Copyrights and Ethical Standards

The main purpose of the Qualitative Sociology Review is to foster development of science and to enhance human knowledge . Therefore, the journal and all published articles are a contribution to the contemporary social sciences. They are available without special permission to everyone who would like to use them for noncommercial, scientific, educational or other cognitive purposes. We ask to mention the journal as a source of used data, since this will support our conception of an open-access to scientific knowledge and the idea of integration through understanding of social world.

Making use of resources included in this journal for commercial or marketing aims requires a special permission from publisher. Possible commercial use of any published article will be consulted with the author beforehand.
It is forbidden to charge for access to this journal or to put any limitations on the accessibility of published papers.

The authors are responsible for obtaining the necessary permissions for publication of materials, which are protected by a copyrights owned by other persons.

Qualitative Sociology Review follows COPE guidelines and standards.

Qualitative Sociology Review is a member of COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics) , which define a set of recommended core practices applicable to all involved in publishing scholarly literature: editors and journal teams, publishers, and institutions. COPE offers advice to editors and publishers on all aspects of publication ethics and, in particular, how to handle cases of research and publication misconduct. COPE also provides a forum for members to discuss individual cases. Should you have questions or would like to bring any issue to our attention, please contact us: office.qsr@gmail.com

  Ethics and malpractice statement

Our intent is to provide an interdisciplinary forum for a worldwide qualitative researchers community. All researchers for whom interpretative paradigm and qualitative methodology constitute the basic perspective for further analysis of social life as it occurs in specific social contexts are warmly invited to submit their papers and to partake, therefore, in our open access to scientific knowledge initiative. The editors of Qualitative Sociology Review welcome empirical, methodological and theoretical articles devoted to all fields and specializations within qualitative sociology.

Qualitative Sociology Review is committed to meeting and upholding standards of ethical behaviour at all stages of the publication process. We follow closely the industry associations, such as the Committee on Publication Ethics COPE that set standards and provide guidelines for best practices in order to meet these requirements.

In order to facilitate our cooperation and to shorten the time needed for publishing your article, we recommend that you take the time to read the sections below before submitting a contribution to Qualitative Sociology Review .

