Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement

JGTSS treats the reliability of social-science knowledge and the dignity of people represented in research as linked editorial responsibilities. Authors, editors, reviewers and the publisher must act honestly, disclose relevant interests and address credible concerns. The journal draws on relevant COPE guidance to inform proportionate assessment, investigation and correction of the scholarly record.

Responsibilities across publication

Authors are responsible for the evidence, argument, sources and declarations in their manuscripts. They must accurately describe how people, texts, organizations, platforms or datasets were selected and analyzed. Invented interviews, fabricated survey responses, manipulated results, undisclosed selective reporting and false archival citations are unacceptable. Intellectual contributions must be credited, necessary permissions obtained and all authors given the opportunity to approve and take responsibility for the work.

Editors assess scholarly merit without discrimination or pressure to accept paying authors. They choose competent reviewers, protect confidential material, manage conflicts and keep a record of the reasons for decisions. Reviewers provide independent human judgment, make constructive recommendations and alert the editor to possible problems without conducting unauthorized investigations of participants or approaching authors privately.

The publisher supplies the infrastructure and authority needed to maintain records, investigate concerns and issue notices. Revenue, institutional partnerships and reputational embarrassment must not prevent correction of the scholarly record. Commercial staff may facilitate payment or production but cannot determine the merits of an individual manuscript.

Ethical scrutiny appropriate to social inquiry

Studies involving interviews, observation, experiments, personal data, vulnerable groups or potentially identifiable online material must explain ethical approval or a legitimate exemption, consent arrangements and confidentiality safeguards. Public availability of a post or dataset does not by itself establish that republishing it is harmless or permitted. Historical and documentary research requires accurate provenance, lawful access and attention to restrictions that remain relevant to living persons and communities.

The journal asks authors to provide funding and competing-interest statements, contribution information, a data and materials availability statement and disclosure of material AI assistance. Restrictions on sharing may be justified by consent, safety, confidentiality or rights; they must be described sufficiently for editors to judge whether the evidence remains assessable. A standard declaration does not excuse missing supporting documentation when a question arises.

Concerns and protection of the record

Readers may report suspected plagiarism, fabricated evidence, manipulated peer review, undisclosed conflicts or other serious concerns to jgtsseditorialoffice@jandoopress.com. A concern involving an editor may be sent to jgtsseditorialoffice@jandoopress.com for independent handling. Reports are evaluated on evidence, including anonymous reports that provide specific verifiable information. Raising a concern in good faith must not lead to retaliation.

The journal preserves relevant evidence, invites a response and consults institutions or specialist bodies where an investigation exceeds editorial authority. It distinguishes an institution’s determination of individual misconduct from its own duty to assess the reliability of a publication. Outcomes may include clarification, correction, an expression of concern or retraction. Lack of response is not automatically proof of misconduct. Notices remain accessible and linked to affected content, and authors may seek independent review of an editorial process they believe was unfair.

Last updated: 16 September 2026