Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement

Artivate is a peer-reviewed academic journal published by the University of Arkansas Press. This Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement (PEMS) supports a combined effort by the editors, authors, editorial board, reviewers, and publisher to produce a responsible research publication.

This statement is based on the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors.

Editor Responsibilities


The editors of Artivate are responsible for deciding which articles submitted to the journal should be published, and, moreover, are accountable for everything published in the journal. In making these decisions, the editors may be guided by the policies of the journal’s editorial board as well as by legal requirements regarding libel, copyright infringement, and plagiarism. The editors may confer with other editors or reviewers when making publication decisions. The editors should maintain the integrity of the academic record, preclude business needs from compromising intellectual and ethical standards, and always be willing to publish corrections, clarifications, retractions, and apologies when needed.


The editors should evaluate manuscripts for intellectual content without regard to race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy of the author(s). The editors will not disclose any information about a manuscript under consideration to anyone other than the author(s), coeditors, reviewers, and potential reviewers, and in some instances the editorial board members, as appropriate.


The editors and any editorial staff must not disclose any information about a submitted manuscript to anyone other than the corresponding author, reviewers, potential reviewers, other editorial advisers, and the publisher as appropriate.

Disclosure, Conflicts of Interest, and Other Issues

The editors will be guided by COPE’s Guidelines for Retracting Articles when considering retracting, issuing expressions of concern about and corrections pertaining to articles that have been published in Artivate (see “Retractions, Corrections, and Expressions of Concern” below).

Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in an editor’s own research without the express written consent of the author. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage.

While Artivate does not generate income from advertising, reprints, or other commercial revenue, the editors are committed to ensuring that any such activity will have no impact or influence on editorial decisions.

The editors should seek to ensure a fair and appropriate peer review process. Editors should recuse themselves from considering manuscripts (i.e., should ask a coeditor, associate editor, or other member of the editorial board to review and consider in their stead manuscripts) in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or (possibly) institutions connected to the papers. Editors should require all contributors to disclose relevant competing interests and publish corrections if competing interests are revealed after publication. If needed, other appropriate action should be taken, such as the publication of a retraction or expression of concern.

Involvement and Cooperation in Investigations

Editors should guard the integrity of the published record by issuing corrections and retractions when needed and pursuing suspected or alleged research and publication misconduct. Editors should pursue reviewer and editorial misconduct. An editor should take reasonably responsive measures when ethical complaints have been presented concerning a submitted manuscript or published paper.

Reviewer Responsibilities

Contribution to Editorial Decisions

Peer review assists the editors in making editorial decisions and, through the editorial communication with the author, may also assist the author in improving the manuscript.


Any invited referee who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its timely review will be impossible should immediately notify the editor so that alternative reviewers can be contacted.


Any manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. They must not be shown to or discussed with others except if authorized by the editors.

Standards of Objectivity

Reviews should be conducted objectively. Personal criticism of the author is unacceptable. Referees should express their views clearly with appropriate supporting arguments.

Acknowledgement of Sources

Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors. Any statement that an observation, derivation, or argument had been previously reported should be accompanied by the relevant citation. A reviewer should also call to the editor’s attention any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published data of which they have personal knowledge.

Disclosure and Conflict of Interest

Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage. Reviewers should not consider evaluating manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the submission.

Author Responsibilities

Reporting Standards

Authors reporting results of original research should present an accurate account of the work performed as well as an objective discussion of its significance. Underlying data should be represented accurately in the manuscript. A paper should contain sufficient detail and references to permit others to replicate the work. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behavior and are unacceptable.

Originality and Plagiarism

The authors should ensure that they have written entirely original works, and if the authors have used the work and/or words of others that this has been appropriately cited or quoted.

Multiple, Redundant, or Concurrent Publication

An author should not publish manuscripts describing essentially the same research in more than one journal or primary publication. Parallel submission of the same manuscript to more than one journal constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable.

