Publication Ethics
1. Alignment with COPE Standards
Mos Historicus adheres to the principles and standards established by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). The full text of the COPE Core Practices is available here.
All parties involved in the publication process—including authors, reviewers, and editors—are expected to comply with these principles, with particular emphasis on the following:
i. Originality and Avoidance of Plagiarism: Authors must ensure the originality of their research and avoid plagiarism, including duplicate or parallel submission and publication. Text recycling without clear and explicit acknowledgement of the original source is not acceptable.
ii. Transparency and Conflicts of Interest: Authors must disclose any financial, personal, or professional relationships that could influence—or be perceived to influence—the objectivity, integrity, or credibility of the work.
iii. Impartial Evaluation (peer review): The journal is committed to a fair, objective, and confidential review process conducted under a double-blind peer review model, free from ideological, institutional, or personal bias.
iv. Scholarly Integrity and Documentation: Authors must cite historical sources and evidence accurately and consistently. They bear full responsibility for the integrity of their findings and for the appropriate use and interpretation of archival, documentary, and bibliographic materials.
Mos Historicus is committed to the impartial and responsible handling of any issue arising during the publication process. In cases of suspected ethical misconduct or formal complaints, the journal follows COPE flowcharts to guide investigation and resolution.
2. Research Ethics
Where a submission involves empirical research, human participants, the processing of personal data, or other sensitive material (including oral history research), authors must state explicitly that the study complies with recognised ethical standards and with the applicable legal framework.
i. Human Participants and Oral History: For research involving human participants (e.g., interviews), authors must ensure adherence to the core principles of oral history ethics: voluntary participation; informed consent; the right to withdraw; and respect for participants’ dignity, safety, and well-being. Authors should confirm that informed consent was obtained and, where required, that the study received approval from the relevant institutional research ethics committee.
Where research involves audio and/or video recording, the archiving of materials, or their future dissemination, the terms governing use and access—including any temporal restrictions—must be agreed explicitly with participants in advance.
ii. Personal Data: Authors must ensure the confidentiality of participants and the protection of personal data in accordance with the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). In oral history research, where full anonymity may not always be feasible or desirable, any disclosure of an interviewee’s identity or the publication of interview excerpts must be based on explicit, documented consent. Such consent should specify the agreed level of identifiability, the intended context(s) of use, and any restrictions on access or reuse.
3. Artificial Intelligence (AI) Policy
Mos Historicus follows international guidance on the responsible use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in academic research and writing:
i. Authorship: AI tools may not be credited as authors or co-authors, as they cannot assume legal or ethical responsibility for scholarly content. Responsibility for the accuracy, integrity, and originality of the manuscript rests solely with the human author(s).
ii. Transparency and Disclosure: Any use of AI tools (e.g., for data processing, transcription, translation, or stylistic editing) must be disclosed explicitly, either in the cover letter or in a dedicated section of the manuscript, with a clear indication of the purpose and extent of use.
iii. Algorithmic Transparency: Where datasets have been generated, transformed, or analysed using AI, authors must provide adequate documentation of data provenance and the methods used to verify reliability and validity. Authors must ensure that AI-assisted processes do not compromise historical accuracy, obscure evidentiary bases, or introduce systematic bias. The critical evaluation of AI-assisted outputs remains the authors’ responsibility and must be consistent with the standards and methods of historical scholarship.
4. Plagiarism Policy
Mos Historicus treats plagiarism, text recycling without attribution, and duplicate publication with the utmost seriousness. To safeguard originality and academic integrity, the journal applies the following procedures:
i. Scholarly Assessment: All submissions are examined during peer review. Reviewers, as specialists in the relevant field, may cross-check primary and secondary sources, bibliographies, and the author’s previous publications to assess originality and scholarly rigour.
ii. Use of Digital Tools: The Editorial Board conducts systematic and sample-based checks using search engines (including Google Scholar) and academic databases. Where warranted, it reserves the right to employ specialised plagiarism-detection software, particularly when credible concerns arise during evaluation.
iii. Handling Ethical Misconduct: If plagiarism or any other form of ethical misconduct is identified prior to publication, the submission is rejected. If concerns are substantiated after publication, the journal follows COPE protocols for correction or retraction and undertakes all necessary steps to ensure transparent notification of the scholarly community.
