Our editorial process commits to editorial independence. We seek to be fair, transparent, and encourage intellectual excellence against clearly articulated disciplinary standards:

• Submitted articles are evaluated according to their intellectual merit, without regard to the race, gender, sexual orientation, religious beliefs, ethnic origin, citizenship, political philosophy, or institutional affiliation of the author(s)
• Editorial decisions on manuscripts submitted to our journals are based on independent, anonymized peer review reports
• We commit to an editorial process that is not compromised by financial or political influence
• We actively seek and encourage submissions from underrepresented segments of the global scholarly communication ecosystem
• We provide clear and transparent processes for appeal of editorial decisions
• We do not tolerate abusive behavior or correspondence towards our staff and others involved in the publishing process on our behalf

We are committed to upholding the highest standards of peer review. At the Common Ground Media Lab, we also commit to researching the future of peer review as a defining characteristic of scholarly communication. Our approach to peer review is founded on rigorous and double-anonymized peer review. Reviewers are assigned based on the subject matter and disciplinary expertise, and ranking is based on clearly articulated criteria. The result is a peer-review process that is scrupulously fair in its assessments and, at the same time, offers a carefully structured and constructive contribution to the shape of the published article.

Our Commitment:

• At the Common Ground Media Lab, the research and development arm Common Ground Research Networks, we build software infrastructures to facilitate rigorous, fair, and effective peer review for all our publications
• We encourage our editors and peer reviewers to familiarize themselves with and act in accordance with relevant best practice guidelines on peer review established by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE)
• We expect those who oversee the peer review process, and support our editors and peer reviewers, to act on any suspected cases of manipulated or fraudulent peer review
• As part of our publishing and peer review processes, we seek full disclosure of commercial interests and potential conflicts of interest on the part of both authors and reviewers
• We protect the confidentiality of participants in the peer review process

• All Common Ground Research Networks journals use the double-anonymized peer review method. (The only exception is for special issues with invited content reviewed by the journal/issue Editor)
• Peer review is conducted by members of the Research Network Advisory Board, Editorial Board, Author Reviewers, and Volunteer Peer Reviews, based on the relevance of their area of expertise to the work under review
• If you wish to know more about our Peer Review Policy feel free to contact us via the Knowledge Base

Authorship and Co-Authorship
Authorship should be limited to those who have made a significant contribution to the conception, design, execution, or interpretation of the study. All those who have made significant contributions should be listed as co-authors. Where there are others who participated in certain substantial aspects of the research project, they should be acknowledged or listed as contributors.

Author Responsibilities
We establish the following general rules for the corresponding author’s responsibilities:

• Manuscript correction and proofreading
• Handling the revisions and re-submission of revised manuscripts up to the acceptance of the manuscripts
• Provision of raw data upon which the paper is based, for editorial review and public access to such data whenever possible. If the data is not published with the paper, authors should be prepared to retain such data for a reasonable amount of time after publication
• Authors should ensure that they have written an entirely original work, and if they have used the work and/or words of others that this has been appropriately cited and quoted. Articles found to have plagiarized material will be withdrawn from consideration for publication
• Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal concurrently constitutes unethical publishing behavior, and it is unacceptable. Manuscripts must only be peer reviewed by one journal at a time
• Proper acknowledgment of the work of others must always be made. Authors should cite publications that have been influential in determining the nature of the reported work
• Authors should disclose in their manuscript any financial or other substantive conflict of interest that might be construed to influence the results or interpretation of the manuscript. All sources of financial support for the project should be disclosed.
• When an author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in his or her own published work, it is the author's obligation to promptly notify the publisher and cooperate with Common Ground’s editorial team to correct or retract the article.

For research studies using human or animal subjects, the trial’s design, conduct, and reporting of results must conform to Good Clinical Practice guidelines (such as the Good Clinical Practice in Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-Regulated Clinical Trials (USA) or the Medical Research Council Guidelines for Good Clinical Practice in Clinical Trials (UK)) and/or to the World Medical Association (WMA) Declaration of Helsinki.

