Policies and Publication Ethics

To ensure ethical standards and best practices of scholarly publishing, we have implemented a set of editorial policies as guidance for:

As part of the PsychOpen GOLD journal platform, operated by the Leibniz Institute for Psychology (ZPID), this journal adheres to standard policies for PsychOpen GOLD journals, adapted as necessary to the specific article types and content published by MISS.

1. Journal Management and Publishing Policies

Open Access Policy

Measurement Instruments for the Social Sciences (MISS) provides immediate open access to its content on the principle that making research freely available to the public supports a greater global exchange of knowledge. MISS (hereinafter referred to as “the Journal”) charges no author fee for submission or publication of papers.

Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:

  • Articles are published under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0). Under the CC BY license, authors retain ownership of the copyright for their article. Still, authors grant others permission to use the content of their publication, in whole or in part, provided that the original work is properly cited. Users (redistributors) of the journal are required to cite the original source, including the author's name(s), the journal as the initial source of publication, year of publication, volume number, and DOI (if available).
  • Authors may publish the manuscript in any other journal or medium, but any such subsequent publication must include a notice that the manuscript was initially published in this journal.
  • Authors grant the journal the right of first publication. Although authors retain copyright ownership, they grant the journal the irrevocable, non-exclusive rights to publish, reproduce, publicly distribute and display, and transmit their article or portions thereof in any manner.

Permanency of Content

Following widely accepted standards of scholarly publishing, the Journal generally does not alter articles after publication: "Articles that have been published should remain extant, exact and unaltered to the maximum extent possible" (STM, 2006. Preservation of the objective record of science). In case of serious errors or (suspected) misconduct, the Journal publishes corrections, expressions of concern, and retractions (see below).

Corrections. When serious errors become apparent after the publication of an article, a correction note is published. Serious errors may comprise incorrectly reported results or errors that significantly impede the understanding or evaluation of the results. These errors must not invalidate the article as a whole (which would result in a retraction). The editor(s), in consultation with the author(s), will decide whether serious errors exist. If an error is found to be serious, the journal publishes a correction note that is linked to the article. In addition, readers who have downloaded the article prior to the publication of the correction can be informed of the correction via the Crossmark mechanism. In general, the original, published article itself remains unchanged. Only in very rare, exceptional cases (e.g., if an article was published without figures due to a production error) may a corrected version of an article be republished. This is usually indicated in the article history through a corresponding additional publication date for the "Corrected Version of Record" (CVoR) and described in a publisher's note.

Retractions and Expressions of Concern. In accordance with the Retraction Guidelines of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), the Journal will retract a published article if

  • significant parts of the findings prove to be unreliable due to honest error (e.g., miscalculation).
  • the article, in whole or in part, is based on scientific misconduct such as plagiarism, fabrication or falsification of data or results, unauthorized use of data or materials, copyright infringement or other serious legal issues.
  • the peer review process has been compromised or manipulated, or the author(s) failed to disclose a major competing interest that, in the view of the editor, may have had an impact on the reviewer's recommendations or the editor's decision.
  • the findings have previously been published elsewhere without disclosure to the editor and proper cross-referencing.
  • the research conducted by the authors, as described in the article, was carried out unethically.

The Journal retracts an article by publishing a retraction note. Apart from rare exceptions (e.g., copyright infringement), retracted articles remain online. To prevent the results of the retracted article from being considered in future research, the Journal takes various measures to clearly identify a retracted article as such (e.g., by linking the retraction note to the article and vice versa and by adding an appropriate watermark to the article PDF). In addition, readers who have downloaded the article prior to the publication of the retraction note can inform themselves of the retraction via the Crossmark mechanism.

If an investigation is underway that might result in the retraction of an article, the Journal may choose to alert readers by publishing an expression of concern.

Alerting Readers to Changes. The Journal uses Crossref’s Crossmark service to inform readers of significant changes to articles after they are published. By clicking the Crossmark button embedded in an article’s web pages or PDF files, readers can retrieve information about post-publication corrections, retractions, additions of supplementary materials, or new versions of articles. By participating in Crossmark, the Journal (through its publisher PsychOpen GOLD) agrees to maintain its content and promptly register updates.

Allegations of Research Misconduct

Allegations of research misconduct should be addressed (anonymously or non-anonymously) to the editors-in-chief (editors[at]miss.psychopen.eu). If the editors-in-chief decide that there is sufficient evidence to support the claim, they will investigate it following the guidelines established by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). In any case, the Journal will protect the identity of the individual(s) who raised the concern.

