The Journal of Audiovisual Translation (JAT) is committed to maintaining the highest ethical standards for all parties involved in the act of publishing in a peer-reviewed journal: the author, the editorial team, the peer reviewers, and the publisher. We have adopted the following Principles of Publication Ethics and Publication Malpractice Statement based on the Code of Conduct and the Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors of the Committee on Publication Ethics – COPE (available at http://publicationethics.org/). A selection of key points is included below, but authors should always refer to the two documents listed above for full details.
RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE EDITOR-IN-CHIEF, EDITORIAL BOARD AND EDITORIAL TEAM
Fair play and editorial independence: the Editor-in-Chief and Editorial Board evaluate submitted manuscripts exclusively on the basis of their academic merit (importance, originality, study’s validity, clarity) and their relevance to the journal’s scope, without regard to the authors’ race, gender, sexual orientation, ethnic origin, citizenship, religious belief, political philosophy or institutional affiliation. Decisions to edit and publish are not determined by the policies of governments or any other agencies outside the journal itself. The Editor-in-Chief has full authority over the entire editorial content of the journal and the timing of publication of that content.
Publication decisions: the Editor-in-Chief and Editorial Board ensure that all submitted manuscripts being considered for publication undergo peer-review by at least two reviewers who are experts in the field. The Editor-in-Chief is responsible for deciding which of the manuscripts submitted to the journal will be published, based on the validation of the work in question, its importance to researchers and readers, the reviewers’ comments, and such legal requirements as are currently in force regarding libel, copyright infringement and plagiarism. The Editor-in-Chief may confer with the Editorial Board or reviewers in making this decision.
The Editor-in-Chief, Editorial Board and editorial staff are excluded from publication decisions when they are authors or have contributed to a manuscript.
Confidentiality: the Editor-in-Chief and Editorial Board and editorial team will 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.
Disclosure: the Editor-in-Chief, Editorial Board and editorial staff will not use unpublished information disclosed in a submitted manuscript for their own research purposes without the authors’ explicit written consent.
Involvement and cooperation in investigations: The Editor-in-Chief and Editorial Board (in conjunction with the publisher) will take responsive measures when ethical concerns are raised with regard to a submitted manuscript or published paper. Every reported act of unethical publishing behavior will be looked into, even if it is discovered years after publication. The Editor-in-Chief, and Editorial Board follow the COPE Flowcharts when dealing with cases of suspected misconduct. If, on investigation, the ethical concern is well-founded, a correction, retraction, expression of concern or other note as may be relevant will be published in the journal.
RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE REVIEWERS
Contribution to editorial decisions: the peer-reviewing process assists the Editor-in-Chief and the Editorial Board in making editorial decisions and through editorial communications with authors, may assist authors in improving their submissions.
Qualifications and promptness: any invited referee who feels unqualified to review the disciplines or fields of a manuscript or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should immediately notify the editorial staff and decline the invitation to review so that alternative reviewers can be contacted.
Confidentiality: any manuscripts received for review are confidential documents and must be treated as such; they must not be shown to or discussed with others except if authorized by the Editor-in-Chief (who would only do so under exceptional and specific circumstances). This applies also to invited reviewers who decline the review invitation.
Unpublished material disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in a reviewer’s own research without the express written consent of the authors. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for the reviewer’s personal advantage. This also applies to invited reviewers who decline the review invitation.
Objectivity: reviews should be conducted objectively and observations formulated clearly with supporting arguments so that authors can use them for improving the manuscript. Personal criticism of the authors is inappropriate.
Acknowledgement of sources: reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors. Any statement that is an observation, derivation or argument that has been reported in previous publications should be accompanied by the relevant citation. A reviewer should also notify the editors of any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other manuscript (published or unpublished) of which they have personal knowledge.
Disclosure and conflicts of interest: any invited referee who has conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies or institutions connected to the manuscript and the work described therein should immediately notify the editors to declare their conflicts of interest and decline the invitation to review so that alternative reviewers can be contacted.
RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE AUTHORS
Acknowledgement of sources: authors should acknowledge the work of others and properly cite publications that have been influential in research work.