Any work describing a study that used human subjects must include a statement that affirms the experiments were performed with prior informed consent (written or verbal, as appropriate) from each participant.

Humans: When reporting experiments on human subjects, authors should indicate whether the procedures followed were in accordance with the ethical standards of the responsible committee on human experimentation (institutional and national) and with the Helsinki Declaration of 1975, as revised in 2008 (5). If doubt exists whether the research was conducted in accordance with the Helsinki Declaration, the author(s) must explain the rationale for their approach and demonstrate that the institutional review body explicitly approved the doubtful aspects of the study.

Animals: When reporting experiments on animals, authors should indicate whether the institutional and national guide for the care and use of laboratory animals was followed. Experimental research on vertebrates or any regulated invertebrates must comply with institutional, national, or international guidelines, and where available should have been approved by an appropriate ethics committee. A statement detailing compliance with guidelines and/or ethical approval must be included in the work. For studies involving client-owned animals, author(s) must document informed client consent and adherence to a high standard (best practice) of veterinary care.

Consent: For all research involving human subjects, informed consent to participate in the study should be obtained from participants (or their parent or guardian in the case of children under 18 and a statement to this effect should appear in the work.

Consent for publication of individual patient data: For all works that include details, images, or videos relating to individual participants, written informed consent for the publication of these must be obtained from the participants (or their parent or legal guardian in the case of children under 18) and a statement to this effect should appear in the work. A consent form must be made available to the Editor(s) on request and will be treated confidentially. In cases where images are entirely unidentifiable and there are no details on individuals reported within the manuscript, consent for publication of images may not be required. The final decision on whether consent to publish is required lies with the Editor(s)

Patients have a right to privacy that should not be infringed without informed consent. Identifying information, including patients’ names, initials, or hospital numbers, should not be published in written descriptions, photographs, or pedigrees unless the information is essential for scientific purposes and the patient (or parent or guardian) gives written informed consent for publication. Informed consent for this purpose requires that a patient who is identifiable be shown the manuscript to be published. Authors should identify individuals who provide writing assistance and disclose the funding source for this assistance. Identifying details should be omitted if they are not essential. Complete anonymity is difficult to achieve, however, an informed consent should be obtained if there is any doubt. For example, masking the eye region in photographs of patients is inadequate protection of anonymity. If identifying characteristics are altered to protect anonymity, such as in genetic pedigrees, author(s) should provide assurance that alterations do not distort scientific meaning and the author(s) are responsible to notify the editor(s) in such instances and editor(s) should so note accordingly. The requirement for informed consent should be included in the journal’s instructions for authors. When informed consent has been obtained it should be indicated in the published work.

Freedom of expression is critical to healthy democracies and the production of scholarly communication. Our journals contain the views, thoughts, assertions, and opinions of contributing authors. The inclusion of information in our journals should not be construed as an endorsement, either explicitly or implicitly, by Common Ground Research Networks. At the same time, we do not support publishing false statements that may harm the reputation of individuals, groups, or organizations.

We will consider retractions or corrections in line with COPE’s Retraction Guidelines. If an author is found to have made an error, the journal will issue a corrigendum. If the journal is found to have made an error, they will issue an erratum. In exceptional cases, we may remove an article from an online publication where we believe it is necessary to comply with our legal obligations.

If you wish to flag work for possible redaction or correction please contact us via the Knowledge Base.

If fraudulent research, research misconduct, or plagiarism is found after an article is published, the publisher will contact the author for a response to the allegations. In cases of proven or there is a nonresponse/inadequate response, the offending article will be retracted and a statement from the publisher will be inserted in its place in the relevant journal issue.

If you wish to flag work for possible fraudulent research, research misconduct, or plagiarism please contact us via the Knowledge Base.

We strive to follow COPE’s Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing and encourage our publishing partners to uphold these same principles.