Author Guidelines
Guidelines and Instructions
for Authors:
1. Articles must be
unpublished, original works.
2. Articles may be
submitted in English or German.
3. Only linguistically
correct versions, previously proofread/revised by a language professional,
editable (Word only, not PDF) will be accepted. Please note that after making
minor or major revisions, a submitted paper will need an additional proofreading.
4. EiP
follows the APA citation system. The authors are requested to use the EiP Template. Graphs and tables are welcomed (we recommend
submitting them also as an additional, editable file).
5. The corresponding author
is the first author. They are responsible for submission and communication with
the journal’s editors, concerning the reviewing process, licensing process, and
other formal procedures. The corresponding author is also the main partner of
the Editorial Board for managing potential disputes.
6. The editors encourage
authors to submit originally conceptualized and edited articles. However, they
also promote standards to improve publication excellence, including sound
theses (or hypotheses), definitions, arguments, explanations, and references to
peer-reviewed papers, books, data files, and further scientific sources. To
improve the quality of publications, articles are expected to have catchy
titles, abstracts explaining the research problem, method and expected
outcomes, and catchy keywords (including brief formulations, e.g., ‘a
falsification postulate’, names of theories, names of scholars and thinkers,
etc.) that will help the global community of researchers find the article
with search tools.
7. Articles should consist
of basic sections, such as ‘Objectives’, ‘Theoretical Background/The State of
the Art in a Related Research Field’, ‘Method/s’, ‘Research Findings’,
‘Explanations’, ‘Discussion/Open Questions/Further Research Perspectives’; and
the ‘References’ Section (sections’ titles to be specified according to the
context).
8. If a publication has a
DOI number, the author is required to provide the DOI in the bibliography.
9. Once the reviewing
process is successfully completed, the paper should be converted to the EiP Template. The authors may do that before submitting the
paper. Graphs and tables should be submitted additionally, as a separate
editable file. The cover page must include the corresponding author’s first
name & surname, affiliation, e-mail address, ORCID number, the title of the
submitted paper (in English), abstract (in English) & keywords (in
English), and a brief Bio.
10. The full list of the
authors (including their affiliations, e-mail addresses, ORCID numbers and
brief Bios) must be provided on the subsequent (2nd) page. On the
same page the authorship and contributions of all included authors should be
transparently defined (please briefly describe who contributed to the work and
in what capacity). The authorship statement should exclude ghost, guest and
gift authorship (gift contributions should be moved to ‘Acknowledgments’). For
more https://publicationethics.org/authorship
11. Potential conflicts of
interest should be mentioned on the same page. For more see
https://publicationethics.org/competinginterests
12. Articles reporting on
findings and data collected on the basis of research/experiments with human and
animal subjects must be provided with and Ethical Statement and
permission/license signature issued by a related Institutional Board.
13. Articles reporting on research
projects should include the award signature, institutional affiliation, and the
name of the project manager.
14. Co-authored articles
and articles based on data, research instruments (questionnaires) and otherwise
originally authored or certified scientific information constituting
intellectual property owned by third parties or institutions must be
sufficiently documented by, e.g., licenses and permissions mentioned in
footnotes/references.
15. Editors may require
original data files or research instruments (e.g., a psycho- or sociometric questionnaires, surveys, etc.) to prove their
validity during the double-blind peer reviewing process).
16. According to Directive
2019/1024 of the European Parliament and the Council of 20 June 2019, once the
article has been approved and is ready for publication, the journal encourages
authors to provide their article with a link making their data files available
for readers.
17. The journal has no
paper submission or paper processing charges. CFP’s for special issues by guest
editors are published for free.
18. Articles can be
submitted at all times. It is recommended that authors use the electronic
submission system when making a new submission.
19. The author retains all
copyrights.
20. Once
the article has been uploaded for publication, no changes or
reeditions are allowed, neither can changes be made after an
article becomes visible in the open access system, and, automatically,
shared with databases, repositories and impact measuring tools worldwide.
The
Author receives the following to read, sign and send back: "Agreement for granting a CC BY-SA 4.0 license" (mandatory).
Ethical
statement & References quality
If
you report on research that involves human or animals
subjects, biological or historical materials, or confidential or copyrighted
data, or which is based on copyrighted, certified, validated or licensed
research instruments and methods, please
provide appropriate approval from an ethics board (signature thereof), third
parties’ approvals, and an ethical statement.
A sample
ethical statement
How
to provide an up-to-date and high-quality rerefences
section?
How
to make a good abstract?