Authorship of the paper: authorship should be given to those who have made a significant contribution to conception, design, execution, or interpretation and writing of the reported study. For individuals who have participated in other aspects of the reported study, they should be acknowledged or listed as contributors in the “Acknowledgments” section of the manuscript. The corresponding author should ensure that all co-authors have seen and approved the final version of the manuscript prior to submission.
Data access and retention: authors should be prepared to provide raw data related to their manuscript if requested for editorial review and should be prepared to make the data publicly available and ensure accessibility of such data for at least 10 years after publication, provided that the legal rights concerning proprietary data do not preclude their release.
Disclosure and conflicts of interest: authors should disclose any conflicts of interest (COI) that might influence the results or their interpretation in the manuscript. Examples of COI include financial ones such as honoraria, educational grants or other funding, participation in speakers’ bureaus, membership, employment, consultancies, stock ownership, or other equity interest, and paid expert testimony or patent-licensing arrangements, and non-financial ones such as personal or professional relationships, affiliations, knowledge or beliefs in the subject matter or materials discussed in the manuscript.
Disclosure of financial support: any sources of financial support or funding for research and writing must be clearly disclosed including the grant number or other reference number, if any.
Fundamental errors in published works: authors have the obligation to report to the Editor-in-Chief immediately to retract or correct the article at any time if the author(s) discovers a significant error in the submitted manuscript.
Multiple, redundant, or concurrent publications: authors must confirm that the manuscript is not currently being considered for publication elsewhere. Submitting manuscripts describing the same research to more than one journal constitutes unethical publishing behavior.
Originality: authors must ensure that their work is original. Plagiarism in all its forms constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable.
Protection of human subjects: if the work involves human subjects, the authors should ensure that all procedures were performed in compliance with relevant regulations and institutional guidelines and approved by the appropriate institutional committee(s). When ethical approval is not required, e.g. Because of national laws, or where a study has been granted an exemption by an ethics committee, this should be stated within the manuscript with a full explanation. Ethics approval for all studies must be obtained before the research is conducted. Authors must be prepared to provide further information to the editorial team upon request.
Authors should also state in the manuscript that formed consent was obtained for experimentation with human participants. Authors must be prepared to provide signed and dated copies to the journal editorial team if requested. In studies where verbal informed consent has been obtained rather than written informed consent, this must be explained and stated within the manuscript.
Reporting standards: authors should accurately present their original research as well as an objective discussion of its significance. Authors must follow the submission guidelines as posted on our journals’ website.
WITHDRAWAL, CORRECTION AND RETRACTION
In rare cases, an accepted article may need to be withdrawn, corrected, or even retracted. Such actions will be taken after being carefully considered by the journal's Editorial Board to ensure they are done with the utmost guarantees and based on the rules set by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).
Withdrawal: articles may be withdrawn by the corresponding author before it is accepted for publication.
Articles that have been accepted for publication but which have not been formally published that have errors, or are discovered to be accidental duplicates of other published article(s), or are determined to violate our journal publishing ethical guidelines in the view of the Editor-in-Chief and the Editorial Board (such as multiple submission, false claims of authorship, plagiarism, fraudulent use of data or the like), may be withdrawn.
Corrections: errors in published papers may be identified, requiring the publication of a correction in the form of a Publisher or Author Correction:
- Publisher Correction is published when a publisher's error or omission affects the publication's record or reputation, but not the academic integrity of the article.
- Author Correction is published when an author's error or omission affects the publication's record or reputation but not the academic integrity of the article.
In such circumstances:
- The article will be corrected.
- All errors will be accompanied by a separate notification. The notice will provide clear details of the correction and the changes made to the document.
- A final note with the reference to the notice of errata will be included in the article.
- Correction will be published separately but linked to the corrected version of the article.
- The correction document will be paginated and have a DOI assigned.
