Editorial Policies

Editorial Policies

Contents

The Scholarship of Research (SOR) is committed to maintaining the integrity, transparency, reliability, and accountability of the scholarly record. The Publisher and the Journal support a fair and independent editorial process and, for standard peer-reviewed submissions, a rigorous double-anonymous peer-review system.

Because SOR publishes diverse forms of scholarship—including methodological, analytical, theoretical, conceptual, ethical, epistemological, computational, and research-practice contributions—the principles of research integrity apply not only to empirical data and research findings, but also to methods, analyses, arguments, theoretical claims, software, code, models, protocols, interpretations, and other forms of scholarly contribution.

Authors, reviewers, and editors are expected to adhere to the highest standards of scientific integrity and responsible scholarly conduct. These policies describe the principal ethical and editorial standards applied by the Journal but are not exhaustive.

SOR follows the principles and guidance of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) when addressing concerns involving authors, reviewers, editors, peer review, research integrity, or the published scholarly record.

Where concerns are raised before or after publication, the Journal will evaluate them fairly and confidentially and may seek clarification from authors, reviewers, institutions, funders, or other relevant parties where appropriate.

The use of generative artificial intelligence and AI-assisted technologies by authors, reviewers, and editors is additionally governed by the Journal's Artificial Intelligence Policy.

Research Integrity

Research integrity encompasses the principles and professional standards that ensure research and scholarly communication are conducted honestly, transparently, responsibly, and rigorously.

Authors submitting to The Scholarship of Research must ensure that their work accurately represents the research, analysis, methodology, theory, argument, or scholarly process described.

Depending on the nature of the manuscript, research integrity includes:

  • honest and accurate reporting of methods, procedures, analyses, and findings;
  • transparent reporting of methodological assumptions and analytical decisions;
  • appropriate distinction between prespecified, confirmatory, exploratory, and post hoc analyses;
  • accurate representation of theoretical and conceptual sources;
  • appropriate management and documentation of research data;
  • transparent reporting of code, software, algorithms, computational workflows, and automated procedures where relevant;
  • appropriate attribution of intellectual contributions;
  • honest reporting of null, negative, unexpected, or contradictory findings;
  • disclosure of relevant limitations, uncertainties, and methodological deviations;
  • respect for ethical, legal, confidentiality, privacy, and governance requirements;
  • responsible use of artificial intelligence and other automated research technologies.

A serious breach of research integrity may result in manuscript rejection, correction, expression of concern, retraction, notification of relevant institutions or funding bodies, or other actions consistent with COPE principles.

Authorship and Intellectual Contribution

Authorship must reflect genuine and substantial intellectual contribution to the work.

Each person listed as an author should have participated sufficiently to take public responsibility for the manuscript and must meet all of the following criteria:

  • substantial contributions to the conception or design of the work; or the acquisition, generation, analysis, interpretation, theoretical development, methodological development, or scholarly synthesis underlying the work; AND
  • drafting the manuscript or revising it critically for important intellectual content; AND
  • final approval of the version to be published; AND
  • agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work and to ensure that questions concerning its accuracy, integrity, or intellectual provenance are appropriately investigated and resolved.

Individuals who contribute to the work but do not meet all authorship criteria should be recognised in the Acknowledgments section where appropriate.

The Journal strongly encourages authors to provide an ORCID iD and requires a clear Author Contributions statement. Contributions should preferably be described using the CRediT taxonomy.

Because SOR publishes methodological, theoretical, conceptual, philosophical, software, and other non-conventional research outputs, intellectual contributions may extend beyond conventional data collection and analysis. Contributions involving conceptualisation, methodology development, software, validation, formal analysis, theory development, data curation, visualisation, and other relevant forms of scholarly work should be represented accurately.

Professional scientific or medical writing assistance must be acknowledged, together with any source of funding for that assistance.

Artificial intelligence systems, Large Language Models, and other automated tools cannot meet authorship criteria and must not be listed as authors.

Corresponding Author

The Corresponding Author is responsible for submission and communication with the Journal throughout the editorial and publication process.

The Corresponding Author must ensure that:

  • all listed authors satisfy the Journal's authorship criteria;
  • all authors have approved the submitted manuscript;
  • the order of authorship has been agreed by all authors;
  • Author Contributions are accurately reported;
  • Conflict of Interest and Funding Statements are complete and up to date;
  • relevant ethical, data, code, software, registration, and transparency declarations have been provided;
  • all authors are informed of important editorial decisions and post-publication matters.

