be a template for the actions of all participants in the editorial and publishing activities of the online publication.
Considering the fact that all reviewers of our journal work on a volunteer basis and are not regular employees of GMD, GMD cannot require them to give authors a detailed review of their work or to enter into a discussion about their conclusions. Their review is employed to assist GMD’s editorial staff to decide upon whether or not to publish any author/s submitted research materials and/or article. GMD editors reserve the right to decide in what form to convey the content of any review to any author/s.
Submitted articles may be included in an issue of GMD with certain reservations if GMD editors do not fully support an author/s opinion, yet consider it necessary to present for discussion among GMD readers. GMD strives to preserve the pluralism of opinions in its online edition, because discussion is key to the further development of science. However, the GMD mission does not include creating an online publication that becomes a venue for constant discussion requiring clarification of or mediation of irresolvable disputes. Consequently, the editors of GMD reserve the right to reject any articles that contain unreasoned or poorly reasoned criticism of any opponent.