Plagiarism Screening

Crossref Similarity Check logo

The Journal uses iThenticate to screen articles for originality. Prior to accepting a submission for review, the Journal articles are checked against a huge corpus of published research papers (including open access as well as restricted/paid articles), online documents, and other sources. Based on a detailed similarity report, editor(s) can evaluate the originality of the manuscript and prevent publication of plagiarized content.

Archiving

This journal ensures the long-term availability of its contents by partnering with CLOCKSS (Controlled Lots of Copies Keep Stuff Safe) and LOCKSS (Lots of Copies Keep Stuff Safe) system. The systems have permission to ingest, preserve, and serve this archival unit.

Complaints and Appeals

Complaints, criticism, or feedback about management, services, policies, etc. should be sent to the editors-in-chief (editors[at]miss.psychopen.eu). Complaints against reviewers or handling editors, as well as appeals against final editor decisions, should also be sent to the editors-in-chief. The editors-in-chief will consult the case with the reviewers and, if necessary, other members of the editorial team.

Confidential Data and Privacy

The Journal collects data only to fulfil the standard functioning of peer-reviewed journals. Please read the Journal’s Privacy Statement.

2. Author Policies

Authorship

Authorship policy based on: McNutta, M. K., Bradford, M., Drazen, J. M., Hanson, B., Howard, B., Jamieson, K. H., Kiermer, V., Marcus, E., Pope, B. K., Schekman, R., Swaminathan, S., Stang, P. J., & Verma, I. M. (2018). Transparency in authors’ contributions and responsibilities to promote integrity in scientific publication. PNAS. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1715374115

Authorship is a crucial concept in scholarly publishing, implying both credit and accountability. Therefore, transparent and widely shared standards for authorship are needed.

Responsibility of Each Author. The Journal adopts the following statement of authorship by McNutta et al. (2018), which is based on a similar statement developed by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE). It is expected that authors will meet the following authorship standards:

Each author is expected to have done the following (see McNutta et al., 2018):

  1. Made substantial contributions to the conception or design of the work; or the acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data; or the creation of new software used in the work; or drafted the work or substantively revised it.
  2. Approved the submitted version (and any substantially modified version that involves the author’s contribution to the study).
  3. Agreed
    • to be personally accountable for their own contributions.
    • to ensure that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work, even ones in which they themselves were not personally involved, are appropriately investigated, resolved, and the resolution documented in the literature.

Responsibility of the Corresponding Author. For every submission, one author has to be assigned as the Corresponding Author. The responsibility of the Corresponding Author is as follows (see McNutta et al., 2018):

  1. To ensure that all listed authors have approved the manuscript before submission.
  2. To ensure that all authors receive the submission and all substantive correspondence with editors, as well as the full reviews
  3. To verify that all data, materials, and code, even those developed or provided by other authors, comply with the transparency and reproducibility standards of both the field and the journal (see the Journal’s implementation of the Transparency and Openness Promotion (TOP) Guidelines).

Acknowledging Non-Author Contributions. Any personal, non-financial support to the published work that does not qualify an individual for authorship should be listed in the Acknowledgements statement of the paper (provided that the individual agrees to be acknowledged).

Originality of Submissions and Related Publications of the Authors

The Journal publishes original research that has not been previously published elsewhere. The authors' previous or concurrent publications based on the same or closely related research must be properly acknowledged and cited. The manuscript should make clear how it represents a novel contribution to warrant consideration for publication in the Journal. Redundant or piecemeal publications are not allowed. Note: Replication studies are welcomed, provided they are clearly identifiable as such.

Authors must acknowledge and properly cite all sources. The Journal uses software to screen submitted content for originality (plagiarism check).

Preprint Policy

Prior to submitting their article and prior to acceptance and publication in the Journal, authors may make their submissions available as preprints on personal or public websites. Preprints are versions of the submitted article before peer review (or other quality assurance procedures as part of the publication process). Published conference papers, presentations, posters, etc., are considered preprints, provided they are not published in a peer-reviewed conference proceeding.

Transparency and Reproducibility

The Journal takes transparent, reproducible, and open science very seriously. Therefore, the Journal is committed to implementing the Transparency and Openness Promotion (TOP) Guidelines. Upon submission, authors will have to confirm that they have included appropriate statements (e.g., about the availability of data, code, materials, preregistrations, and other documents) within their papers, and all papers will be checked for their adherence to the TOP standards.