Order of Authors

The order of authorship must be agreed upon by all authors before submission and should reflect the conventions and relative contributions appropriate to the research field.

Following submission, requests to add, remove, or reorder authors must be submitted in writing by the Corresponding Author and supported by the agreement of all authors concerned, including any author being added or removed.

Requests will be evaluated by the Journal and may require explanation of the reason for the proposed change and updated Author Contribution statements.

If agreement among authors cannot be established, the editorial process may be suspended until the matter is resolved.

Changes to Authorship After Publication

Changes to authorship after publication are permitted only in exceptional circumstances.

Requests must include:

  • a clear explanation of why the change is required;
  • written agreement from all authors affected by the change;
  • an updated Author Contributions statement where appropriate.

The Journal will assess such requests in accordance with COPE principles and may contact the authors' institutions where necessary.

Approved authorship changes will normally require publication of a formal correction notice to preserve the transparency and integrity of the scholarly record.

Conflict of Interest

The Scholarship of Research requires full disclosure of any competing interest that could influence—or reasonably be perceived to influence—the design, conduct, analysis, interpretation, argumentation, peer review, or presentation of scholarly work.

Conflicts of interest may be financial, personal, professional, academic, institutional, ideological, or intellectual.

Examples include, but are not limited to:

  • research grants and sponsorship;
  • employment or consultancies;
  • honoraria or advisory roles;
  • stock or equity ownership;
  • paid expert testimony;
  • commercial ownership of software, instruments, algorithms, methods, or intellectual property discussed in the manuscript;
  • personal or professional relationships;
  • direct academic competition;
  • strong intellectual commitments that could reasonably affect objective evaluation.

Authors must disclose all relevant competing interests at submission. A dedicated Conflict of Interest Statement must be included and will be published with the final article.

If no competing interests exist, authors should state:

“The authors declare no conflicts of interest.”

Reviewers must disclose relevant competing interests before accepting an assignment and must decline review when a conflict could compromise—or reasonably appear to compromise—their independence.

Editors must recuse themselves from handling manuscripts where they have relevant conflicts of interest.

Manuscripts submitted by the Editor-in-Chief, members of the Editorial Board, or other individuals formally associated with the Journal will be handled independently by an Editor with no involvement in the manuscript and no relevant conflict of interest. Such submissions remain subject to the same editorial and peer-review standards as other manuscripts.

Undisclosed competing interests discovered after submission or publication may result in additional disclosure, correction, expression of concern, retraction, or notification of relevant institutions where appropriate.

Research and Publication Misconduct

Research and publication misconduct includes intentional or serious departures from accepted standards of responsible research and scholarly communication.

Examples may include:

  • fabrication of data, results, analyses, references, or evidence;
  • falsification or inappropriate manipulation of data, images, analyses, or research materials;
  • plagiarism or substantial unattributed use of another person's intellectual work;
  • duplicate or redundant publication;
  • inappropriate reuse of previously published text without adequate attribution;
  • misrepresentation of methodology or analytical procedures;
  • selective or deceptive reporting of analyses or findings;
  • undeclared manipulation of research data or analytical outputs;
  • inappropriate authorship or misrepresentation of intellectual contribution;
  • fabrication of reviewer identities or manipulation of the peer-review process;
  • fabricated, manipulated, or unverifiable references;
  • undisclosed or inappropriate use of artificial intelligence that compromises scientific integrity.

Theft or misappropriation of intellectual property and substantial unattributed copying constitute plagiarism.

The Journal may use iThenticate and Crossref Similarity Check to assist in evaluating textual originality and overlap.

Similarity screening is an investigative aid rather than an automatic measure of misconduct. Editorial assessment considers the context, extent, source, and nature of any detected overlap.

Figures, images, diagrams, conceptual models, and other visual materials must accurately represent the underlying work. Manipulation that alters scientific meaning is unacceptable.

Any use of generative or non-generative machine-learning systems to generate, modify, enhance, reconstruct, or process scientific images or other research materials must comply with the Journal's Artificial Intelligence Policy and must be transparently disclosed where required.

The Journal applies safeguards to reduce the risk of peer-review manipulation, including verification of reviewer identity and independent evaluation of reviewer suggestions.

Concerns regarding research or publication misconduct may be raised by Editors, reviewers, readers, institutions, or third parties before or after publication.

