Policies and Publication Ethics
To ensure ethical standards and best practices of scholarly publishing, Social Psychological Bulletin (SPB) has implemented a set of editorial policies as guidance for
As part of the PsychOpen GOLD journal platform (operated by the Leibniz Institute for Psychology, ZPID), SPB follows common policies for PsychOpen GOLD journals, adapted as necessary to the specific article types and content published by SPB.
1. Journal Managment and Publishing Policies
Open Access Policy
Social Psychological Bulletin (SPB) provides immediate open access to its content on the principle that making research freely available to the public supports a greater global exchange of knowledge. SPB also charges no author fee for submission or publication of papers.
Authors who publish with SPB agree to the following terms: Articles are published under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0). Under the CC BY license, authors retain ownership of the copyright for their article, but authors grant others permission to use the content of publications in SPB in whole or in part provided that the original work is properly cited. Users (redistributors) of SPB are required to cite the original source, including the author's names, SPB as the initial source of publication, year of publication, volume number and DOI (if available).
Authors may publish the manuscript in any other journal or medium but any such subsequent publication must include a notice that the manuscript was initially published by SPB.
Authors grant SPB the right of first publication. Although authors remain the copyright owner, they grant the journal the irrevocable, nonexclusive rights to publish, reproduce, publicly distribute and display, and transmit their article or portions thereof in any manner.
Permanency of Content
In accordance with widely accepted standards of scholarly publishing SPB generally does not alter articles after publication: "Articles that have been published should remain extant, exact and unaltered to the maximum extent possible" (STM, 2006. Preservation of the objective record of science). In cases of serious errors or (suspected) misconduct, SPB publishes corrections, expressions of concern and retractions (see below).
Corrections. When serious errors become apparent after the publication of an article, SPB publishes a correction note. Serious errors may be incorrectly reported results, but may also be errors that significantly impede the understanding or evaluation of the results. These errors must not invalidate the article as a whole (which would result in a retraction). The editor(s), in consultation with the author(s), will decide whether serious errors exist. If an error is found to be serious in this way, the journal publishes a correction note that is linked to the article. In addition, readers who have downloaded the article proir to the publication of the correction will be notified of the correction via the Crossmark mechanism. In generall, the original, published article itself remains unchanged. Only in very rare exceptional cases (e.g., if an article was published without figures due to a production error) may a corrected article version be republished. This is usually indicated in the Article History by a corresponding additional publication date for the "corrected version of record" (cVoR) and described in a Publisher Note.
Retractions and Expressions of Concern. In accordance with the "Retraction Guidelines" by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) SPB will retract a published article if
- significant parts of the findings prove to be unreliable due to honest error (e.g., miscalculation);
- the article, in whole or in part, is based on scientific misconduct such as plagiarism, fabrication or falsification of data or results, unauthorized use of data or materials, copyright infingement or other serious legal issues;
- the peer review process has been compromised or manipulated, or the author(s) failed to disclose a major competing interest that, in the view of the editor, may have had an impact on the reviewer recommendations or editor decision;
- the findings have previously been published elsewhere without disclosure to the editor and proper crossreferencing;
- the article reports unethical research.
An article is retracted by SPB publishing a retraction note. Apart from rare exceptions (e.g., copyright infringement), retracted articles remain online. To prevent results of the retracted article from being considered in future research SPB takes various measures to clearly identify a retracted article as such (e.g., by linking the retraction note to the article and vice versa and by adding an appropriate watermark to the article PDF). In addition, readers who have downloaded the article proir to the publication of the retraction note will be notified of the retraction via the Crossmark mechanism.
If an investigation is underway that might result in the retraction of an article, SPB may choose to alert readers by publishing an expression of concern.
Alerting Readers to Changes. SPB uses Crossref’s Crossmark service to notify readers of significant changes to articles after they are published. By clicking the Crossmark button embedded in article web pages and PDF files, readers can retrieve information about post-publication corrections, retractions, additions of supplementary materials, or new article versions. By participating in Crossmark, SPB (through its publisher PsychOpen GOLD) agrees to maintain its content and promptly register any updates.
Allegations of Research Misconduct
Allegations of research misconduct should be address (anonymous or non-anonymous) to the editors-in-chief (firstname.lastname@example.org). If the Editors-in-Chief decide that there is sufficient evidence to support the claim they will investigate it following the appropriate guidelines from the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). In any case, the Journal will protect the Whistleblower's identity.
