Publication ethics and publication malpractice statement

The latest version of the Publication ethics and publication malpractice statement was approved by the Editorial Council of “Proceedings of LAS” on 19 March 2018.

Publication ethics and publication malpractice statement of the journal “Latvijas Zinātņu Akadēmijas Vēstis. A daļa: Humanitārās un sociālās zinātnes” (Proceedings of the Latvian Academy of Sciences. Section A: Humanities and Social Sciences)

For all parties involved in the act of publishing (the author, the journal editor(s), the peer reviewer and the publisher) it is necessary to agree upon standards of expected ethical behaviour. The publication ethics and publication malpractice statement for “Proceedings of the Latvian Academy of Sciences. Section A: Humanities and Social Sciences” (further “Proceedings of LAS”, Section A), is based on the Code of Conduct and Best-Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors (Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), 2011) and its updated version.

 Editor’s duties and responsibilities


An Editor-in-Chief of the peer-reviewed journal “Proceedings of LAS, Section A: Humanities and Social Sciences”, is accountable for everything published in the journal and is responsible for deciding which articles submitted to the journal should be published.

The selection of articles for publishing depends on the significance of an article for researchers and readers, originality of the research and clarity of the text of an article, correspondence of the research to the scope of the journal that is approved by the statutes and editorial policy documents of the journal, as well as reviewers’ evaluation. In making the decision, an editor may be guided by the Statutes of the Scientific Journal of the Latvian Academy of Sciences “Proceedings of the Latvian Academy of Sciences” (adopted on 13 June 2017),  Editorial Policy of “Proceedings of the Latvian Academy of Sciences. Section A – Humanities and Social Sciences” (adopted on 19 March 2018), as well as by legal requirements regarding libel, copyright infringement and plagiarism. An editor may confer with other editors and reviewers when making publication decisions. An editor should maintain the integrity of the academic record (correctness, concordance and completeness of texts and facts), preclude business needs from compromising intellectual and ethical standards, and always be willing to publish corrections, clarifications, retractions and apologies when needed.


An editor should evaluate manuscripts for intellectual content without regard to race,gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political

philosophy of author(s).


An editor and any editorial staff must not disclose any information about a submitted manuscript to anyone other than the corresponding author, reviewers, potential reviewers, the publisher, and, in some instances, the Editorial Council.   

Disclosure, conflicts of interest, and other issues

An editors will be guided by COPE’s Guidelines for Retracting Articles when considering retracting, issuing expressions of concern about, and issuing corrections pertaining to articles that have been published in “Proceedings of LAS”, Section A, Humanities and Social Sciences.

Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in an editors’own research without the express written consent of the author. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage.

An editor is committed to ensuring that advertising, reprint or other commercial revenue has no impact or influence on editorial decisions.

An editor should seek to ensure a fair and appropriate peer review process. An editor should recuse themselve (i.e. should ask a co-editors, associate editors or other member of the editorial board instead to review and consider) from considering manuscripts in which he/she has conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of authors, companies, or (possibly) institutions connected to the papers. An editor should require all contributors to disclose relevant competing interests and publish corrections if competing interests are revealed after publication. If needed, other appropriate action should be taken, such as the publication of a retraction or expression of concern.

Protection of individual data

An editor must obey laws on confidentiality in its own jurisdiction. Regardless of local statutes, however, he/she should always protect the confidentiality of individual information obtained in the course of research or professional interactions (e.g. between doctors and patients). It is therefore almost always necessary to obtain written informed consent for publication from people who might recognise themselves or be identified by others (e.g. from case reports or photographs). It may be possible to publish individual information without explicit consent if public interest considerations outweigh possible harms, it is impossible to obtain consent and a reasonable individual would be unlikely to object to publication.

Involvement and cooperation in investigations

Editors should guard the integrity of the published record by issuing corrections and retractions when needed and pursuing suspected or alleged research and publication misconduct.

An editor should pursue reviewer and editorial misconduct. An editor should take reasonably responsive measures when ethical complaints have been presented concerning a submitted manuscript or published paper. Every reported act of unethical

publishing behaviour should be looked into, even if it is discovered years after publication. Editor-in-Chief may follow the COPE Flowcharts when dealing with cases of suspected misconduct.

Reviewer’s duties and responsibilities

Contribution to editorial decisions

Peer reviewer assists an editor in making editorial decisions and, through the editorial communication with the author, may also assist an author in improving of manuscript.


Any invited reviewer who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its timely review will be impossible should immediately notify the editors so that alternative reviewers can be contacted.


Any manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. They must not be shown to or discussed with others except if authorized by an author.

Standards of objectivity

Reviews should be conducted objectively. Personal criticism of an author is inacceptable. Reviewers should express their views clearly with appropriate supporting arguments.

Acknowledgement of sources

Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by an author. Any statement that an observation, derivation, or argument had been previously reported 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 data 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 evaluating 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 submission.

Author’s duties and responsibilities

Reporting standards

An author reporting results of the original research should present an accurate account of the work performed as well as an objective discussion of its significance. Underlying data should be represented accurately in the manuscript. A paper should contain sufficient detail and references to permit others to replicate the work.

Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behaviour and are unacceptable.

Originality and Plagiarism

An author should ensure that he/she has written entirely original work, and if an author has used the work and/or words of others than this has been appropriately cited or quoted.

Multiple, redundant or concurrent publication

An author should not in general publish manuscripts describing essentially the same research in more than one journal or primary publication. Parallel submission of the same manuscript to more than one journal constitutes unethical publishing behaviour and is unacceptable.

Acknowledgement of sources

Proper acknowledgment of the work of others must always be given. An author should also cite publications that have been influential in determining the nature of the reported work.

Authorship of a manuscript

Authorship should be limited to those who have made a significant contribution to the conception, design, execution, or interpretation of the reported study. All those who have made significant contributions should be listed as co-authors. Where there are others who have participated in certain substantive aspects of the research project, they should be named in an acknowledgement section. The corresponding author should ensure that all appropriate co-authors (according to the above definition) and no inappropriate co-authors are included in the author list of the manuscript, and that all co-authors have seen and approved the final version of the paper and have agreed to its submission for publication.

Hazards and human or animal subjects

If the work involves chemicals, procedures or equipment that have any unusual hazards inherent in their use, or deals with humans an author must clearly identify these in the manuscript. In case if research is connected with deals with human or animals, the author should report about obtaining of the relevant pernission on such a research from the ethics commission.

Disclosure and conflicts of interest

All authors should disclose in their manuscript any financial or other substantive conflict of interest that might be construed to influence the results or their interpretation in the manuscript. All sources of financial support for the project should be disclosed.

Fundamental errors in published works

When an author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in his/her own published work, it is the author’s obligation to promptly notify the journal’s editor or publisher and cooperate with them to either retract the paper or to publish an appropriate erratum.


Publisher’s Confirmation

In cases of alleged or proven scientific misconduct, fraudulent publication or plagiarism the publisher, in close collaboration with the editors, will take all appropriate measures to clarify the situation and to amend the article in question. This includes the prompt publication of an erratum or, in the most severe cases, complete retraction of the affected.

Download full document ”Publication ethics and publication malpractice statement of the journal “Latvijas Zinātņu Akadēmijas Vēstis. A daļa: Humanitārās un sociālās zinātnes” (Proceedings of the Latvian Academy of Sciences. Section A: Humanities and Social Sciences)” for additional information.