Publication Ethics Policy

University of Exeter Press is committed to upholding the highest standards of ethical publication practice, acting in accordance with the principles outlined by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and in their statement on The Core Practices. We will take appropriate action in cases of possible misconduct in line with the COPE guidelines.

Guidelines for Authors

All work should be original to the author (who must own the copyright) with content from other sources cited clearly with full reference.

All named co-authors must consent to publication and to being named as a co-author.

Any instances of suspected plagiarism in a submitted or published book, chapter or other work will be fully investigated in line with COPE guidance and appropriate action taken. This may include rejecting the submitted work, publishing a correction, and/or informing the authors' institutions.

Authors should obtain written permission to reproduce any content from third-party sources and provide adequate acknowledgement in the work. University of Exeter Press will provide more information on permissions when your proposal is accepted, or please contact your Commissioning Editor for more details.

All work must not contain any libellous matter, must not infringe the copyright or intellectual property rights of others, and should accurately reflect who carried out the research and wrote the content.

Authors must follow national and international procedures that govern the ethics of experimentation on humans and animals.

If authors include details, images or videos relating to individual research participants in their manuscript, they must obtain written informed consent for publication from the participants (or their parent or legal guardian).

Authors must declare potential conflicts of interest (see definition below) during the proposal submission process. The Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) defines conflicts of interest in their Guidelines on Good Publication Practice:

Conflicts of interest comprise those which may not be fully apparent and which may influence the judgment of author, reviewers, and editors. They have been described as those which, when revealed later, would make a reasonable reader feel misled or deceived. They may be personal, commercial, political, academic or financial. “Financial” interests may include employment, research funding, stock or share ownership, payment for lectures or travel, consultancies and company support for staff.

Any funding sources supporting the work should be clearly identified on either the copyright page or in the acknowledgements, or if not possible near the beginning of the work.

Work that has been accepted for publication with another publisher should not be submitted to University of Exeter Press. Where sections of the manuscript overlap with published or submitted content, this should be acknowledged in the work and highlighted to the Commissioning Editor as soon as possible.

With regard to authorship and Artificial Intelligence (AI), University of Exeter Press agrees with COPE as outlined in their Position Statement. The core principles are as follows:
 > We do not recognise AI as meeting the conditions of authorship, and authors are expected to bear full responsibility for ensuring the originality and accuracy of their work.
 > The use of AI tools must be explicitly declared and detailed within submitted manuscripts.
 > University of Exeter Press reserves the right to reject any submission that violates our policy.

Guidelines for Series Editors and Book Editors

Editors must give an unbiased, fair and balanced assessment of all proposals, manuscripts, chapters and other works submitted for consideration for publication, without discrimination on grounds of gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation, disability, age, religious beliefs or political beliefs, and without regard to institutional affiliation or commercial influence. Publishing decisions are to be made purely on the quality and suitability of the submitted material.

Editors should ensure the selection of contributors in edited collections or authors within a series reflects the academic community working in this area.

Editors should ensure submissions are handled in a timely manner, treated with confidence and distributed for peer-review purposes only.

Editors should understand that any chapter or work authored, co-authored or edited by themselves will be delegated to another member of the editorial team or board as appropriate during the peer review and decision process.

Editors must alert University of Exeter Press to any concerns or irregularities over the ethical aspects of any work under consideration, either identified by or reported to them. Editors must also familiarise themselves with the ‘Guidelines for Authors’ outlined in the previous section and alert authors to them when required.

Editors must declare any potential conflict of interest to the Commissioning Editor as soon as possible (see definition above).

Guidelines for Reviewers

Reviewers must give an unbiased, fair and balanced assessment of any proposals, manuscripts, chapters and other works submitted for consideration for publication, without discrimination on grounds of gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation, disability, age, religious beliefs or political beliefs, and without regard to institutional affiliation or commercial influence. They should base their assessment purely on the quality and suitability of the submitted material.

Reviewers must declare any potential conflict of interest to the Commissioning Editor or Book/Series Editor (see definition above) prior to undertaking their review.

Reviewers must keep the peer review process and resulting report confidential, throughout and after the peer review process, unless otherwise agreed with University of Exeter Press in consultation with the author of the work.

Reviewers must avoid making hostile or unprofessional comments in their reports and ensure that their review provides constructive criticism in a way that respects the efforts of the author(s), avoiding statements that may be construed as impugning any person or organisation's reputation.

Reviewers should not suggest that authors include references to other work such as their own or their associates’ work unless there are valid academic reasons.

Reviewers should call to the Commissioning Editor's attention any significant similarity between the manuscript under consideration and any published paper or submitted manuscripts of which they are aware.

Reviewers should endeavour to complete their review in a timely manner, as agreed with the Commissioning Editor, and alert the Commissioning Editor to any delays as early as possible.

Reviewers must alert University of Exeter Press to any concerns or irregularities over the ethical aspects of any work under consideration, either identified by or reported to them.

Reviewers can find more guidelines on peer review in COPE’s Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers. From their guidelines:

‘Peer reviewers play a role in ensuring the integrity of the scholarly record. The peer review process depends to a large extent on the trust and willing participation of the scholarly community and requires that everyone involved behaves responsibly and ethically.’

Complaints and Appeals

Any suspected breaches of ethical behaviour relating to University of Exeter Press books and other works should be reported to the relevant Commissioning Editor, or to the Publisher, Nigel Massen: n.massen@exeterpress.co.uk.