Publication ethics

Publication Ethics & Malpractice Statement

The Journal of Discourse, Culture & Society (JDCS) is committed to upholding the highest standards of integrity, transparency, and ethical conduct throughout the publishing process. JDCS strictly adheres to the core practices and guidelines of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

All participants in the publication process—authors, editors, reviewers, and the publisher—are required to agree to and observe these standards. The journal’s editorial team includes a dedicated Ethics Editor responsible for overseeing ethical compliance, investigating potential misconduct, and ensuring transparent dispute resolution.

Responsibilities of Authors

  • Originality and Plagiarism: Authors must ensure that their work is entirely original, has not been published, and is not under consideration elsewhere. Any form of plagiarism, redundant or duplicate publication (text recycling/self-plagiarism), data falsification, or data fabrication is unacceptable. All external sources, data, and conceptual frameworks must be cited appropriately.
  • Authorship and Contributorship: Authorship must be limited to individuals who have made substantial intellectual contributions to the conception, design, execution, or interpretation of the study. All co-authors must approve the final manuscript and agree to its submission. Any changes to authorship after submission must comply with COPE procedures.
  • Human Subjects, Ethical Approval, and Consent: For research involving human participants (including interviews, ethnographic observations, digital discourse corpora, and surveys), authors must clearly state in the methodology section that ethical clearance was obtained from the relevant institutional review board or ethics committee, including the committee’s name and approval/protocol number. Informed consent must be documented where applicable.
  • Conflicts of Interest and Funding: Authors must disclose any financial, institutional, or personal relationships that could be perceived as compromising the objectivity of their work. All sources of external funding, project grants, or institutional support must be explicitly acknowledged.
  • Use of Artificial Intelligence (AI): In line with COPE recommendations, generative AI and AI-assisted tools (e.g., Large Language Models) do not qualify for authorship. If AI tools were used in data collection, text drafting, coding, or translation/editing, their use must be transparently disclosed in the methodology or acknowledgements section, specifying the tool, version, and extent of use.

Responsibilities of Reviewers

  • Confidentiality: Manuscripts submitted for peer review must be treated as privileged, strictly confidential documents. Reviewers must not share, discuss, or use any unpublished material, data, or arguments for personal or academic gain.
  • Objectivity and Constructiveness: Reviews must be conducted objectively, impartially, and professionally. Personal criticism or derogatory remarks about the authors are unacceptable. Reviewers are expected to provide constructive, well-argued assessments that help authors improve their scholarly work.
  • Conflicts of Interest: Reviewers must decline the invitation and promptly notify the editorial team if they recognise the identity of the author(s) despite anonymisation, or if they have competing financial, personal, or professional relationships with the authors or institutions.
  • Ethical Vigilance: Reviewers should promptly alert the editors to any substantial similarity, overlap, or potential copyright infringement between the manuscript under review and any other published or unpublished work they are aware of.

Responsibilities of Editors

  • Impartiality and Academic Freedom: Editors assess submissions solely on their scholarly merit, methodological rigour, conceptual contribution, and relevance to the journal’s scope, without regard to the authors’ race, gender, sexual orientation, religious beliefs, ethnicity, nationality, or institutional affiliation.
  • Integrity of Peer Review: Editors are responsible for maintaining the confidentiality and integrity of the double-anonymised peer review process. Editors must ensure that reviewers possess appropriate disciplinary expertise and hold no disqualifying conflicts of interest.
  • Ethical Oversight and Impartial Action: Guided by the Ethics Editor, the editorial board resolves issues regarding potential unethical conduct, plagiarism, or contested authorship objectively and fairly. Editors will not use unpublished material disclosed in a submitted manuscript for their own research without the express written consent of the authors.

Misconduct, Corrections, and Retractions

  • Plagiarism Screening: All manuscripts undergo automated similarity screening (e.g., via iThenticate) prior to peer review. Submissions displaying unacceptable levels of textual overlap or uncredited citation will be subject to immediate desk rejection.
  • Investigation of Allegations: JDCS investigates all allegations of publication misconduct—whether raised before or after publication—strictly in accordance with the relevant COPE Flowcharts.
  • Corrections, Expressions of Concern, and Retractions: If genuine errors or instances of misconduct are identified post-publication, JDCS will issue formal, transparent notices linked to the original article:
    • Errata / Corrigenda: For minor unintentional errors that do not compromise the study's overall validity.
    • Expressions of Concern: When an investigation into alleged misconduct is ongoing or conclusive evidence is pending.
    • Retractions: In cases of documented plagiarism, data fabrication, serious ethical violations, or fundamental methodological flaws that invalidate the findings.