Publication Ethics

Korall. Journal for Social History is committed to the highest ethical standards of scholarly publishing. The following guidelines are based on the Core Practices of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and on its flowcharts, and they apply to every participant in the publication process – the editorial board, the reviewers, the authors and the publisher. By submitting a manuscript, authors accept the principles set out here.

The journal is published by the Korall Social History Association; the journal ensures that the principles described here are observed at every stage of editorial work.

1. The responsibilities of the editorial board and the editor-in-chief

1.1. Publication decisions

Every study submitted to the journal is assessed through double-blind peer review by at least two experts familiar with the subject. The editorial board takes its decision on the basis of the reviewers’ reports received.
The decision is based solely on the scholarly merit of the manuscript: the significance of the topic, the originality of the approach, the soundness of the argument, the rigour with which sources are handled and referenced, the clarity of the text, and whether the work fits the profile of the journal.
In reaching its decision, the editorial board does not take into account the author’s gender, age, ethnic or national origin, religion, citizenship, sexual orientation, political beliefs or institutional affiliation. Manuscripts by early-career researchers and PhD students are assessed by the same professional standards as the work of experienced authors.
In reaching its decision, the editorial board has regard to the legal requirements in force, in particular to the prohibition of defamation, copyright infringement and plagiarism. If any such suspicion arises, the manuscript is not published.
Decisions on publication are taken by the editorial board as a body: the editor handling the manuscript – or, in the case of a text intended for a thematic block, the block editor – makes a recommendation on the basis of the reviewers’ reports received, and the decision is taken by the editorial board at its editorial meeting.
The journal’s advisory board has a consultative role.

1.2. Confidentiality

Members of the editorial board treat all information relating to a submitted manuscript as confidential. Information about a manuscript or its content is disclosed only to the author concerned, to the reviewers invited, to members of the editorial board and – where necessary – to the publisher.
In the course of double-blind peer review, the editorial board ensures that the identities of the author and the reviewers remain mutually unknown: before sending a manuscript out for review it removes any data by which the author could be identified, and it forwards the reviewer’s report to the author in anonymised form.
The identity of reviewers is known within the editorial board – this being a precondition for assessing the quality of the reports and for detecting conflicts of interest – but it is not disclosed outside the editorial board.

1.3. Conflicts of interest and information that may not be used

Members of the editorial board may not use unpublished results, data or ideas contained in a submitted manuscript in their own research without the written consent of the author.
If a member of the editorial board has an interest in a manuscript (as a co-author, close collaborator, through an institutional or financial interest, or by reason of a recent joint project), that member withdraws from handling the manuscript, and another member of the editorial board takes it over.
Manuscripts submitted by members of the editorial board undergo the same peer review procedure as all other submissions; the editor concerned takes no part in handling them or in the decision made about them.
A member of the editorial board may also be invited to review a manuscript (see point 5.3). In such cases the preparation of the review and the editorial handling of the manuscript are kept separate: the editor who writes the review takes part in the decision on the manuscript in the capacity of a reviewer, and their position is set out in the written review. The block editor of a thematic block may not review the manuscripts of the block in their charge, since, as the compiler of the block, they have already played a part in selecting the texts.

1.4. Participation in the investigation of ethical concerns

If an ethical objection is raised in connection with a submitted or an already published publication, the editorial board investigates it in cooperation with the publisher, following the COPE flowcharts. Such an investigation may be conducted even years after publication.
The editorial board takes every report seriously and gives the author concerned an opportunity to state their position.
If the objection proves to be well founded, the editorial board ensures the prompt publication of a correction, a clarifying notice, an expression of concern or – in the most serious cases – a retraction.

2. The responsibilities of reviewers

The provisions of this chapter apply equally to all reviewers, whether the reviewer is an expert from outside the editorial board or a member of the editorial board (see section 5.3).

2.1. Contribution to editorial decisions

The reviewer’s report helps the editorial board to reach a well-founded decision and helps the author to improve the manuscript. Peer review is a fundamental instrument of quality assurance in scholarly publishing.

2.2. Accepting the invitation and deadlines

Anyone who considers that they do not have the appropriate expertise in the subject of the manuscript, or that they will not be able to complete the review by the stated deadline, should notify the editorial board without delay so that another reviewer may be invited.
The editorial board sets a deadline of six months on average for the completion of a review.

2.3. Confidentiality

A manuscript received for review is a confidential document. Reviewers may not show it to any third party or discuss it with others, unless the editorial board has given its prior consent (for example, where the reviewer wishes to involve an early-career researcher in the review — in which case the editorial board must be informed).

2.4. Objectivity

Reviews should be objective, supported by arguments and of practical use to the author. Judgements concerning the person of the author, or any offensive wording, are unacceptable. Criticism must be directed at the manuscript, not at the author.

