The European Review of Digital Administration & Law is an international periodical peer-reviewed publication. The journal is published every six months, at the end of the first and second semester of each year. Erdal is based on the principles set forth herein. This Ethical Code is inspired by the Guidelines on good-publication practices of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and by the COPE Flowcharts.
Art. 1
Selection of publishable articles and non-discrimination
1. The publication process is free of charge and open to anyone who wants to contribute.
2. Articles are selected for publication following the positive outcome of the peer review. The choice to publish is based exclusively on the criteria of scientific relevance, methodological strictness, originality, clarity of presentation and consistency with the thematic areas of the journal. The selection of publishable articles shall in no way discriminate on the basis of authors’ ethnicity, gender, religious beliefs, philosophical conviction, citizenship, sexual orientation, age and political orientation.
Art. 2
Changes and corrections of submitted articles
1. The Responsible Director shall promptly take charge of articles submitted for publication and provide feedback within a few days. Following the outcome of the peer-review process, the Responsible Director shall promptly communicate to perspective authors the decision as to whether or not to publish their paper.
2. Before being accepted or rejected, each article submitted to the journal is subject to the peer-review process. Only articles that are manifestly inappropriate or those that have no bearing on the topics to which the journal is dedicated may be rejected without prior consultation of reviewers.
3. Before papers are submitted to the peer-review process, changes or corrections could be proposed to authors in order to fully meet the criteria listed in Article 1.
4. After the peer-review process, the only changes and corrections that may be required are the ones recommended by the anonymous reviewers.
5. At any stage of the publication process, editors may ask authors to comply with editorial changes consistent with the editorial criteria of the journal and do not affect the papers’ content.
Art. 3
Authors’ Obligations
1. By submitting articles for publication, authors assume the responsibility that their contributions fully comply with national and international copyright laws, and that all bibliographic references in the publication are correctly cited.
2. Authors shall declare that authorship of their work is entirely their own.
3. By submitting their articles for publication, authors implicitly declare the absence of any conflict of interest that may have affected the contents of their work. Authors must also ensure that their work’s publication in the review does not violate any previously undertaken commitment.
4. In the event of renewal of journal’s staff, authors are assured that the decisions made by the previous staff will be respected. That will happen unless serious problems have been identified with the contents of a particular article.
5. Where the text is written by more than one author, the journal’s editors will liaise with all of them to ensure that the text submitted for publication is the result of joint research.
Art. 4
The journal’s staff
1. The journal’s staff shall always respect the ethical principles contained in this Code, in the Guidelines on good-publication practices of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and in the COPE Flowcharts. They also ensure compliance with copyright and data-privacy regulations.
2. All editors guarantee the constant improvement of the journal in terms of both academic quality and the strictest compliance with ethical standards for publication. They ensure publication of only those contributions whose quality is verified through an impartial, fair and confidential objective process. This process is based on the double-blind peer-review evaluation procedure ruled by separate guidelines, that are both annexed to this ethical code and published on the journal’s website.
3. The journal’s staff are the Responsible Director, the Editors-in-Chief, the Associate Editors, the Editors’ Committee, the Scientific Committee and the Editorial board.
4. The Responsible Editor edits the journal and is the legal representative of Erdal. In accordance with Article 3 of Law No. 47 of 8 February 1947 and Article 46 of Law No. 69 of 3 February 1963, the Responsible Director ensures that contributions proposed for publication are assessed by the reviewers solely with regard to their scientific content, without discrimination on the basis of gender, sexual orientation, religious beliefs, ethnic origin and nationality, or the scientific, academic and political orientation of the authors. The Responsible Director also presides over the programming of the journal by choosing, in agreement with the Editors in Chief, topics for monographic issues. The Responsible Director chooses new members of the editorial staff and introduces them to the other staff members.
5. The Editors in Chief collaborate with the Responsible Director in determining the planning of the journal and in seeking scholars to coordinate each monographic issue.
6. The Associate Editors collaborate supporting and promoting the journal. They seek the best authors for articles to be published in Erdal. They propose topics for Erdal’s monographic issues and, if interested, agree to become editors of those issues. The Associate Editors also help in the search for new reviewers.
7. the Editors’ Committee is composed of the Responsible Director, the Editors-in-Chief and the Associate Editors. The Editors’ Committee meets periodically in order to support the journal’s management in taking all decisions concerning the life of Erdal. Consultations take place using various channels: video conferences, communication via WhatsApp and e-mail communications.
8. The Scientific Committee acts as an advisory board, assisting the activities of the Editor’s Committee and supporting its scientific strategies and editorial choices, when necessary.
9. The Editorial Board has editorial tasks, helping to adapt the articles received for publication to the journal’s editorial rules.
