Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement
Ethical Oversight
Peer Review
The Goethe Yearbook is a double-blind, peer-reviewed publication. The journal has editorial review plus one external, double-blind peer reviewer in most cases. If there is significant disagreement between these levels of review, a second reviewer may be brought in as well. Reviewers are selected from both inside and outside of the editorial board, as our primary consideration is expertise on the topic of the article. Our review guidelines are outlined here: https://www.goethesociety.org/yearbook-submissions.
Fairness
Submitted manuscripts are evaluated for their originality, intellectual content, clarity, and contributions to scholarly dialogue without regard to race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy of the authors.
Originality and Plagiarism
Authors should ensure that they have written and that they submit only entirely original works, and if they have used the work and/or words of others, that these have been appropriately cited. They should also cite publications that have been influential in shaping their thinking about the topics addressed in their manuscript. Plagiarism in all its forms constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable.
See also the journal’s Artificial Intelligence (AI) Policy.
Multiple, Duplicate, Redundant or Concurrent Submission/Publication
The Goethe Yearbook publishes only original work. By submitting manuscripts, prospective authors confirm that the manuscript has not been published before and is not under consideration elsewhere.
Confidentiality
Any manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents by the Editors and peer reviewers. They will not be shown to or discussed with others except if authorized by the Editors.
Authorship and Contributorship
Authorship should be limited to those who have made a significant contribution to the conception of the submitted article, and to the analysis or interpretation that it conveys. All those who have made significant contributions should be listed as co-authors. Where there are others who have participated in certain substantive aspects of the project, they should be named in an Acknowledgements section.
The corresponding author should ensure that all appropriate co-authors (according to the above definition) and no inappropriate co-authors are included in the author list of the manuscript, and that all co-authors have seen and approved the final version of the paper and have agreed to its submission for publication.
See also the journal’s Artificial Intelligence (AI) Policy. [Link to AI Policy here.]
Research misconduct, Corrections & Retractions
In cases of proven research misconduct, fraudulent publication or plagiarism, the Editors, in close collaboration with the Publisher, will take all appropriate measures to clarify the situation and to amend the article in question. This includes the prompt publication of an erratum or, in the most severe cases, the complete retraction of the affected work.
Conflicts of Interest
All authors should disclose in their manuscript any financial or other substantive conflict of interest that might be construed to influence the direction of their research or their interpretation. All sources of financial support for the project should be disclosed.
Peer reviewers should not consider evaluating manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any author connected to the submission. Professional acquaintance is permissible but should be arms-length.
Data sharing and Reproducibility
Data is available upon reasonable request from the authors as long as does not violate valid privacy concerns.
Policy on Intellectual Property
The Goethe Yearbook follows the copyright policies of our publisher, Boydell & Brewer: any author of an article or essay appearing in the journal is free to re-use that material in their own single-author book, subject only to informing the Editors and giving proper attribution to the original publication.
Options for Post-publication Discussions
For allegations of plagiarism or other research misconduct, the Editors follow guidelines published by the Committee on Publication Ethics and investigate the allegation. See below under “Complaints” for more details.
Readers of the journal may respond to a published article or essay by contacting the Editors. If an article generates a number of responses, or if the Editors feel that one reader’s response raises significant issues for discussion, they may, at their discretion, publish the response(s), along with a reply from the author(s), in the Forum section of the journal’s next issue.
Complaints & Appeals
COMPLAINT about an editorial decision, e.g. an appeal against rejection
The Editors consider the author’s argument, the reviewer reports and decides whether
The decision to reject should stand;
Another independent opinion is required; or
The appeal should be considered.
The complainant is informed of the decision with an explanation if appropriate. Decisions on appeals are final and new submissions take priority over appeals.
Complaint about processes, e.g. time taken to review
The Editors will investigate the matter, and the complainant will be given a report on the relevant aspects of the process. If appropriate, Editors will work with reviewers, the Editorial Board, and/or the Publisher to improve processes and procedures.
Complaint about publication ethics, e.g., researcher's, author's, or reviewer's conduct
The Editors follow guidelines published by the Committee on Publication Ethics. The Editors may ask the Publisher and/or the Editorial Board for advice on difficult or complicated cases. The Editors decide on a course of action and provides information to the complainant. If the complainant remains dissatisfied with the handling of their complaint, they can submit the complaint to the Committee on Publication Ethics.