2.5. Acknowledgement of sources

Reviewers should draw the editorial board’s attention to relevant scholarly literature that has been used in the manuscript but not cited, as well as to any statement that appears without appropriate reference.
If a reviewer notices a substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript and any other published or forthcoming work known to them, they should inform the editorial board.

2.6. Conflict of interest and information that may not be used

Reviewers may not use unpublished information contained in a manuscript received for review in their own work without the express written permission of the author.
Reviewers should decline the invitation if they have a conflict of interest in relation to the author, the author’s institution or the subject of the manuscript (joint research, a close working relationship, or a competing interest).

3. The responsibilities of authors

3.1. Scholarly requirements for publication

Authors should present their research accurately and verifiably, setting out the source base, the methodological procedures and the results in such a way that others are able to follow and check them. References must conform to the citation system of Korall.
Deliberately inaccurate, misleading or deceptive statements constitute unethical conduct and are unacceptable.

3.2. Availability of data and sources

At the request of the editorial board, authors should make available the sources and data sets on which the study is based, or their precise location, so that the claims made can be verified during peer review.
Within the limits of the rules governing the protection of personal data and the conditions of use imposed by archives and repositories, authors should seek to ensure that their research data remain accessible after publication.

3.3. Originality, plagiarism and acknowledgement of sources

Authors may submit only their own original work. Where the work, text or ideas of others are used, the source must be precisely identified.
Plagiarism in all its forms – publishing another person’s text as one’s own, taking over substantial passages without citation, appropriating the research results of others – is unethical conduct and results in rejection of the manuscript or, after publication, in its retraction.
Where necessary, the editorial board also examines submitted manuscripts using plagiarism detection software. In cases of suspected plagiarism, the editorial board proceeds in accordance with the COPE flowcharts and contacts the author and, where justified, the author’s institution.
Authors should, wherever possible, cite the literature they refer to from the original. Information derived from personal communication, correspondence or unpublished manuscript material may be used only with the express written consent of the person concerned.

3.4. Use of generative artificial intelligence

A tool based on generative artificial intelligence (a large language model, or a text- or image-generating application) may not be listed as an author: authorship presupposes the assumption of responsibility, of which such a tool is incapable.
If an author has made use of a generative AI tool in the course of the research or in producing the text – for example for source analysis, data processing, translation or text editing – this must be indicated in the methodological part of the manuscript or in the acknowledgements, naming the tool and the manner of its use. Use confined to checking linguistic correctness need not be declared.
Responsibility for the content of the published text, for the soundness of its claims and for the accuracy of its references rests in every case with the author, irrespective of the tools used.
Reviewers may not upload a manuscript received for review, or any part of it, to publicly available AI applications, as this breaches the obligation to treat the manuscript as confidential.

3.5. Multiple, concurrent or overlapping publication

Authors may not submit the same manuscript to several journals at the same time. Submitting work that has already been published elsewhere or that is under review is unethical conduct.
If the manuscript is a version showing substantial overlap with an earlier publication (a conference paper, part of a dissertation, or a study published in another language), the author must indicate this on submission; the editorial board then decides, in the light of this information, whether the manuscript can be published.

3.6. Authorship

Those may be named as authors who have made a substantive contribution to the conception, design or execution of the research or to the interpretation of the results, and who have approved the final version of the manuscript.
All those who have contributed to the research in other ways must be mentioned in the acknowledgements.
In the case of multiple authors, the corresponding author is responsible for ensuring that all those entitled to authorship – and only they – appear on the manuscript, and that all co-authors have approved both the submitted and the final version.

3.7. Conflicts of interest and disclosure of funding

Authors should state in the manuscript the financial background of the research: the funding institution and the name and identification number of the grant or scholarship.
Authors should disclose any financial or other substantive interest that may have influenced the interpretation of the results of the work.

3.8. Fundamental errors in published publications

If an author becomes aware of a significant error or inaccuracy in their own published work, they are obliged to notify the editorial board without delay and to cooperate in publishing a correction or – if the error affects the publication as a whole – in its retraction.
If the editorial board learns of such an error from a third party, the author must cooperate in clarifying the matter.

3.9. Participation in the peer review process

Authors should cooperate with the editorial board during peer review: they should respond substantively to the reviewers’ reports within the deadline set, and should prepare a brief summary of the revisions indicating which comments they have acted upon and how, and which they disagree with – in the latter case giving their reasons.