I. ETHICAL EXPECTATIONS

1. Publication and authorship:
1. The manuscript represents original work not previously published and is not being considered for publication elsewhere.
2. Appropriate written copyright permissions have been secured for republication of any copyrighted material included in the manuscript.
3. All sources of financial support for the work contained should be disclosed in the covert letter.
4. Publication of the article proceeds once the appropriate written copyright permissions for republication of any copyrighted material included in the manuscript have been secured. It is the authors’ responsibility to obtain written permission for publication of materials, which are protected by copyrights owned by a third party.
5. Qualitative Sociology Review has a strict policy against plagiarism. Author submitting manuscript to QSR, warrants that it is his/her original work, and that he/she has secured the necessary written permission from the appropriate copyright owner or authority for the reproduction of any text, illustration, or other material. If any article submitted to the QSR is found to have breached any of these conditions, QSR reserves the right to reject that article and any others submitted by the same authors. Qualitative Sociology Review may also contact the authors' affiliated institutions to inform them of its findings.
6. Qualitative Sociology Review has a transparent publications policy. It is means that all authors must disclose any financial and personal relationships with other people or organizations that could inappropriately influence their work. It is the sole responsibility of authors to disclose any affiliation with any organization with a financial interest, direct or indirect, in the subject matter or materials discussed in the manuscript that may affect the conduct or reporting of the work submitted. All sources of funding for research are to be explicitly stated. If uncertain as to what might be considered a potential conflict of interest, authors should err on the side of full disclosure.
7. Contributions from individuals who do not qualify for authorship should be acknowledged in the "Acknowledgments" section. This should include details of any other contributorship, such as data analysis, statistics, data collection, technical assistance, special thanks, personal assistance, and dedications. The "Declaration of Interest" and "Acknowledgements" sections will be made available to reviewers and will appear in the published article.
2. Author's responsibilities:
1. The cover letter indicating the specific contribution each author made to the manuscript accompany the submitted article. - An electronic cover letter must accompany each manuscript submitted to Qualitative Sociology Review . It must state that all data in the article are real and authentic.
2. Manuscripts submitted to Qualitative Sociology Review should represent original work not previously published. They should not contain previously published materials and must not be under consideration for publication elsewhere.
3. The article, or any part thereof, is in no way a violation of any existing original or derivative copyright. It is the authors’ responsibility to obtain appropriate written copyright permission for the reproduction of any copyrighted material, including images.
4. All manuscripts must be submitted to Qualitative Sociology Review via email: submit@qualitativesociologyreview.org. All references that explicitly reveal the identity of the authors should be removed from the article. A separate document including name and email address of all contributors should accompany the submitted article.
5. An electronic cover letter must accompany each manuscript submitted to Qualitative Sociology Review . It must state that the material for which the authors have exclusive rights is original and has not been submitted for publication elsewhere (including websites). In order to prevent the practice of ghostwriting and guest authorship, the letter must also include a statement attesting and indicating the specific contribution each author made to the manuscript. Submitting a manuscript accompanied by the cover letter is interpreted as indicating that each author participated in the preparation of the article, and have reviewed and approve the manuscript as submitted to take public responsibility for it. The corresponding author(s) should email the cover letter to: submit@qualitativesociologyreview.org.
6. The manuscript adheres to Qualitative Sociology Review style requirements and/or the authors recognize that it is their responsibility to make the manuscript adhere to the QSR Style Guide as a condition of acceptance. All authors are obliged to provide retractions or corrections of mistakes.
7. Authors are kindly asked to comply fully with these requirements. Failure to do so may constitute grounds for the rejection of an article at any time during the editorial process.
3. Peer review / responsibility for the reviewers:
1. Peer reviewers are external experts chosen by Editors to provide written opinions, with the aim of improving the works submitted for publication.
2. Editors and authors should require that reviewers provide speedy, accurate, courteous, unbiased, and justifiable reports.
3. Judgments of reviewers should be objective.
4. Reviewers should have no conflict of interest with respect to the research, the authors and/or the research funders.
5. Reviewers must maintain the duty of confidentiality in the assessment of a manuscript, and this extends to reviewers’ colleagues who give opinions on specific sections.
6. Reviewers should point out relevant published work which is not yet cited.
7. Reviewed articles should be treated confidentially.
8. To maintain the confidentiality of any information supplied by the editor or author. To not retain or copy the manuscript.
9. To alert the editor to any published or submitted content that is substantially similar to that under review.
   COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers
4. Editorial responsibilities:
1. Editors have a responsibility to ensure an efficient, fair, and timely review process of manuscripts submitted for publication and to establish and maintain high standards of technical and professional quality.
2. Editors should have objective and fair while carrying out their expected duties, without discrimination on grounds of gender, sexual orientation, religious or political beliefs, ethnic or geographical origin of the authors.
3. Editor seeks advice from associate editors or others who are expert in a specific area and will send manuscripts submitted for publication to reviewers chosen for their expertise and good judgment to referee the quality and reliability of manuscripts.
4. Editors have complete responsibility and authority to reject/accept an article.
5. Editors should have no conflict of interest with respect to articles they reject/accept.
6. Only accept a paper when reasonably certain.
7. When errors are found, promote publication of correction or retraction.
8. Preserve anonymity of reviewers.
9. All complaints should be investigated no matter when the original publication was approved. Documentation associated with any such complaints should be retained.
10. Authors should be periodically informed of the status of the review process
5. Publishing ethics issues:
QSR striving to maintain the highest standards of ethics aims to:
1. Strive to meet the needs of readers and authors;
2. Constantly improve the journal;
3. Monitoring/safeguarding publishing ethics;
4. Guidelines for retracting articles;
5. Maintain the integrity of the academic record;
6. Preclude business needs from compromising intellectual and ethical standards;
7. Always be willing to publish corrections, clarifications, retractions and apologies when needed.
6. Author’s ethical obligations:
1. Image protection: If the photo includes images of people who are not widely known (i.e., performing public roles) and who are not presented against the background of a natural landscape or among other people during a public event, their consent must be obtained for the dissemination of the image and the processing of personal data.
2. Personal data protection: In the case of research collecting personal data (including surveys and social media research), formal approval is required in the shape of a favorable opinion of the author’s institutional ethical board, including information about the subjects of the research informed consent. This is a form of supervision meant to establish and maintain ethical standards and supervise the research’s formal side (e.g., sensitive questions).
3. Protection of animal welfare: If the research involves animals, the consent of the author’s institutional ethical board has to be provided.
4. Protection of patients’ rights: In the case of medical research and/or psychological research, formal approval is required in the shape of a favorable opinion of the author’s institutional ethical and/or bioethical board, including information about the subjects of the research informed consent.
Qualitative Sociology Review is an international journal, and as such, we do not seek to prescribe any particular approach to the ethical governance of research. We expect that any paper submitted has been approved by such bodies as may be relevant in a specific national context, and such approval is required when submitting a paper. Additionally, when a study raises ethical issues, we expect that authors will acknowledge and discuss them and justify their approach.


