About the Journal

PEER REVIEW PROCESS

All manuscripts submitted to the Journal of Workplace Mobbing undergo an open peer-review process, involving evaluation by a minimum of two independent external reviewers, in addition to editorial assessment. The journal adheres to the guidelines and best practices established by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) to ensure a fair, transparent, and ethically sound review process.

Publication Ethics and Publication Malpractice Statement
The journal is committed to ensuring that decisions on publishing articles are made based on appropriate processes of peer review, and are not influenced by any financial matters (e.g. publication fees, publication fee assistance), affiliation to any organization, or any other conditions. Submissions to the Journal of Workplace Mobbing must be original and not under consideration or previously published in any other journal or publication outlet. All submitted manuscripts go under open reviews for authenticity, ethical issues, and useful contributions. Editorial decisions are primarily based on the recommendations of the peer reviewers. Therefore, to ensure integrity in our scholarly publishing, all related parties - editors, reviewers and authors - are required to follow the ethical standards in performing their respective roles.

Journal of Workplace Mobbing subscribes to the core practices set forth by the Committee on Publication Ethics regarding allegations of misconduct, authorship and contributorship, complaints and appeals, conflicts of interest, data and reproducibility, ethical oversight, intellectual property, journal management, peer review processes, and post-publication discussions and corrections. 

Duties of the Editors:

Publication decisions

The Editor-in-Chief holds ultimate responsibility for determining which submitted manuscripts are accepted for publication in the Journal of Workplace Mobbing. This decision is made in accordance with the journal’s editorial policies and with due regard for applicable legal standards, including those concerning libel, copyright infringement, and plagiarism. In the course of the decision-making process, the Editor-in-Chief may consult with members of the Editorial Board and external peer reviewers to ensure a fair and well-informed evaluation.

Fair play
An editor at any time evaluates manuscripts for their intellectual content without regard to the nature of the authors or the host institution including race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy of the authors.

Confidentiality
The editors and any editorial members must not disclose any information about a submitted manuscript to anyone other than the corresponding author, reviewers, potential reviewers, other editorial advisers, and the publisher, as appropriate. The journal uses Open Journal System (OJS), a well known system for scholarly open access journal that prevents unauthorized access to its unpublished contents. In the case of a misconduct investigation, the journal may disclose materials to third parties (e.g., an institutional investigation committee or other editors).

Disclosure and conflicts of interest
Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in an editor's own research without the express written consent of the author. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage. Editors should excuse themselves (i.e. should ask a co-editor, associate editor or other member of the editorial board instead to review and consider) from considering manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or (possibly) institutions connected to the papers. Editors should require all contributors to disclose relevant competing interests and publish corrections if competing interests are revealed after publication. If needed, other appropriate action should be taken, such as the publication of a retraction or expression of concern.

Involvement and cooperation in investigations
The journal will respond to all allegations or suspicions of research or publication misconduct raised by readers, reviewers, or other editors. Cases of possible plagiarism or duplicate/redundant publication will be assessed by journal editorial teams. In other cases, the journal may request an investigation by an institution or other appropriate bodies.

Duties of Reviewers:

Contribution to editorial decisions
Peer review assists the editor in making editorial decisions and through the editorial communications with the author may also assist the author in improving the paper.

Promptness
Any selected referee who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should notify the editor and excuse himself from the review process.

Confidentiality
Any manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. They must not be shown to or discussed with others except as authorized by the editor.

Standards of objectivity
Reviews should be conducted objectively. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate. Referees should express their views clearly with supporting arguments.

Acknowledgement of sources & Plagiarism
Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors. Any statement that an observation, derivation, or argument had been previously reported should be accompanied by the relevant citation.

A reviewer should also call to the editor's attention any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published paper of which they have personal knowledge. Reviewers are asked to identify papers where research misconduct has or seems to have occurred and inform the editorial board, which will deal with each case accordingly based upon the guidelines set forth by the Committee on Publication Ethics for reporting plagiarism and misconduct.

Disclosure and conflict of interest
Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage. Reviewers should not consider manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers.

Reviewer misconduct
Editors will take reviewer misconduct seriously and pursue any allegation of breach of confidentiality, non-declaration of conflicts of interest (financial or non-financial), inappropriate use of confidential material, or delay of peer review for competitive advantage. Allegations of serious reviewer misconduct, such as plagiarism, will be taken to the institutional level.

Duties of Authors:

Reporting standards
Authors of reports of original research should present an accurate account of the work performed as well as an objective discussion of its significance. Underlying data should be represented accurately in the paper. A paper should contain sufficient detail and references to permit others to replicate the work. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behaviour and are unacceptable.

Data access and retention
Authors are asked to provide the raw data in connection with a paper for editorial review, and should be prepared to provide public access to such data and should in any event be prepared to retain such data for a reasonable time after publication.

Originality and plagiarism
Authors should adhere to publication requirements that submitted work is original, is not plagiarized, and has not been published elsewhere - fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behavior and are unacceptable. If an author has used works and/or words of others, ensure that this original is appropriately cited or quoted and accurately reflects individuals’ contributions to the work and its reporting.

Multiple, redundant or concurrent publication
An author should not in general publish manuscripts describing essentially the same research in more than one journal or primary publication. Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal concurrently constitutes unethical publishing behaviour and is unacceptable.

Acknowledgement of sources
Proper acknowledgment of the work of others must always be given. Authors should cite publications that have been influential in determining the nature of the reported work.

Authorship of the paper
Authorship should be limited to those who have made a significant contribution to the conception, design, execution, or interpretation of the reported study. 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 research project, they should be acknowledged or listed as contributors.

The corresponding author should ensure that all appropriate co-authors and no inappropriate co-authors are included on the paper, and that all co-authors have seen and approved the final version of the paper and have agreed to its submission for publication.

Hazards
If the work involves chemicals, procedures or equipment that have any unusual hazards inherent in their use, the author must clearly identify these in the manuscript.

Disclosures and 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 results or interpretation of their manuscript. All sources of financial support for the project should be disclosed.

Fundamental errors in published works
When an author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in his/her own published work, it is the author’s obligation to promptly notify the journal editor or publisher and cooperate with the editor to retract or correct the paper.

Disclaimer
Neither the editors nor the Editorial Board of the journal are responsible for authors’ expressed opinions, views, statements of alleged facts, and the contents of the published manuscripts in the journal. The originality, proofreading of manuscripts and errors are the sole responsibility of the individual authors.

Appeals

Authors of manuscripts rejected, with or without external review, may appeal the decision to a journal’s Editorial Board. Authors should contact the Editor before initiating an appeal in order to discuss all options available.

Purpose of an Appeal. An appeal is not an additional round of peer review. Instead, Board Members assess whether the Editor reached an appropriate decision given the journal’s scope, criteria, and any expert reports.

Appeals process. Authors should contact the Editor and succinctly lay out the reasons for contesting the decision in collegial and scholarly terms. The Editor will send all previous correspondence and referee identities to an appropriate Editorial Board member. In the absence of a suitable Editorial Board member, the Editor will appoint an appropriate expert as an ad hoc Board member.

The Editorial Board member will review the full correspondence and provide an advisory opinion to the Editor. The Editor will send the author(s) a final decision that includes the opinion of the Editorial Board member. This decision concludes the scholarly evaluation of the manuscript.