4. The responsibilities of the publisher

The publisher, the Korall Social History Association, guarantees the professional independence of the editorial board: it does not intervene in publication decisions on business or other grounds.
In cases of suspected ethical misconduct, the publisher, in cooperation with the editorial board, takes all reasonable steps to establish the facts and ensures that a correction, a clarifying notice or – in the most serious cases – a retraction is published as soon as possible.
The publisher acts jointly with the editorial board against plagiarism and all forms of deceptive publication.
The publisher ensures the lasting preservation of the journal’s content and its continuous accessibility (see the section entitled Archiving and preservation).

5. The peer review process

5.1. Two routes for manuscripts

The issues of the journal are organised around a topic announced in advance, and most manuscripts therefore arrive in response to a call for papers. The call is published by the editorial board on the journal’s website and on scholarly mailing lists; it states the topic of the block, the submission deadline and the planned date of publication.

Independently of this, the journal also accepts studies unrelated to a thematic block on a continuous basis, which the editorial board publishes in the separate sections of forthcoming issues. Manuscripts arriving by either route are assessed in the same way: responding to a call for papers does not imply prior acceptance, and a text submitted independently of a call is not judged more strictly.

Every thematic block has a block editor within the editorial board (in some cases a guest editor working together with the editorial board). The block editor drafts the call for papers, maintains contact with the authors, arranges for the reviews to be obtained, and submits the manuscripts to the editorial board. The block editor is responsible for compiling the block, but does not decide on publication alone (see section 5.4).

5.2. Initial editorial screening

The editorial board acknowledges receipt of the manuscript within 3 working days.
The editorial board — in the case of a thematic block, on the basis of the block editor’s proposal — first examines whether the manuscript fits the profile of the journal and of the block, whether it meets the formal and referencing requirements, and whether it reaches the minimum standard required for being sent out for peer review. The editorial board informs the author of the outcome within one month. A manuscript that does not pass this screening is rejected by the editorial board with reasons given (desk rejection); if the manuscript is of high quality but does not fit the block, the editorial board may also offer to publish it as a separate study.

5.3. Double-blind peer review

A manuscript sent out for peer review is anonymised by the editorial board and sent for review to at least two experts versed in the subject.
Both experts from outside the editorial board and members of the editorial board may be invited to act as reviewers. The scholarly field cultivated by the journal represents a small research community in Hungary, and members of the editorial board — who are themselves researchers of social history — therefore write reviews on a regular basis. The sole consideration in selecting a reviewer is scholarly expertise in the subject of the manuscript and the absence of any conflict of interest.
The same rules apply to all reviewers, whether they are from outside the editorial board or members of it (see chapter 2), and the editorial board enforces the conflict-of-interest exclusions in respect of them in the same way: a researcher working together with the author on the subject of the manuscript, the author’s doctoral supervisor or doctoral student, a close colleague of the author, and the block editor of the thematic block concerned may not be invited to act as a reviewer.
Reviews are prepared in a double-blind procedure in every case: the reviewer does not know the identity of the author, and the author does not learn the identity of the reviewers, nor is the author informed whether a reviewer is a member of the editorial board. The reviewers do not know each other’s identity either. The identity of the reviewers is recorded by the editorial board; this information does not leave the editorial board.
Reviewers prepare a written report in which they assess the significance of the topic, the originality of the research question, the source base and the methodology, the soundness of the argument, the command of the scholarly literature and the quality of the writing, and then make a recommendation: publishable / publishable after minor revision / publishable after substantial revision and a further review / not publishable.

5.4. Decision and revision

Decisions on publication are taken by the editorial board as a body. The editor handling the manuscript — in the case of a thematic block, the block editor — makes a proposal on the basis of the reviews, and the editorial board takes the decision at an editorial meeting. An editor who acted as a reviewer of the manuscript in question takes part in the decision in the capacity of reviewer: their position is represented by the written review.
The editorial board informs the author of the decision and of the anonymised reviews in writing. If the reviews contradict one another, the editorial board invites a third reviewer.
Where a manuscript is returned for revision, the author encloses with the revised version a brief letter of response setting out how the reviewers’ comments have been addressed (see section 3.9).
In the case of substantial revision, the editorial board sends the revised version out for review again, wherever possible to the original reviewers.
A manuscript accepted for publication is edited by the editorial board; the author receives the edited text and the typeset proofs for approval.

5.5. Texts not subject to peer review

Book reviews, reports, editorial introductions, introductions to translations and interviews are not subject to double-blind peer review; these are accepted or rejected by the editorial board on the basis of internal scholarly discussion. In the table of contents and in the metadata of the articles, the journal clearly distinguishes peer-reviewed studies from other genres.

5.6. Appeals

An author may lodge an objection with the editorial board against a decision to reject, stating the reasons. The editorial board examines the objection and, where warranted, invites a new reviewer. An editor who prepared the review on which the contested decision was based does not take part in conducting this examination. The decision taken by the editorial board following this examination is final.