Mohr Siebeck Publication Ethics Guidelines

Mohr Siebeck Publication Ethics Guidelines

Founded in 1801, Mohr Siebeck is an independent, family-owned publishing house with over two centuries of dedication to the advancement of knowledge, particularly in the humanities, law, and economics. Our enduring mission is to serve scholars and academic communities by publishing excellent research and offering tailored publication solutions that help our authors present their work in the best possible way. At Mohr Siebeck, we believe that our success lies in our authors’ success – we publish authors, and we support their academic endeavors on equal terms, with integrity, transparency, and rigor.

Our commitment to quality and scholarly excellence is mirrored by our adherence to ethical publishing standards, which we hold to the highest levels. These guidelines outline our principles on publication ethics, applicable to all our journals and book series. They ensure that our publishing practices promote transparency, fairness, and academic integrity, and are in alignment with the Core Practices of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

1.1. Criteria for Authorship
Mohr Siebeck follows clear, transparent, and fair criteria for authorship and contributorship. We believe that authorship should reflect a significant intellectual contribution to the research or manuscript. Each listed author must have:

⦁    Written an entirely original work or contributed substantially to the conception, design, execution, or interpretation of the research.
⦁    Approved the final version of the manuscript before submission.
⦁    Agreed to be accountable for all aspects of the work, including ensuring its accuracy and integrity.

1.2. Acknowledgements of Contributors
All contributors who do not meet the criteria for authorship should be acknowledged in the manuscript’s acknowledgements section or in the first footnote of an article. Authors are expected to mention these contributors, and the publisher will only intervene in cases where there are indications of misconduct, and such intervention will be conducted in a consensual manner.

1.3. Authorship Disputes
Disputes over authorship will be handled in line with COPE’s guidance, and authors are encouraged to resolve conflicts internally before involving the publisher.

1.4. Multiple Submissions and Redundant Publications
Multiple submissions or redundant publications will only be considered in exceptional cases and under strict conditions. These include situations where a work or contribution has previously been available only in another language, where a contribution to an edited volume is integral to its purpose and cannot be obtained otherwise, or where the contribution represents a substantially revised and expanded version of prior work.
Authors of such volumes are required to secure any rights with the publishers of the original versions.

2.1. Originality and Permissions
Mohr Siebeck respects and protects the intellectual property rights of authors. Authors are required to ensure that their work is original and does not infringe on any third-party intellectual property rights. Any necessary permissions must be obtained for material that is copyrighted or owned by another entity.

2.2. Publication Exclusivity
Authors must confirm that their work has not been published elsewhere and is not under consideration by another publisher, unless explicit agreements have been made.

2.3. Copyright Transfer
Upon acceptance, Mohr Siebeck may request the transfer of certain rights, depending on the publication model (e.g., traditional copyright transfer or Creative Commons licensing). For all Open Access publications, the CC licensing applies. We do not require or advise our authors to choose a specific CC license.

Our AI policy aims to safeguard the publishing process while allowing for the ethical use of AI-assisted technologies where appropriate. By adhering to these guidelines, Mohr Siebeck ensures that our authors’ intellectual property is being protected while allowing the ethical use of AI-assisted technologies where appropriate.

3.1 Authors
3.1.1 What is Allowed
⦁    Authors can use AI tools to enhance the language, grammar, and readability of their work before submission. Any such use of AI must be disclosed and clearly stated in the manuscript. The authors must specify the name of the tool and its role in preparing the manuscript and inform the editors or the publisher upon submission of the manuscript. By publishing the article under their name, the authors approve of all changes that were being made to their original manuscript. They take full responsibility for the text submitted to the publisher.
⦁    AI tools can be employed for administrative tasks such as organizing references or formatting text.

3.1.2 What is Prohibited
⦁    AI cannot be used to generate original content or perform any form of academic research on behalf of the author. AI cannot be credited as an author or co-author of any work.

3.2 Editors and Reviewers
3.2.1 What is Allowed
⦁    Editors may use AI tools to assist with administrative tasks only if it is fully compliant with the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR).

3.2.2 What is Prohibited
⦁    Editors, editorial assistants, or reviewers are not allowed to upload manuscripts or part of manuscripts into external AI tools.
⦁    AI cannot be used to assess or review the quality or content of submitted manuscripts. Editors must ensure that the review and decision-making process remains human-driven, without the involvement of external AI technologies.

3.3 Publisher
3.3.1 How Mohr Siebeck May Process Manuscripts with AI Tools
⦁    Mohr Siebeck may use AI tools that are developed internally or licensed for specific tasks and that are fully compliant with the GDPR regarding the use and storage of personal data. These tools must adhere to Mohr Siebeck’s data security and privacy guidelines and are subject to rigorous evaluations for bias and accuracy. 

4.1    Authors
Authors are required to disclose any financial, institutional, or personal relationships that could be viewed as influencing the research or its interpretation.

4.2    Reviewers
In general, reviewers must recuse themselves from reviewing manuscripts where a conflict of interest exists, such as professional relationships involving dependencies with the authors or a financial interest in the research. However, in small scholarly communities, it is inevitable that professional relationships may exist between authors and editors, such as when a doctoral student wishes to publish their revised dissertation in a series edited by their supervisor or examiner. In such cases, any potential conflicts of interest must be disclosed to the editorial board. To ensure an impartial review process, the editorial board will assign the manuscript to an independent reviewer with no ties to the author or the editor in question. The editor with the conflict of interest will be excluded from all decision-making related to the manuscript.