The Journal may request supporting documentation, including:

  • original or underlying data;
  • analytical code or scripts;
  • software or version information;
  • research protocols or preregistration records;
  • ethics documentation;
  • authorship records;
  • supporting evidence relating to disclosures or competing interests.

Where appropriate, the Journal may involve relevant institutions, funding organisations, or other competent bodies.

Possible actions include:

  • rejection of the manuscript;
  • request for clarification or correction;
  • publication of a correction;
  • publication of an expression of concern;
  • retraction of the article;
  • notification of relevant institutions or funders.

Investigations will be conducted as fairly, confidentially, and transparently as circumstances permit and in accordance with relevant COPE guidance.

Citation Integrity and Manipulation

The Scholarship of Research considers citation integrity an essential component of responsible scholarship.

References must be accurate, relevant, verifiable, and used to represent the existing scholarly literature fairly.

Authors must not:

  • fabricate references;
  • cite sources that do not support the associated claim;
  • include irrelevant or unnecessary references solely to increase citation counts;
  • engage in excessive or unjustified self-citation;
  • participate in coordinated citation exchanges or citation cartels;
  • use references generated by artificial intelligence without independently verifying their existence, accuracy, and relevance.

Editors and reviewers must not request references primarily to increase citations to themselves, the Journal, an institution, a particular research group, or another publication.

Suggestions to add citations must be based on genuine scholarly relevance.

SOR may investigate unusual citation patterns and may request removal or correction of inappropriate, unverifiable, misleading, or irrelevant citations.

Confirmed citation manipulation may result in rejection, correction, retraction, notification of relevant institutions, or other actions consistent with COPE principles.

Methodological Transparency and Research Reporting

SOR considers methodological transparency fundamental to the evaluation and improvement of scientific research.

Authors must report methods, analytical decisions, theoretical assumptions, computational procedures, and relevant deviations with sufficient detail to permit critical evaluation.

Where applicable, authors should clearly distinguish:

  • prespecified from exploratory analyses;
  • primary from secondary outcomes or analytical targets;
  • confirmatory from hypothesis-generating work;
  • human interpretation from automated or AI-assisted analysis;
  • original analyses from re-analysis of existing data;
  • registered procedures from subsequent deviations or modifications.

Changes made after data inspection or during the conduct of research are not inherently inappropriate, but they must be reported transparently when they materially affect interpretation.

For protocols, Registered Reports, preregistered studies, and other prospectively specified research, authors must disclose substantial deviations from the approved or registered plan and provide a scientific justification.

Authors should follow recognised reporting guidelines appropriate to the design and methodology of their work where such guidelines exist.

The Journal supports the use of reporting resources such as the EQUATOR Network.

Data, Code, Software, and Materials Availability

SOR supports transparent and reproducible scholarship and encourages the responsible sharing of research data, analytical code, software, protocols, instruments, computational workflows, and other research materials whenever ethically, legally, and technically possible.

Applicable manuscripts must include a Data Availability Statement.

Where software, analytical code, computational workflows, algorithms, or other digital research objects materially support the manuscript, authors should also provide an appropriate Code or Software Availability Statement.

Authors should indicate whether relevant materials are:

  • publicly available through a recognised repository, including a DOI, accession number, or other persistent identifier where available;
  • available from the Corresponding Author upon reasonable request;
  • available under controlled-access conditions;
  • restricted because of ethical, legal, commercial, privacy, confidentiality, or intellectual-property considerations;
  • not applicable to the manuscript.

Where restrictions apply, authors must explain them clearly and should describe any legitimate mechanism through which qualified researchers may request access, where possible.

Where no research data were generated or analysed, authors should explicitly state this.

Editors may request access to relevant underlying data, code, protocols, or research materials during peer review or after publication when necessary to evaluate methodological or research-integrity concerns.

The inability to provide relevant underlying materials following a legitimate editorial request may require further investigation.

Artificial Intelligence and Automated Research Technologies

Artificial intelligence, machine learning, Large Language Models, Natural Language Processing, automated analysis, and related computational technologies may form legitimate components of research methodology and scholarly practice.

SOR does not prohibit their responsible use. However, such use must be transparent, methodologically justified, reproducible where possible, and subject to appropriate human responsibility and oversight.

Where AI or automated systems materially contribute to the research process, authors should report sufficient information to permit scientific evaluation. Depending on the nature of the work, this may include:

  • the system, model, software, or service used;
  • the relevant version or access date;
  • the purpose for which the system was used;
  • relevant prompts, parameters, settings, or workflows where scientifically necessary;
  • human validation or oversight procedures;
  • methods used to assess accuracy, reliability, bias, reproducibility, or robustness;
  • relevant limitations and uncertainties;
  • ethical, privacy, data-governance, or intellectual-property considerations.

