The Code of Ethics of the journal Studies in Digital Heritage reflects the guidelines of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) regarding an ethical approach to the publication of scientific works. The editorial board of this journal along with the editor-in-chief, associate editor, copyeditors, reviewers, and authors are cognizant of and strive to implement in their work the spirit of the recommendations of COPE.

Duties of the Editors and Editorial Board

• Decisions on publication. The editors are responsible for the decision to publish or not to publish articles submitted to the journal on the basis of single-blind peer review made by an expert peer-reviewer (or, “referee”). In their decisions, the editors must respect the policies of the journal. They must also follow the laws in effect concerning defamation, protection of copyright and intellectual property, and plagiarism.
• Non-discrimination based on race, age, creed, national origin, citizenship, sexual orientation, political views. The editors shall base their decisions solely on the principle of scientific value, including originality and significance of the content of the works submitted for consideration to the journal.
• Confidentiality, conflict of interest, and ban on use or dissemination. The editors and the editorial committee agree not to disclose information about the articles submitted for publication to persons other than the author, reviewers and publisher or printer, and undertake not to use the contents of unpublished articles for their own research without the express written consent of the author. The journal employs the single-blind peer review process to ensure that submitted material remains strictly confidential during the review process. [Note that hereafter the word “author” is used in a such a way as to imply, when appropriate, the principal author as well as the co-author(s).]
• Basis of selection of peer-reviewers. The editors shall select the peer-reviewers of a submission solely on the basis of their competence to evaluate its scientific value.

Duties of the authors of works submitted to the journal

• Status of the submission. The author guarantees that the article submitted for consideration by the journal is unpublished, scientifically original, and—except with the express permission of the editors—is not contemporaneously under consideration by another scientific publication, whether a journal, printed book, website, or printed or online periodical of any kind.
• Situation when special consent is required. The editors’ consent is required if the author wishes to simultaneously publish the work submitted to the journal in another publication. When this happens, the author must so inform the editors of the journal, and the editors must give their consent. Moreover, in this case the author must make explicit this alternative pending publication venue in the article submitted to the journal.
• Citations and quotations. The author must follow standard scholarly principles in citing the work of others, ensuring that the citation is always flagged by an appropriate reference. In the case of literal quotation of a source, the author must flag the quotation by the use of quotation marks in his text and also give a precise bibliographical reference, including the page number(s). The author must observe all the other rules of this journal.
• Changes required of author. The editors have the right to ask the author to make corrections or other changes on the basis of the editorial review process.
• Right of author to reply to peer-reviewers. The author will be given copies of all reports by peer-reviewers and will be given the opportunity to reply in detail to their criticisms or suggested improvements. When this happens, the editors shall have the right to determine whether the responses of the author and/or related modifications of the submission are sufficient to warrant publishing the submitted work.
• Editors’ right to make purely stylistic changes. The editors shall have the right to correct errors of spelling, word choice, punctuation, and formatting to ensure that the submission conforms to the norms of the journal.
• Transparency of authorship. The authors responsible for the submission should be made clear and explicit. The name of anyone who contributed original text or foundational research to the article should appear as a co-author. In a first or final note, the specific contributions of each co-author should be set forth.
• Conflict of interest. The author shall have no conflict of interest that may have affected the results, interpretations, theses, and/or data reported in the article submitted for consideration by the journal. Furthermore, the author must reveal in the Acknowledgements the source(s) of the financial support of the research and writing embodied in the submission.
• Remediation of errors. If any error or significant imprecision in an article becomes known to the author during the review process or after publication, the author must so inform the editors of the journal as soon as possible. In the case of a submission still under review, the author shall work with the editors to make the appropriate correction(s) to the text. In the case of an article already published by the journal, the author must submit a proposed statement that the journal can publish in its next number to correct the original publication. If the journal so decides, it may also publish this statement as an appendix to the article in the number of the journal where it was originally published.

Duties of the Peer-reviewers

• Contribution to the editorial decision-making process. Peer-review is a key procedure that helps the editors of the journal to evaluate the scientific quality of articles submitted for its consideration. Furthermore, it also permits authors to improve their work prior to publication.
• Respect of qualifications and deadlines. If someone is asked to serve as a peer-reviewer and does not feel himself adequate to the task in general or cannot complete the task within the requested time, then he should so inform the editors of the journal as soon as possible and not accept the assignment.
• Proper behavior and objectivity. Peer-review should be conducted in a correct and objective manner. The peer-reviewers should formulate their reports giving their own views and recommendations, not those of others. They should document their statements, claims, data, and interpretations as one would do in any scientific work. It is unacceptable to make personal comments about the author, and care should be taken not to offend the author.
• Citation of texts. The peer-reviewer should indicate the bibliographic details of relevant works neglected by the author in the article. He must also report any similarities or overlaps of the text of the author with other works known to him. This may be done for two reasons: first, to help the author enrich the bibliographic coverage by citing relevant works that have been inadvertently missed. Secondly, in the event that the overlap is such as to indicate possible plagiarism, the peer-reviewer should so indicate in the report, thereby alerting the editors about the matter. Peer-reviewers should not themselves lodge charges of plagiarism but should simply flag questionable passages for the editors to investigate.
• Confidentiality. Manuscripts received by a peer-reviewer should be treated as confidential. They may not be shown to third parties or discussed with anyone not expressly authorized by the editors. Information, data, and interpretations in submissions cannot be used for the personal advantage of the peer-reviewer.
• Conflict of interest. Anyone invited to serve as a peer-reviewer by this journal should turn down the request if, after an initial reading of the submission, a conflict of interest emerges owing to prior collaboration with the author when that fact can be deduced despite the anonymity of the single-blind peer-review process. The invitation should also be turned down when there is a conflict arising from significant connections of any kind between the author and/or their institutions.