SPB uses Crossref’s Similarity Check service to screen articles for originality. Prior to publication, SPB articles are checkecd against a huge corpus of published research papers (including open access as well as restricted/payed articles), online documents, and other sources. Based on a detailed Similaity Report editor(s) are able to evaluate the originality of the manuscript and prevent publication of plagiasized content. Read more at Crossresf's Similarity Check & Reseachers page.
This journal ensures the long-term availability of its contents by partnering with CLOCKSS. CLOCKSS system has permission to ingest, preserve, and serve this Archival Unit.
Complaints and Appeals
Complaints, critisicm, or feedback about management, services, policies etc. should be send to the Editors-in-Chief (email@example.com). Complains against reviewers or handling editors and appeals against final editor decisions should also be send to the editors-in-chief (firstname.lastname@example.org). An editor-in-chief will consult the case with the reviewers and the handling editor and – if necessary – other members of the editorial team. Complains against editors-in-chief can be addressed to the president of the Polish Social Psychological Society (PSPS), Tomasz Grzyb (email@example.com). (SPB is the official academic journal of the PSPS.) The PSPS President can then set up a committee of inquiry that will analyse the case more carefully and make a final decision.
Confidential Data and Privacy
The Journal collects data only to fulfill the standard functioning of peer-reviewed journals. Read SPB's Privacy Statement
3. Reviewer Policies
Competing Interests of the Reviewers
Invited reviewers are asked to disclose potential competing interests before agreeing to review a paper. Sources of possible competing interests are manifold: personal, social, professional, or financial (e.g., mentor-mentee relationships, research collaborations, working at the same institution, business relationships, competition for funding). But also political, religious or ideological reasons might impair an unbiased evaluation of the research. Even if author names are blinded, reviewers possibly know or guess who is doing this research which in turn could result in competing interests.
Confidentiality and Trustworthiness
Reviewers must treat any document and information obtained through peer review strictly confidential and must respect the intellectual property of the authors.
Principles of Good Practice
- Reliability. Reviewers should accept a reviewing request only if they are able to complete the review within the deadline set by the journal. If they need more time this should be clarified with the journal editors before accepting to review.
- Competency. Reviewers should accept an reviewing request only if they have the required expertise. If they think that they are qualified to review only some (substantial) parts of the paper this should be clearly indicated in the review.
- Respectfulness. Reviewer comments should be respectful, non-offensive, and focused on content. See the Reviewer Guidelines for suggestions on important aspects to consider when writing a review.
4. Editor Policies
Competing Interests of the Editors
Editors should not handle articles where financial or non-financial competing interests might influence their actions and decisions. Editors can publish articles in their own journal but should not be involved or intervened in any form in the peer review and decision-making process. If an SPB editor is an (co-)author of a submitted paper (that is subject to peer-review), then the editor-in-chief will ensure that the paper is assigned to a guest handling editor, i.e., a handling editor who is not an associate editor or editors-in-chief. In addition, this (co-)author's affiliation with the journal and his/her (lack of) involvement in the peer review of the submission will be disclosed in the declaration of Competing Interests.
Confidentiality and Trustworthiness
Editors must treat any document and information submitted to the journal strictly confidential and must respect the intellectual property of authors and reviewers.
Diversity and Inclusion
SPB recognizes that scientific innovation and quality of ideas benefit greatly from the inclusion of diverse perspectives representing both diversity in the world and in our field. In order to facilitate an open and inclusive community of researchers we implement several initiatives (and we invite suggestions for more improvement).
- First, monitoring the extent to which the composition of the editorial board and the reviewer pool reflects the diversity of perspectives in terms of gender and geographical region helps us evaluate the progress on the goal toward greater inclusiveness.
- In order to broaden the reviewer pool we invite researchers interested in joining us in this role to contact the journal (firstname.lastname@example.org).
- To create an inclusive and welcoming environment for everyone we ask authors, reviewers, and editors to pay attention to bias-free language. In doing so, we recommend following the Inclusive Language Guidelines and recommendations on Bias-Free Language by the American Psychological Association.
- Finally, we fully understand that communicating research becomes more challenging when using English as the second language. In order to support authors who are non-native English speakers we offer proofreading of the accepted papers. We hope that by doing so we can help researchers of various backgrounds overcome at least some of the barriers that might prevent them from sharing their research.