Authors remain fully responsible for all scientific claims, interpretations, analyses, references, and content submitted to the Journal.

AI-generated output must not be presented as independently verified evidence without appropriate validation.

Artificial intelligence systems cannot be authors and cannot assume responsibility for the integrity of scientific work.

Detailed requirements are provided in the Journal's Artificial Intelligence Policy.

Research Ethics

Research submitted to SOR must comply with ethical principles and applicable institutional, national, and international requirements.

Ethical requirements vary according to the nature of the work. Authors are responsible for identifying and complying with the requirements applicable to their research.

Research on Human Participants

Research involving human participants must include a statement identifying the ethics committee or institutional review board responsible for ethical oversight, including the committee name and approval or reference number where applicable.

Authors must confirm that the research was conducted in accordance with applicable ethical principles and relevant international standards, including the Declaration of Helsinki where applicable.

Where relevant, clinical research should comply with applicable Good Clinical Practice requirements.

Authors must state whether informed consent was obtained and describe the consent procedure where applicable.

If formal ethics approval was not required, authors must state this explicitly and provide an appropriate explanation or institutional basis for the exemption.

An absence of formal ethics-review requirements does not remove the authors' responsibility to conduct research according to appropriate ethical and legal standards.

Participant and Patient Confidentiality

Personal or potentially identifiable information must be handled in accordance with applicable privacy, confidentiality, ethical, and data-protection requirements.

When a manuscript contains information, images, recordings, case descriptions, or combinations of details that could reasonably identify an individual, explicit consent for publication must be obtained where required.

Consent for publication is distinct from consent to participate in research.

For minors or individuals unable to provide valid consent, appropriate permission must be obtained from a parent, guardian, or authorised representative in accordance with applicable requirements.

Authors should avoid unnecessary identifying details even when publication consent has been obtained.

When organ transplantation is discussed, authors should state compliance with applicable ethical requirements and, where relevant, the principles of the Declaration of Istanbul.

Sex and Gender

Authors should consider sex and gender dimensions where relevant to the research question, study design, analysis, interpretation, or reporting.

SOR encourages authors to follow the Sex and Gender Equity in Research (SAGER) Guidelines.

The terms sex and gender should be used accurately and should not be treated as interchangeable where their distinction is scientifically relevant.

Where sex or gender is relevant but not considered, authors should acknowledge this as a potential limitation where appropriate.

Research on Human Embryos, Gametes, and Stem Cells

Research involving human embryos, gametes, stem cells, or related biological material must comply with applicable ethical, institutional, national, and international requirements.

Authors must provide appropriate ethics and regulatory information within the manuscript where relevant.

Research Involving Animals

Research involving animals must comply with applicable ethical and regulatory standards and must receive approval from an appropriate ethics or institutional body where required.

Authors should follow internationally recognised reporting standards, including the ARRIVE Guidelines for in vivo animal research where applicable.

Authors should describe measures taken to minimise animal suffering and justify the use of animals where relevant.

Research Involving Plants

Research involving cultivated or wild plants must comply with applicable institutional, national, and international regulations.

Where relevant, authors should provide details of permits, permissions, collection procedures, provenance, identification, and voucher specimens.

Registration and Preregistration

SOR supports prospective registration and preregistration as mechanisms for strengthening research transparency and reducing selective reporting.

Clinical trials must be prospectively registered in an appropriate publicly accessible trial registry in accordance with internationally recognised requirements.

The registry name, registration number, and persistent URL must be reported in the manuscript.

For systematic reviews, protocols, Registered Reports, confirmatory studies, replication studies, secondary analyses, and other forms of research, prospective registration or preregistration is strongly encouraged where an appropriate registry or platform exists.

Authors should provide the registration or preregistration identifier and link.

Where the submitted work differs materially from a registered or preregistered protocol, authors must transparently describe and justify relevant deviations.

Registration or preregistration does not replace complete methodological reporting within the manuscript.

Funding Policy

The Scholarship of Research requires complete transparency concerning financial and material support associated with submitted work.

Authors must disclose all support received for the conception, design, conduct, analysis, development, preparation, or publication of the work.

