Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement

Onoma, the journal of the International Council of Onomastic Sciences, is a double-blind peer-reviewed publication which advocates the observation of standards of ethical behaviour generally expected of such scientific works. All the parties involved in the process (publisher, editors, peer reviewers, and authors) must make sure to be in agreement with the principles below.

1. The publisher ensures the best practice in the publication of the journal and provides the editor with the technical, procedural and legal support for the optimal outcome.

2. The editors of the journal are responsible for:

– providing authors with updated publication guidelines and ensuring they are observed in the papers accepted for publication;

– coordinating the peer-review process based exclusively on academic criteria (quality, originality, accuracy, knowledge of literature in the field) and ensuring its proper development, unhindered by any conflict of interests;

– deciding which of the papers submitted for publication in the journal should actually be published. The editors shall take into consideration the results of the double blind peer-review process upon making such decisions;

– protecting the confidentiality of all materials submitted for publication and of all communications with reviewers, as well as the anonymity of the referees and of the authors;

– safeguarding the ethical and scientific standards of the journal by publishing apologies when necessary and corrections/retractions when errors are found.

3. The peer-review process is fair and unbiased. It is conducted by two independent, anonymous reviewers, who should not have any conflict of interests as regards the paper, the authors and/or funding institutions. The referees should express their views clearly with supporting arguments, focusing on several aspects (terminology usage, work originality, language accuracy and bibliography relevance), making potential suggestions and providing an overall evaluation of the paper reviewed:

  1. the article should be published;
  2. the article can be published after changes that address the review comments, but no new review is required;
  3. the article can be published after significant changes that address the review comments, as verified by a new round of peer review;
  4. the article should not be published.

If necessary, the editors shall seek additional opinions. The General Editor’s decision is final.

Reviewers must preserve the confidentiality of the papers refereed and they are not allowed to contact the authors directly without permission from the editor. If reviewers believe they recognise the authors of the manuscripts, they should inform the editors and establish whether it is appropriate to proceed with the review.

4. Authors should ensure that they have written entirely original works. Upon employing works by others, authors must make sure that the works in question have been appropriately referenced/quoted and permission has been obtained where necessary, even in the case of information obtained in private conversation, correspondence or discussion with third parties. Authors must provide proper acknowledgment to any institution or other body or person that funded their research.

Plagiarism in all its forms constitutes unethical behaviour and is unacceptable. Other actions denoting unethical behaviour include making fraudulent or inaccurate statements, submitting the same manuscript to more than one publication simultaneously, submitting for consideration a paper that has already been published or has been approved for publication elsewhere. When authors discover a significant error or inaccuracy in their own published work, it is their obligation to notify the editors. Authors shall cooperate with the editors to retract or correct the paper if deemed necessary by the editors.