Acknowledgement of Sources

Proper acknowledgment of the work of others must always be given. Authors should also cite publications that have been influential in determining the nature of the reported work.

Authorship of a Manuscript

Authorship should be limited to those who have made a significant contribution to the conception, design, execution, or interpretation of the reported study. All those who have made significant contributions should be listed as coauthors. Where there are others who have participated in certain substantive aspects of the research project, they should be named in an Acknowledgement section.

The corresponding author should ensure that all appropriate coauthors (according to the above definition) and no inappropriate coauthors are included in the author list of the manuscript and that all coauthors have seen and approved the final version of the paper and have agreed to its submission for publication.

Human Subjects Research and Institutional Review Board (IRB) Compliance

All research studies on humans (individuals, samples, or data) must have been performed in accordance with the principles stated in the Declaration of Helsinki. Prior to starting the study, ethical approval must have been obtained for all protocols from the local institutional review board (IRB) or other appropriate ethics committee to confirm the study meets national and international guidelines for research on humans.

Any submission involving human subjects or identifiable data derived from human subjects must include an Ethical Statement containing the following information:

  1. The name of the institutional or national research ethics committee that granted approval for the research along with the assigned approval number. In cases where the research received a waiver or did not require approval, provide a concise explanation for the decision. Ensure that any risk assessments, research purposes, method overviews, and implementation details have been clearly communicated.
  2. Affirmation that all participants (or in the case of children under 16, their parent or legal guardian) provided written informed consent to participate in the study and to have the results published.

Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest

All authors should disclose in their manuscript any financial or other substantive conflict of interest that might be construed to influence the results or their interpretation in the manuscript. All sources of financial support for the project should be disclosed.

Fundamental Errors in Published Works

When an author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in their own published work, it is the author’s obligation to promptly notify the journal’s editor or publisher and cooperate with them to either publish an appropriate erratum or retract the paper (see “Retractions, Corrections, and Expressions of Concern”).

Retractions, Corrections, and Expressions of Concern

Journal editors will consider retractions, corrections, or expressions of concern in line with COPE’s Retraction Guidelines. If an author is found to have made an error, the journal will issue a corrigendum. If the journal is found to have made an error, the journal will issue an erratum. Retractions are usually reserved for articles that are so seriously flawed that their findings or conclusions should not be relied upon or that contain substantial plagiarism or life-endangering content. The editors or publisher may make minor changes such as those which would likely occur during copyediting, typesetting, or proofreading, but any substantive corrections will be carried out in line with COPE’s Retraction Guidelines.

In exceptional cases, we may remove an article from online publication where we believe it is necessary to comply with our legal obligations. This includes, without limitation, where we have concerns that the article is defamatory, violates personal privacy or confidentiality laws, is the subject of a court order, or might pose a serious health risk to the general public. In these circumstances, we may decide to remove the article and publish a notice that clearly states why the full article has been removed.

In the event that the editors or publisher are made aware of any allegation of research misconduct relating to a published article in the journal, the publisher or editor shall follow COPE’s guidelines on “Dealing with concerns about the integrity of published research.”

Author’s Name Change Policy

Artivate accommodates author name changes in published works upon request. Authors’ privacy is respected, and there is no requirement to disclose the reason for the change. We will update names, re-upload digital versions, and amend print files for future reprints. Copies already in circulation cannot be withdrawn. Authors can contact us with the necessary details for a name change.

Publisher’s Confirmation

In cases of alleged or proven scientific misconduct, fraudulent publication, or plagiarism, the publisher, in close collaboration with the editors, will take all appropriate measures to clarify the situation and to amend the article in question. This includes the prompt publication of an erratum or, in the most severe cases, the complete retraction of the affected work.

The Publisher and the Journal do not discriminate on the basis of age, race, religion, creed, disability, marital status, veteran status, national origin, gender, genetic predisposition or carrier status, or sexual orientation in its publishing programs.