Editors, peer reviewers,
and readers (especially fellow scholars) – would like to quickly learn what
new, original and relevant contribution your paper makes. If they judge the
abstract to be clear and structured, they are more likely to read the paper,
and then to incorporate its content into their own research.
Abstracts
& keywords constitute the first, core
(and sometimes the only) information used as a basis by editors and
scientific councils/committees when deciding what to do with a submission.
The abstract determines the main discipline that the paper is related to and
who should review the submission. It is recommended that the core discipline or
subdiscipline and research areas are named in in the
‘keywords’. A poor or unclear abstract may lead to ‘desk-rejection’
(no-idea-what-it-is-about-so-move-on-to-the-next). They also assume the rest of
the paper will have the same quality as the abstract.
Readers
of a new submission may have a general
orientation in the field/area. So authors must help them. Also, when they
are experts, they search for something novel &
stimulating. Abstract = an author’s “statement of how your research
uniquely addresses the issue”
(https://www.aje.com/arc/make-great-first-impression-6-tips-writing-strong-abstract/)
Good abstracts are clear,
and clarity involves structure. They accompany articles and reviews, e.g.,
What
makes a good abstract?
NO’s to avoid:
No simple ‘summary’ of the
contents
No ‘history of science’
No side issues and details
No references, citations,
footnotes
No results or information
not considered in the text
No overstatements (without
justification in the following paper body)
No undefined acronyms, abreviations, figures or jargon that will be confusing to
the reader
Length: 12–20 lines (ca.
100 words). Just enough to awaken the curiosity of a reader from your research
area
Catchy (the first 2–3 lines
may decide whether a potential reader will be attracted and motivated to
continue reading)
Structured (has some basic
sections)
Agrees with the information
in the main body of the paper
Main
types of abstracts
(according to your discipline and research type)
1. A descriptive abstract
contains no judgments and statements, just an essential and structured
description on the content and research reported in the paper.
2. An informative abstract
contains a solid and relevant outline on the research reported and discussed in
the body, announces the main objectives/aims/research questions, methods and
conclusions. It is a paper, but in a skeletal form only.
3. A highlight abstract:
attracts a reader’s attention and presents one, spectacular, pathbreaking/innovative hypothesis with reference to the
state of the art, making a reader curious; it is like an independent piece of
the paper.
A structured abstract:
structured abstracts are preferable for Ethics in Progress. They are the
opening section of the paper. They are read first – sometimes only the abstract
is downloaded, read and circulates in the scientific and virtual world. It’s
like a scientific business card.
Theoretical background,
Objective, Methodology, Results (Findings), Discussion (Explanation), and
Conclusions belong to a structured abstract.
Please do not copy/paste or
compile paragraphs from the paper as ‘the abstract’.
Please use the active
voice, when possible; single passive sentences are acceptable.
Abstracts are separately
and carefully peer-reviewed.
They require careful
proofreading.
Before submitting, please
check whether your study is sound and comprehensive solely on the basis of the
Abstract.
Please provide a minimum of
four keywords (a maximum of 8). They can be descriptive, contain names of
theories and names of scholars.
The journal
strives for the highest possible scientific standards. In the interests of
these standards, the reviewing procedure is thorough. The preference is for:
original and innovative research-based manuscripts (or investigations) with
clear methodologies, innovative research findings, cross-disciplinary
relevance, and accelerating developments, which fit with the thematic
priorities of Ethics in Progress. Submitted manuscripts are
firstly assessed by the Editorial Board to see whether they are originally
authored and match the journal's scope and core topics. Once the formal
revision has been conducted, manuscripts are evaluated by independent peer
reviewers (double-blind reviews) within 8 weeks. Additionally, the final
manuscript is checked for plagiarism with iThenticate
( until the end of the year 2022 with the Adam Mickiewicz
University Open Antiplagiarism System - www.osa.amu.edu.pl). Final approval or
rejection of a manuscript is made by the Editorial Board. Authors have the
right to appeal from the received reviews, providing a written explanation and
justification. The appeal instance is in this case the Editor-in-Chief, who can
direct the contribution to an additional expert review process. The Editorial
Board makes the final decision.
If plagiarism is found, the manuscript will be irrevocably rejected with
notification to the authors.
Once the approval has been made, the Author receives the following to
read, sign and send back: "Agreement for granting a CC BY-SA 4.0 license" (mandatory).
Each Author and
Co-author receives their contract signed by both parties via their postal
address.
Ethics in
Progress peer review template.
In ethically
relevant cases, we recommend our peer reviewers following COPE Ethical
Standards for Peer Reviewers:
https://publicationethics.org/files/Ethical_Guidelines_For_Peer_Reviewers_2.pdf
“Open Access Journal”