Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement

Standards of expected ethical behavior apply to all parties involved in the act of publishing: the author, the journal editor, the peer reviewer and the publisher. The following statement is based on COPE’s “Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors.”

PUBLICATIONS DECISIONS
The primary concern of the Editorial Board of Chisokudō Publications is to ensure that all published material meet the highest standards of academic research, both in content and style. The editor of the journal is responsible for deciding which of the articles submitted should be published. The editor may be guided by the policies of the publisher’s editorial board and constrained by such legal requirements as shall then be in force regarding libel, copyright infringement and plagiarism. The editor may confer with other editors or reviewers in making this decision.
FAIR PLAY
An editor will at any time evaluate manuscripts for their intellectual content without regard to the race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy of the authors.

CONFIDENTIALITY
The editor and any editorial staff must not disclose any information about a submitted manuscript to anyone other than the corresponding author, reviewers, potential reviewers, other editorial advisers, and the publisher, and only as deemed appropriate.

DISCLOSURE AND CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in an editor’s own research without the express written consent of the author.

DUTIES OF REVIEWERS

Contribution to Editorial Decisions. Peer review assists the editor in making editorial decisions and, through editorial communications with the author, may also assist the author in improving the manuscript.

Promptness. Any selected referee who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should notify the editor and excuse themself from the review process.

Confidentiality. Any manuscript received for review must be treated as a confidential document. It must not be shown to or discussed with others except as authorized by the editor.

Standards of Objectivity. Reviews should be conducted objectively. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate. Referees should express their views clearly with supporting arguments.

Acknowledgment of Sources. Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors. Any statement that an observation, derivation, or argument had been previously formulated should be accompanied by the relevant citation. A reviewer should also call to the editor’s attention any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published paper of which they have personal knowledge.

Disclosure and Conflict of Interest. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and  not used for personal advantage. Reviewers should not consider manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the manuscript.