Statement on Ethics & Publication Malpractice Statement
Applied Translation (AppTrans) is a double-blind, peer-reviewed journal that is published annually, in online version as an open-access publication by the Rockefeller Translator Association (RTA) Incorporated with the American Linguist Association (ALA) based in New York, United States. It strives to cover a wide range of aspects relating to translation as one of linguistics field from historical as well as contemporary perspectives. Articles considered for publication have to be submitted in English. We are confident that unambiguous and consistent guidelines for editors, reviewers, and authors enhance the quality of published research as well as ensure a fair and accurate reviewing and publishing process. Compliance with the following responsibilities is mandatory:
- Editors ensure that unbiased consideration is given to the submitted manuscripts, judging each on its academic merits without regard to the race, religion, nationality, sex, seniority, or institutional affiliation of the author.
- Editors facilitate communication between all actors of the publication process and ensure that manuscripts are dealt with and processed with reasonable speed and efficiency.
- Editors assume sole responsibility for the acceptance or rejection of a manuscript. While an editor may seek guidance via peer review, she or he may reject a manuscript without review if considered inappropriate for the journal.
- Editors ensure that all published research articles are subjected to a double-blind peer-review process by qualified reviewers.
- Editors provide clear criteria for a comprehensive peer review process.
- Editors guarantee that the external peer review process is confidential and preserves the anonymity of reviewers and authors at all times.
- Editors guarantee that conflicts of interest between authors and peer reviewers are declared.
- Editors investigate and document complaints that may occur during the publishing process and give involved parties a fair opportunity to justify their positions.
- Editors promote the publication of corrections in case of errors and consider retraction of articles if deemed necessary. Corrections or retraction may be necessary in any of the following cases: (1) the main substance of a published article is erroneous; (2) the article contains material which has not been properly acknowledged or cited; (3) the article’s authorship is incorrect or incomplete; (4) the article contains a libel.
- Authors present an accurate account of the research performed and offer an objective discussion of its significance.
- Authors refrain from any form of plagiarism. Plagiarism constitutes a serious abuse of the most basic principles and foundations of research and cannot be tolerated.
- Authors provide detailed references to all sources of information in order to permit their peers to repeat the work.
- Authors consider other academic work in a fair and factual way, which under no circumstances voices or implies personal criticism.
- Authors refrain from using fraudulent data and provide a statement that all data used in the research under review are real and authentic.
- Authors reveal any conflicts of interest that might impair their academic credibility at any stage of the research and publication process. If applicable, authors declare the financial support their research is based on.
- Authors do not submit the same or similar articles to any other publication medium and confirm that the manuscript has not been accepted for publication elsewhere. In cases where parts of the submitted article overlap with previously published material, authors refer to these sources.
- Authors are obliged to have their submission undergo a peer review process and cooperate fully with the editors.
- Authors identify co-authors who made a significant contribution to the work submitted and who share responsibility and accountability for the results.
- Authors immediately notify the editorial board if significant errors in their work and/or sources are identified before or after the publication and ensure full cooperation with the editorial board in order to correct such errors, publish an addendum, or withdraw the manuscript where necessary.
- Reviewers assist the editors in improving the quality of the research articles by reviewing the manuscripts with objective authority and efficiency.
- Reviewers justify their evaluation of the manuscripts. Any statement of an observation, derivation, or argument having been previously reported must be accompanied by the relevant citation.
- Reviewers point out if relevant published or unpublished work is used but not cited in a manuscript.
- While the review of a manuscript may justify criticism, reviewers avoid personal or malicious criticism of the author.
- Reviewers treat all reviewed manuscripts confidentially and do not copy or distribute them by any means.
- Reviewers guarantee to be free of conflicts of interest with respect to the research topic, the author(s), and/or other parties involved and to otherwise declare so in advance and renounce the assignment with immediate effect.
- The publisher ensures that the AppTrans Publishing Ethics standards and the procedures for dealing with unethical behavior are met at any stage of the publication process by all actors involved.
- The publisher ensures the integrity of the academic record.
- The publisher constantly strives to further develop models of good practice in close cooperation with the editorial board, reviewers, and authors.
- The publisher promotes freedom of expression at all levels of the publication process and ensures that intellectual standards are not affected by commercial issues and interests.
Procedures for Dealing with Unethical Behavior
To maintain the integrity of the academic record of AppTrans and its contributors, a breach of these guidelines will be addressed as follows:
- identification of the problem and immediate notification of the editorial board (where and to what extent has the code of ethical behavior been breached);
- gathering and critical evaluation of evidence under the observation of the editorial board (a full documentation of evidence must be provided and investigated for its credibility).
Minor cases: the party at fault is given a fair opportunity to respond to the allegations and to correct the misdoing with a warning to better observe ethical standards in the future.
Severe cases: the party at fault is given a fair opportunity to respond to the allegations but depending on the severity of the breach, a retraction of all content from the review process and/or journal is considered and wronged parties are informed. In case of deceit, authorities are informed and legal steps may follow.