This may include:

  • research grants from public or private organisations;
  • institutional or departmental support;
  • industry funding or sponsorship;
  • fellowships or personal research funding;
  • provision of equipment, software, datasets, computing resources, drugs, materials, or services;
  • funding for data collection, statistical analysis, software development, methodological support, or manuscript preparation.

Authors must identify the role of the funder in the research and publication process where relevant.

If no external funding was received, authors should state:

“This research received no external funding.”

Funding information must appear in a dedicated Funding Statement and will be published with the final article.

Funding organisations and grant numbers should be reported accurately where applicable.

Failure to disclose relevant funding may result in editorial investigation and, depending on the circumstances, rejection, correction, retraction, or notification of relevant institutions or funders.

Appeals Policy

The Scholarship of Research recognises the right of authors to appeal an editorial decision when they believe that the decision resulted from a substantive misunderstanding, factual error, inappropriate application of the Journal's policies, or significant procedural irregularity.

An appeal should not simply express disagreement with the scientific judgment of reviewers or Editors.

Appeals must be submitted in writing to: sor@ieditore.com

The appeal should:

  • identify the manuscript and manuscript ID;
  • identify the editorial decision being appealed;
  • provide a clear and reasoned justification;
  • address the specific scientific or procedural points considered to be incorrect;
  • provide relevant supporting evidence where appropriate.

Appeals are evaluated impartially by the Editor-in-Chief and, where appropriate, by an independent Editor or Editorial Board member who was not materially involved in the original decision.

Additional expert advice may be obtained where necessary.

The Journal aims to resolve appeals within a reasonable timeframe, normally within approximately 30 days, although complex cases may require additional time.

The outcome and rationale will be communicated to the Corresponding Author. Decisions following a formal appeal are normally considered final.

The Journal may decline to consider repeated, abusive, or insufficiently substantiated appeals.

Complaints Policy

The Scholarship of Research is committed to a fair, transparent, accountable, and professional editorial process.

Complaints may concern matters including:

  • the editorial process;
  • peer review;
  • publication ethics;
  • research integrity;
  • conflicts of interest;
  • unreasonable editorial or production delays;
  • the conduct of authors, reviewers, Editors, or members of the editorial team;
  • published content;
  • journal policies or procedures.

Complaints should be submitted in writing to: sor@ieditore.com

The complaint should describe the issue clearly and should include relevant documentation or evidence where available.

The Journal will acknowledge the complaint and initiate an appropriate evaluation.

Complaints will be handled as independently as possible. Where a complaint concerns the Editor-in-Chief or another member of the editorial team, the matter will be assigned to an appropriate individual who was not involved in the issue concerned.

The Journal may seek external advice or involve relevant institutions where necessary.

The Journal aims to provide a substantive response within a reasonable timeframe, normally within approximately 30 days.

Complex ethical, legal, research-integrity, or institutional matters may require a longer investigation.

Complaints will be managed in accordance with relevant COPE principles and with the objective of preserving fairness and the integrity of the scholarly record.

Post-Publication Discussion

The Scholarship of Research encourages rigorous and responsible scientific discussion following publication.

Post-publication discussion is particularly important to the Journal's mission because methods, theories, analytical approaches, epistemological assumptions, research practices, and scientific interpretations should remain open to critical scholarly examination.

Readers may:

  • submit a Letter or Response concerning an article published in SOR;
  • raise a methodological, conceptual, statistical, computational, ethical, or epistemological concern;
  • identify potential errors or inconsistencies;
  • provide relevant replication, re-analysis, or contradictory evidence;
  • report possible undisclosed conflicts of interest or research-integrity concerns;
  • contact the Editorial Office regarding matters that may affect the reliability or interpretation of the scholarly record.

Post-publication contributions must be evidence-based, relevant, respectful, and scholarly.

Scientific disagreement is welcome. Defamatory, discriminatory, abusive, or unsupported allegations will not be published.

Where appropriate, the authors of the original article will be invited to respond.

Accepted Letters, Responses, Debates, or other post-publication contributions may be published and linked to the original article to preserve the scientific context of the discussion.

Concerns involving possible research or publication misconduct will be evaluated separately under the Journal's Research and Publication Misconduct Policy and applicable COPE principles.

Where post-publication evaluation identifies a material error or integrity concern affecting the scholarly record, the Journal may issue a correction, expression of concern, retraction, or other appropriate editorial notice.

For questions concerning editorial policies, publication ethics, appeals, complaints, or research integrity, please contact the Editorial Office of The Scholarship of Research: sor@ieditore.com.