Retraction: as is discussed in COPE’s Retraction Guidelines, retraction is a mechanism for correcting the literature and notifying readers to articles that contain such seriously flawed or erroneous content or data that their findings and conclusions cannot be relied upon. Unreliable content or data may result from honest error, naïve mistakes, or research misconduct. The main purpose of retraction is to correct the literature and ensure its integrity rather than to punish the authors. Retractions may be used to alert readers to cases of redundant publication, plagiarism, peer review manipulation, reuse of material or data without authorisation, copyright infringement or some other legal issue (eg, libel, privacy, illegality), unethical research, and/or a failure to disclose a major competing interest that would have unduly influenced interpretations or recommendations
- Retraction initiated by author: post-publication issues that call the article's scientific validity into question or meet COPE Retraction Guidelines may prompt an author to request retraction. Any author-initiated retraction request is subject to the Editorial Board and Editor-in-Chief review and approval, and will be denied if the issues raised do not align with COPE guidance.
- Retraction initiated by external or internal concerns: JAT follows COPE guidelines when concerns are raised internally or by third parties and will retract an article if the Editorial Board and Editor-in-Chief determine that issues not resolved in post-publication discussions warrant retraction. JAT may also retract an article if it does not adhere to key journal requirements or editorial policies, or if there are image or data concerns for which the original raw data are not provided, unavailable, or insufficient (per our editorial assessment).
When retracting an article, JAT publishes a notice explaining the reason(s). Notice is posted at the top of the affected article's JAT page and linked to its publication record. JAT editors have the final say on retraction notice contents, but depending on case details, we may collaborate with the authors in preparing the notice and/or give the article's authors the option to be listed as authors of the notice.
Articles go through a two-stage process of internal review. The Editor-in-Chief first assesses articles for compliance with anonymisation and length requirements. Non-compliance may result in desk rejection. Next, the Editor-in-Chief assigns the submission to a member of the Editorial Board to evaluate whether the article should proceed to peer review. A decision of desk reject may be made at this stage if the language or content of the article are not considered of sufficient standard.
If the paper is considered of sufficient quality after the internal review stage, it will go forward to double blind peer review by at least two referees. To facilitate this, authors are required to submit an anonymised manuscript. Reviewers will be independent experts in the subject matter of the submitted article. Reviewers’ reports will be scrutinised by the relevant Editor who will make the editorial decision, based on a critical evaluation of the peer review reports and reviewers’ recommendations.
The peer review reports are sent to the author along with the editorial decision.
Peer reviewer selection
- Editor(s) are expected to obtain a minimum of two peer reviewers for research articles. Where appropriate, editors may seek a third independent peer review.
- In exceptional circumstances, if it is not possible to secure two independent peer reviews, the Editor may act as a second reviewer or request that another member of the Editorial Board provide a second review.
- The editorial board reserves the right to send revised submissions out for peer review a second time.
- Manuscripts that do not report research findings, such as practice reports, are reviewed first by a member of the Editorial Board who will decide on a case by case basis whether external peer review is required.
Conflict of interest: should an Editorial Board member be listed as an author or have a conflicting interest in a manuscript, another member of the Editorial Board will be assigned to handle internal and peer review.
Editors will not select as peer reviewers:
- referees from the same institution as the author(s);
- known recent close collaborators of the author(s);
- known close friends or family members of the author(s).
Before accepting to review a submission, reviewers are requested to notify the Editor of any potential conflict of interest. If in the process of working with the manuscript the existence of a conflict of interest or circumstances that may not allow the peer reviewer to perform the peer-review objectively and impartially is discovered, the peer reviewer must notify the Editor immediately.
Plagiarism, i.e. the appropriation and/or presentation of thoughts, ideas, inventions or work of others as your own, is deeply unethical, and will not be tolerated. It is therefore very important that all sources are presented appropriately in the ways presented in our guidelines. Please note that you must state the source even if you quote indirectly or paraphrase the work of someone else, and regardless if the source of the original is in written, spoken, online or other form. We also demand that you avoid self-plagiarism, i.e. presenting work previously published by yourself somewhere else without stating the source, as that implies that this is new work, and violates the copyright of the original publisher.
As of 2023, all articles submitted to JAT will be routinely screened for plagiarism through iThenticate.