Editorial Policy

Peer Review Process
All articles published in the Privacy Studies Journal go through a double-blind peer review process. As soon as an article is received, the editor-in-chief verifies that the text is a good match for the journal. If the editor deems the article suitable, two independent experts are enlisted to peer-review the text. The reviewers provide comments according to the PSJ reviewer guidelines detailed below, and can recommend four different courses of action for the article:

  1. The article is accepted in its current state;
  2. The article is accepted if the revisions recommended by the reviewers are considered and addressed; this is checked in editorial review;
  3. The article must be revised, resubmitted, and go through peer review in its revised form before PSJ can accept it;
  4. The article is rejected.

The final decision about acceptance or rejection of any article remains with the editor-in-chief and the editorial board.

Reviewer Guidelines
During the peer-review process, the independent experts are requested to provide responses to the following prompts:

  • Content: Is the article a good fit for PSJ? Does the text contribute original insights to current debates on the topic at hand? Do the authors provide relevant source material in their text to support their argument? Are the conclusions adequately built upon evidence presented in the text? Does the author adequately explore existing methodologies and scholarly literature in the text of the article? Is the argument rigorous and relevant? How do you assess the author’s depth of understanding demonstrated in the written text?
  • Structure and argument: Is the structure of the article adequate to support the argument? Are the points logically organized? Does the article give enough information about the methodology used? Do the authors make good use of topic sentences and of signposting throughout the text?
  • Language: Is the text written in a competent, clear, and concise language? Do the authors succeed in communicating their argument to an audience of non-specialists? Do the authors explain the meaning of technical words? Does the text adhere to the PSJ guidelines on spelling and grammar or does it need extensive copy-editing?
  • Figures and Tables: Are figures and tables legible, captioned, and referenced in an adequate manner? Do these figures and tables help support the argument presented in the text?
  • Formatting: Are the text and references formatted according to the PSJ guidelines on referencing style and formatting?

Preprint Policy
PSJ accepts articles for consideration that have been deposited in preprint servers, presented at conferences, or disseminated in the author’s personal website or other venues, as long as the author has the legal rights to the text. Authors must notify PSJ of the existence of preprint, and must acknowledge that it might not be possible to guarantee the anonymity of the peer-review process. If the article is accepted for publication in PSJ, we strongly encourage authors to link the DOI of the final published article to the preprint in question.

ORCID
Authors are free to use their Open Researcher and Contributor Identifier (ORCID) at the time of submission if they so desire. If the article is accepted, the author’s ORCID number will be published with the article.

Reproducibility
PSJ encourages authors to make structured data Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, and Reusable, a practice known as the FAIR principles for the management of structured data. Authors can fill in the form provided for this purpose, explaining how they address the FAIR principles in their work. If authors are unable to follow the FAIR principles, they are requested to explain why they cannot do so. If the author used data collected by other researchers, the source(s) must be credited in the article. We recommend that authors make their software code, algorithms, statistical analysis, and structured methods available for scrutiny through a suitable open access repository. Authors must always provide references according to the PSJ guidelines on references and referencing style.

Authorship
PSJ guidelines on authorship are based on the Vancouver protocol, developed by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors.
To be considered an author, the person must have engaged in the following activities:
Substantial contributions to the conception or design of the work; or the acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data for the work; OR
• Drafting the work or revising it critically for important intellectual content; AND
• Final approval of the version to be published; AND
• Agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved.

Competing Interests, Funding, and Ethics
Authors and editors must declare any conflicts of interest arising from the article submitted for consideration at PSJ. If the conclusions reached in the submitted text could be perceived as stemming from the author’s personal or financial relationship to any funding bodies, institutions, or political organizations, the author must proactively declare these relationships in writing at the time of submission. Authors are required to mention their research funding sources and to provide a declaration of ethics pertaining to the research reported in the article. On the rare occasion that a member of the PSJ editorial board submits a piece for consideration, this person will be excluded from the editorial tasks related to the article in question.

Corrections and Retractions
PSJ follows the guidelines from the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) when dealing with cases where corrections or retractions might be indicated. As a rule, no changes or corrections are permitted to the published article. Retractions are rare. Following COPE guidelines on retraction, editors will consider retracting an article in the following cases:
• They have clear evidence that the findings are unreliable, either as a result of major error (e.g., miscalculation or experimental error), or as a result of fabrication (e.g., of data) or falsification (e.g., image manipulation);
• It constitutes plagiarism;
• The findings have previously been published elsewhere without proper attribution to previous sources or disclosure to the editor, permission to republish, or justification (i.e., cases of redundant publication);
• It contains material or data without authorisation for use;
• Copyright has been infringed or there is some other serious legal issue (e.g., libel, privacy);
• It reports unethical research;
• It has been published solely on the basis of a compromised or manipulated peer review process;
• The author(s) failed to disclose a major competing interest (a.k.a. conflict of interest) that, in the view of the editor, would have unduly affected interpretations of the work or recommendations by editors and peer reviewers.

The editor-in-chief and the editorial board decide on how to proceed on a case by case basis.

Misconduct and Complaints
PSJ and its editorial board take seriously all complaints and allegations of misconduct related to articles submitted. We are committed to conducting a thorough investigation on the matter and to addressing any such problems according to the COPE guidelines. The primary party for leading investigations of misconduct is the editor-in-chief. If the allegation involves members of the PSJ staff or editorial board, an independent party will instead be responsible for the investigation. If evidence of misconduct is found, PSJ must report the issue to the author’s institution. Correction and retraction of compromised articles must follow COPE guidelines