Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement
The Indiana Magazine of History (IMH) is dedicated to following clear, high standards in its publication ethics. The following duties outlined for editors, authors, and reviewers are based on the COPE Code of Conduct for Journal Editors.
Duties of Editor
Review of Manuscripts: The editor will ensure that each manuscript is initially evaluated by the editors on its importance, originality, and clarity, as well as its relevance to the journal’s editorial policy. Following desk review, if the editor deems that the manuscript should be considered for publication, the manuscript will be sent out for blind peer review, which the editors will use in determining whether to accept, reject, or request revisions for the manuscript.
Fair Review: The editors will ensure that each manuscript received by the IMH is reviewed for its intellectual content without regard to sex, gender, race, religion, citizenship, etc. of the author(s).
Publication Decisions: Based on desk review and the review report of the peer reviewer(s), the editor can accept, reject, or request modifications to the manuscript.
Confidentiality: The editors will ensure that information regarding manuscripts submitted by the authors is kept confidential.
Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest: The editors of the IMH will not use unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript for their own research without written consent of the author.
Duties of Authors
Reporting Standards: Authors should present an accurate account of their original research as well as an objective discussion of its significance. Manuscripts will follow the submission guidelines of the journal.
Originality: Authors must ensure that they have written an entirely original work.
Multiple, Redundant, or Concurrent Publications: Authors should not submit the same manuscript to more than one journal concurrently. We also expect that the author will not publish redundant manuscripts in more than one journal. The editors will not consider for publication any manuscript that has been published on a pre-print repository.
Acknowledgment of Sources: Authors should acknowledge all sources of data, quotes, and other previously published material used in their research.
Authorship of the Paper: Co-authors who have made significant contribution must be listed as such. Authors must also ensure that all co-authors have seen and agreed to the submitted version of the manuscript and to their inclusion as co-authors. Data Access and Retention: Whenever applicable and upon request of the editors, authors should provide raw data related to their manuscript for editorial review and must retain such data.
Fundamental Errors in Published Works: If at any point in time, the author(s) discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in the submitted manuscript, s/he must report the error or inaccuracy to the editor.
Duties of Reviewers
Confidentiality: Information regarding manuscripts submitted by authors should be kept confidential and be treated as privileged information.
Acknowledgment of Sources: Any similarity or overlap in the manuscript under consideration with any other published or pre-published manuscript of which the reviewer has personal knowledge must be immediately brought to the editor's notice. Where applicable, manuscript reviewers must advise the editor that authors have cited all sources of data used in their research. Standards of Objectivity: Reviewers must read submitted manuscripts objectively, and should express their views clearly with supporting arguments.
Promptness: In the event that a reviewer feels it is not possible for him/her to complete review of the manuscript within stipulated time, the reviewer must communicate this information to the editor, so that the manuscript can be sent to another reviewer.
Conflict of Interest: Book reviewers must inform the editor of any prior relationship with the author and/or their sources that would prevent the reviewer from assessing the work objectively.