Peer review

No article reaches print without independent assessment by reviewers qualified to judge it. A journal's editorial board sets the review model appropriate to its field and is answerable for the rigor of the process, not just its outcome.

Authorship and disclosure

Everyone named as an author should have made a substantive contribution to the work and be able to stand behind it; others who contributed should be acknowledged rather than listed as authors. Financial and non-financial conflicts of interest, for authors, reviewers, and editors alike, are disclosed rather than left for a reader to guess at.

Research data

Where a field's norms call for it, authors are expected to make the data, code, and materials behind a result available to reviewers and readers, so a finding can be checked rather than taken on faith.

Professional affiliations

Our editors and editorial boards work in line with the guidelines of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), the reference point the scholarly publishing community turns to for handling ethical questions and misconduct.

Misconduct and corrections

Allegations of plagiarism, data fabrication, or duplicate publication are investigated by the journal's editorial board in line with COPE guidelines. Where an allegation is upheld, the published record is corrected or retracted as described in our Publishing Policies.

Reporting a concern

If you believe a published article or an editorial process has fallen short of these standards, write to contact@banachpress.com with as much detail as you can. Concerns are treated in confidence and referred to the relevant journal's editorial board.