10. There is no ban on members of Erdal’s editorial boards taking part in the boards of other journals. It is considered that participation in several editorial boards enriches the experience of scholars and should be encouraged. Nonetheless, when any member of Erdal’s board also sits in the board of another journal that operates in the same field as Erdal and has conflicting interests, they are required to declare it and take steps to avoid any conflict of roles.
11. The publisher has no influence on Erdal’s editorial policies and leaves the editorial staff of the journal maximum freedom in the choice of content and editorial policies.
12. Complaints may be lodged against the decisions of Erdal’s staff. Complaint will be decided by a panel of three professors chosen from among The Scientific Committee. The three professors must come from three different European countries.
Art. 5
Confidentiality and conflict of interest
1. Erdal’s staff shall not disclose any information on articles submitted for publication. They also shall not to use for their own research the contents of unpublished articles.
2. The journal uses double-blind peer review procedures to ensure that the submitted articles remain strictly confidential during the review process. The Responsible Director and editors of each monographic issue select the reviewers for their competence and capacity to provide a proper evaluation for the purpose of publication.
3. Authors must not have any conflict of interest that may have affected the paper’s achieved results, supported thesis, or proposed interpretations.
4. Submitted manuscripts shall be treated as confidential documents. They shall not be shown or discussed with anyone. All relevant information obtained during the peer-review process shall also be considered confidential.
5. Reviewer shall refuse to review articles whenever they can infer the identity of the authors.
6. Authors shall disclose all funders of the research or project connected with the paper. Readers should be informed about who has funded research and whether the funders had any role in the research and its publication.
Art. 6
Violations of scientific integrity
1. The Responsible Director, The Editors, members of The Scientific Committee, members of The Editorial Board and reviewers who read the submitted articles in the course of the publication process, shall report any violation of copyright, undisclosed conflict of interest, or content violating civil and criminal law.
2. The Editors and The Editorial Committee shall comply at all times with applicable law on slander, defamation, copyright and plagiarism.
3. All submitted articles must be original. Erdal also allows publication in English of articles that have already been published in other languages and other journals. Such publication of a translated article is useful because it allows the dissemination of information about countries whose scholarship and legislation are little known due to language barriers. In case an article already published in another language is published in English in Erdal, this must be done according to the Recommendations for the Conduct, Reporting, Editing, and Publication of Scholarly Work in Medical Journals released by International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE). The Recommendations for the Conduct, Reporting, Editing, and Publication of Scholarly Work in Medical Journals will also be followed if the contribution proposed for publication contains recycled text (so-called self-plagiarism).
4. If plagiarism occurs in an article submitted for publication, the article will be rejected. If plagiarism hypothesis occurs for an article already published, the Responsible Director will follow the indications contained in the Cope Flowchart on Plagiarism in a published article. In particular, upon learning of the suspicion of plagiarism , the Responsible Director will inform the author and ask for explanations. If the explanations offered are not adequate, the article will be removed. This will be done by removing the pdf of the article published on the site and composing the issue upon deletion of the article that violates rules of scientific integrity.
Art. 8
Promotion of scientific debate
1. Erdal is committed to promoting scientific debate. To this end, it undertakes to give space to authors who expound divergent viewpoints. This is done in each monographic issue, trying to give space to different positions. It is also done by publishing contributions in the various sections of the journal that address topics already covered in Erdal, giving them a different perspective. In particular, writings by authors will never be rejected because of the opinions they express.
Art. 9
Peer review
1. Peer review shall be carried out objectively and free from personal and ideological bias.
2. After submission, each article shall be forwarded in anonymous form for blind review. The blind review shall be carried out by one scholar with expertise on the article’s subject matter.
3. The reviewer shall provide adequate reasoning for their assessments.
4. Assessments shall be strictly technical and analytically reported on the evaluation form sent together with the request for review. Whenever possible, evaluating remarks ought to be supported with adequate citation and/or documentation, or be adequately illustrated.
5. Reviewers are encouraged to indicate any relevant reference neglected by the authors. Reviewers shall also report any similarities or overlaps between the reviewed paper and other works.
6. The whole peer-review procedure is meant to ensure quality and scientific interest of selected papers. All people involved comply with the principles of anonymity, confidentiality, impartiality and lack of conflicts of interest.
7. Editors shall strictly comply with anonymity. In case reviewers allow publication contingent on changes, the author(s) shall submit a new draft that takes into account such given directions.
8. The review process shall be concluded within two weeks, giving consideration to reviewers’ other commitments and schedules.
9. Evaluators shall not disseminate or discuss the submitted article or any part thereof. Any information obtained during the assessment process shall be deemed confidential. In no circumstance shall confidential information be used for anyone’s benefit.