7. Reviewer’s ethical obligations:
The Reviewer is obliged to inform the editorial office about any ethical issues with the manuscript (lack of consent or reservations of the ethical committee regarding the image, personal data, patient or animal welfare protection). In such a scenario, the editorial office is obliged to request from the Author relevant certificates and documents. When the Author’s response is satisfactory, the review process can be continued, but if the Author does not respond or if any objections arise, it should be suspended.


8. Editor’s ethical obligations:
The Editor is obliged to inform the editorial board and the advisory board about any ethical issues with the manuscript (lack of consent or reservations of the ethical committee regarding the protection of image, personal data, patient’s or animal rights). In such a situation, the editorial board is obliged to request from the Author relevant certificates and documents. When the Author’s response is satisfactory, the publishing process can be continued, but if the Author does not respond or if any reservations arise, it should be suspended, and the case reported to COPE and/or persons responsible for supervision over the research in the appropriate institution which has issued the research consent. After 3-6 months have elapsed and the issue has not been clarified, the matter has to be reported to other authorities (e.g., medical research register, ethics committee, disciplinary spokesman of the institution, with which the Author is affiliated).


9. Conflicts of Interest:
Where editorial conflicts of interest have implications for the review process, this will be led by another editorial team member or referred to the Editor-in-Chief to oversee the process. In particular, any submission by a member of the editorial team, a research fellow working on a grant held by a team member, a student currently supervised by a team member, or a current collaborator of a team member, will be referred to the Editor-in-Chief. If the submission is by the Editor-in-Chief, a team member from another institution will lead the review process.

II. PROCEDURES FOR DEALING WITH UNETHICAL BEHAVIOUR

1. Identification of unethical behavior
1. Qualitative Sociology Review Editors should be alert to possible cases of plagiarism, duplication of previous published work, falsified data, misappropriation of intellectual property, duplicate submission of manuscripts, inappropriate attribution, or incorrect co-author listing.
2. Misconduct and unethical behavior may be identified and brought to the attention of the editor and publisher at any time, by anyone. Whoever informs the editor or publisher of such conduct should provide sufficient information and evidence in order for an investigation to be initiated. All allegations should be taken seriously and treated in the same way, until a successful decision or conclusion is reached.
3. In cases of other misconduct, such as redundant publication, deception over authorship, or failure to declare conflict of interest, Editors may judge what is necessary in regard to involving authors’ employers. Authors should be given the opportunity to respond to any charge of minor misconduct.
4. The following sanctions are ranked in approximate order of severity:
   - A letter of explanation to the authors, where there appears to be a genuine misunderstanding of principles.
   - A letter of reprimand and warning as to future conduct.
   - A formal letter to the relevant head of the institution or funding body.
   - Refusal to accept future submissions from the individual, unit, or institution responsible for the misconduct, for a stated period.
   - Formal withdrawal or retraction of the paper from the scientific literature, informing other editors and the indexing authorities.