4.3    Editors
Editors must manage conflicts transparently and ensure that the review process remains unbiased and impartial.

5.1 Data Sharing Encouragement
The integrity of academic research depends on transparency, accessibility, and the ability to reproduce results. Mohr Siebeck encourages authors to share underlying data, methodologies, and supplementary materials that allow for verification and replication of their results, unless legal, ethical, or confidentiality reasons prevent it.

5.2 Repositories
We support open science principles and recommend that authors deposit their data in recognized repositories when appropriate while respecting privacy laws and other ethical considerations.

6.1 Human and Animal Research
All publications by Mohr Siebeck must comply with ethical standards in research, including but not limited to human and animal research. Any research involving human subjects or animals must have been conducted following ethical guidelines and approved by the relevant ethics committees. Authors must provide information on ethical approval and consent in their manuscripts.

6.2 Informed Consent 
Authors must confirm that informed consent was obtained from human subjects involved in research and that their privacy was protected in accordance with applicable laws.

6.3 Vulnerable Populations
Special care must be taken in research involving vulnerable populations, and authors must demonstrate how they ensured ethical standards were met.

7.1 Plagiarism Definition and Consequences
Mohr Siebeck does not tolerate plagiarism in any form. Authors are required to ensure their work is original and properly cited. 
As a standard procedure, we check manuscripts for plagiarism using CrossRef’s Similarity Check, powered by Turnitin’s iThenticate. This ensures that submitted works adhere to ethical and scholarly standards by identifying any unacknowledged similarities with existing published materials.
If plagiarism is detected, either before or after publication, Mohr Siebeck will take appropriate action, which may include correction, retraction, or barring the author from future submissions. Retracted texts are not deleted from our eLibrary, but will be clearly marked as plagiarism, ensuring that corrections are transparent and understandable for readers.

7.2 Misconduct Investigations
Any violations of ethical standards will be investigated by Mohr Siebeck in accordance with COPE’s guidelines. This includes research misconduct such as data falsification or fabrication.

8.1 Transparency
Mohr Siebeck is committed to maintaining a high standard of review. We promote fairness, transparency, and rigor in the review process to uphold the quality of academic scholarship. We do not believe that a single form of review fits the needs of all kinds of journals or book series. In consultation with the editors of a journal or a book series, we agree on transparent, fair, and rigorous review processes for each journal or series. Detailed information regarding the review process for each publication is available on the respective journal or series websites.

8.2 Impartiality
Manuscripts are reviewed impartially, and reviewers – be they external reviewers or members of the editorial or advisory board – are selected based on their expertise. We ensure that the evaluation process is free from personal, academic, or financial biases. In cases where the publisher solely decides on the acceptance of manuscripts for certain series, impartiality is maintained by ensuring that all decisions are guided by scholarly merit and relevance. For these series, the publishing directors typically obtain an external (single-blind) peer review to support their decision-making process.  These series, curated by the publisher, are clearly identified as such on their respective series websites.

8.3 Reviewer Responsibilities
Reviewers are required to maintain confidentiality, provide objective and constructive feedback, and complete their reviews in a timely manner. They must also disclose any conflicts of interest not immediately apparent and adhere to COPE’s Ethical Guidelines for Reviewers.

9.1 Editorial Practices
Mohr Siebeck is committed to diversity, equity, and inclusion within its editorial practices. We strive to ensure diverse representation among authors, editors, and reviewers.

9.2 Eliminating Bias
We take proactive steps to eliminate bias in the review process, ensuring a fair and equitable assessment of all submitted work.

10.1 Initial Complaints
We are committed to fair and transparent processes for handling complaints and appeals regarding any aspect of our publications. Complaints should be addressed to the editor-in-chief or managing editor of the relevant journal or series.

10.2 Escalation Process 
If the issue remains unresolved, it may be escalated to the publication’s editorial board and, if no solution is reached, then to the respective publishing director at Mohr Siebeck for further review.

10.3 Appeals Process 
Authors who wish to appeal decisions on rejected manuscripts may do so by submitting a formal appeal letter, including any relevant supporting information. All appeals will be carefully reviewed by the editorial board and the publishing director in charge.

10.4 Confidentiality and Impartiality
Complaints and appeals are handled confidentially and impartially to maintain the integrity of the process.

10.5 Full Disclosure
Mohr Siebeck requires full disclosure of conflicts and reserves the right to take appropriate actions to mitigate any influence they might exert on the publication process.

11.1. Corrections
Authors are required to inform the editor-in-chief, managing editor, and publishing director if they identify substantial errors or inaccuracies in their published work that could mislead readers or distort the intended meaning. Minor typographical or stylistic issues do not fall under this requirement. Mohr Siebeck will issue corrections, retractions, or updates as necessary on the journal’s or volume’s website, accompanied by a clear explanation of the reasons for the action.

11.2. Retraction and Correction Categories 
We adhere to COPE’s Retraction Guidelines to ensure the correction process is transparent, swift, and fair. Corrections, retractions, and expressions of concern are clearly categorized and communicated to maintain the integrity of the research record.

12.1. Preservation of Access
To ensure long-term accessibility, each of our journal articles or book publications, including their metadata, are archived with either Portico or CLOCKSS.