ETHICS AND MALPRACTICE STATEMENT
The Editorial Board
The Editor-in-Chief is responsible for the journal’s scientific quality. They supervise all reviewing and editing activities to ensure the journal’s scientific success within the research field. The Editor-in-Chief maintains communication with and between members of the
Editorial Board to ensure its effectiveness in all editing activities.
The Editorial Board members must hold a Ph.D. title, have the necessary experience to assess the scientific quality of manuscripts, and meet professional standards and research ethics.
The Editorial Board mediates and ensures optimal communication between reviewers and authors.
The Editorial Board must ensure that all the material submitted to the journal remains confidential while under review. The Editorial Board must not disclose any information about the submitted manuscript to anyone other than the corresponding author/s, reviewers, other editorial advisers, and the printing house.
The Editorial Board is responsible for deciding which of the submitted manuscripts should be published based on the reviewers’ evaluations. The acceptance or rejection of a paper is based on its importance, originality, clarity, and relevance to the journal’s scope.
The Editorial Board will ensure that the material submitted for publication and the entire peer review, editing, and publication process is free from bias based on ethnicity, race, gender, sex, sexual orientation, age, disability, citizenship, religious, political or other beliefs, etc.
The Editorial Board may reject (withdraw) the article if it finds that there is a fraudulent approach in the writing of the manuscript (plagiarism, multiple publication, false claims of authorship, copyright violation, violation of rights of use of information, the inclusion of false information – fabricated, manipulated, previously undetected errors).
Suspected cases of plagiarism will be addressed according to the Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors (
COPE) (see also https://publicationethics.org/guidance/Guidelines).
Any breach of the
code of ethics will be reviewed, clarified, and resolved by the Editorial Board.
Any illegal conduct during the evaluation or editing process or after the volume’s publication will be brought to the attention of the Editorial Board.
If a fraudulent approach has been identified in the content of the manuscript or in the review process after the online publication and printing of the material, the editorial board will ensure a prompt, clear, objective, and public retraction on the matter raised, the associated scientific material, and the initiating person/entity. The retraction will be included in all online media hosting the material.
The reviewers
The
peer reviewer profile should meet the following criteria: there must be no conflict of interest with the author(s) or the editorial board, the reviewer must have experience in the article’s field, and the reviewer must have published articles and studies in that field.
Reviewers must have the necessary experience to assess the scientific quality of the manuscripts and meet professional standards and research ethics.
Peer reviewers assist the editor in making editorial decisions and the author in improving the paper.
If a potential reviewer is unable (for various reasons) to evaluate the manuscript, they are obliged to notify the Editorial Board.
Communication with the Editorial Board must remain open throughout the
review process.
Reviews should be conducted objectively.
Reviewers should treat all manuscripts received for evaluation with strict confidentiality. They must only forward or discuss the manuscripts with third parties when the editors authorize them to.
Personal criticism of the author is not allowed.
Reviewers should express their views clearly, with supporting arguments.
Reviewers should identify relevant published works that the author did not reference.
Any similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published paper should be reported to the Editorial Board.
Reviewers will evaluate the manuscripts according to the
evaluation form of the journal
Acta Musei Napocensis. Historica.
The authors
The authors will abide by the
research ethics when submitting scientific materials for publication to
Acta Musei Napocensis. Historica. They will strictly avoid conflicts of interest, personal attacks, slanderous statements, unsubstantiated opinions/theories, intellectual theft, plagiarism (even if only partial or self-plagiarism), multiple publication, etc.
The authors will ensure that they have written permission to publish all the attached documents (photographs, maps, tables, graphics, scanned images of written documents, etc.) and that they correctly identify the sources of the materials used in the article.
The use of A.I. tools (such as Chat GPT or Clarivate Research Assistant) during research is only allowed as an auxiliary method (for identifying relevant authors and works, for rephrasing or translation) and not for generating the text or auxiliary material of the article. Even such ancillary uses must be mentioned in the article in a footnote corresponding to the methodological paragraphs.
All listed authors must have contributed to the article, and all contributors must be listed as co-authors.
When the author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in their work, they must promptly notify the Editorial Board.
The author may withdraw the manuscript if, during the evaluation, they find that it contains erroneous conclusions that cannot be rectified in a short period and require further research.
The author must cooperate with the editors to correct or rectify errors identified in the paper.
Correct crediting of ideas and information in a study is mandatory, as well as reporting this through citation and complete bibliographic references (including online sources).
All sources of financial support that facilitated the writing of a paper should be mentioned. Any financial conflicts of interest that could influence the research results should be disclosed.
The authors acknowledge the existence and content of the
Copyright Agreement by the time of the manuscript’s submission.
Upon acceptance for publication, authors will sign the Copyright Agreement in which they declare that they have complied with the research ethics, that the manuscript is original work, that it is not partly or entirely plagiarized, that it has not been published, is not in print or has been sent to another journal for review and publication at the time of submission to Acta Musei Napocensis. Historica.
Handling complaints and appeals
Complaints and appeals are handled according to the principles promoted by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).
Acta Musei Napocensis. Historica will consider complaints relating to allegations of pre- and post-publication misconduct, conflicts of interest, reproduction of information, compliance with ethical rules, intellectual property, journal management, and post-publication discussions and corrections.
Acta Musei Napocensis. Historica upholds and respects the highest standards of professional and ethical conduct. The system for handling complaints and appeals concerns authors, reviewers, and other interested parties and consists of:
Submission: Complaints sent by postal or e-mail address of the editorial office and will be forwarded to the Editor-in-Chief and the Editorial Board;
Confirmation and registration: Confirmation of receipt and registration of the document within the National Museum of Transylvanian History will be made within a maximum of 5 working days from the date of its entry into the institution;
Examination: The Editor-in-Chief and the Editorial Board will examine complaints objectively, ensuring the parties' confidentiality throughout the process.
Recording and archiving: The National Museum of Transylvanian History will record and keep all communication materials, documentation of actions taken and admitted solutions.
Response and settlement: The journal will respond to the complaint within 30 working days, aiming to find a mutually agreed-upon solution as soon as possible (in accordance with its ethical policy and guidelines).
Appeal: An appeal will only be considered if the resolution of the original complaint is unsatisfactory to one of the parties involved. The appeal will be submitted through the submission procedure described above and forwarded for review and resolution to the Ethics and Compliance Monitoring Advisor of the National Museum of Transylvanian History.
Compliance with the procedural steps will ensure the efficiency and transparency of the whole process, maintaining the journal's integrity and ethical and professional responsibility.