Application of Reporting Guidelines. According to the TOP standards adopted by the Journal, adherence to community standards for disclosing key aspects of the research design and data analysis is required. When reporting clinical trials, systematic reviews, study protocols, or case reports, authors are required to follow the EQUATOR Reporting Guidelines. For example, reporting of clinical trials and intervention studies requires the application of the CONSORT statement. For reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses, authors should use the PRISMA guidelines, and for study protocols of clinical trials, the SPIRIT guidelines. Submission of other empirical research should follow the JARS–Quant guidelines for quantitative, JARS–Qual for qualitative, and JARS–Mixed for mixed methods research. Adherence to these guidelines is a prerequisite for submission and publication.

Preregistration. The Journal recommends preregistration of all empirical studies in a publicly accessible study registry before conducting the study (i.e., prospectively). Embargos that keep a registration private for a certain time may be applied. Preregistration requires a public file archive that guarantees the preservation of a time-stamped, immutable (including read-only for authors) version of the study protocol, i.e., a detailed description of the planned study, including a study design and analysis plan. Simply uploading a study protocol to a public file system, e.g., an OSF project, is not sufficient to be considered a preregistration! If the registry does not require the use of its own template, we recommend using the PRP-QUANT template, as it provides an easy way to prepare such a pre-registration, aligned with a standard article formatted in APA Style.

Clinical Trial Registration. A clinical trial is a specific kind of empirical study. In accordance with the definition of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) a "clinical trial" is defined as "any research project that prospectively assigns people or a group of people to an intervention, with or without concurrent comparison or control groups, to study the relationship between a health-related intervention and a health outcome" (ICMJE 2023, Clinical Trials). The Journal strongly recommends preregistration of all clinical trials, preferably with a specialized clinical trials registry. For a list of such registers, see the ICMJE guidelines or the list of primary registries in the WHO registry network.

According to the Journal’s TOP standards, it is mandatory for all empirical studies (including clinical trials and non-trial designs) to report whether the study was preregistered. If a preregistration exists, authors are required to provide full information about the preregistration (e.g., registry, registration numbers, date of registration, DOI or URL of the study protocol). Studies should be registered prospectively. In case of retrospective registration, authors are required to provide information about the reasons for retrospective registration.

Competing Interests and Financial or Non-Financial Support

Competing Interests of the Authors. Research (study design, research methods, analysis, interpretation, and reporting of results) may be influenced by the financial or non-financial interests and relationships of the authors. Therefore, authors must disclose any potential competing interests that editors, reviewers, or readers may reasonably wish to know about when evaluating the research. The authors' relationship to the journal, such as when editors publish their own research in their journal, should also be disclosed, as should any editorial role (if any) the authors had during the editorial process of their article.

  • If no competing interests are declared, the authors agree to the following statement: "The authors have declared that no competing interests exist."

Funding/Financial Support. To recognize the contributions of funders, increase research transparency, and disclose possible competing interests of authors, all sources of research funding must be disclosed. Specifically, authors must disclose if research funders or sponsors interfered in any way with the research process (study design, methods, analysis, interpretation, reporting, etc.).

  • If there are no funding/financial sources reported, the authors agree to the following statement: "The authors have no funding to report."

Acknowledgements/Non-Financial Support. Any non-financial support from other people or organizations that do not qualify for authorship but have made a valuable contribution to the research or the preparation of the article should be acknowledged. For example, such support may have consisted of statistical or mathematical advice, software training, help with graphics, assistance with data collection, proofreading, etc. Supporters may be named personally or in an anonymized form (whichever the supporters prefer).

  • If there are no such sources reported, the authors agree to the following statement: "The authors have no additional (i.e., non-financial) support to report."

Use of Artificial Intelligence. We recognize that researchers increasingly employ generative artificial intelligence (AI) tools during various stages of research, analysis, and manuscript preparation. To maintain transparency and uphold standards of scholarly accountability, authors must clearly disclose any use of AI technologies. Generative AI systems cannot be listed as authors, as they are not capable of taking responsibility for the work.

Specifically, authors who incorporate AI into their work must:

  • Clearly indicate if an AI tool was used as part of the writing process, describing the role the AI tool played in the manuscript’s development and specifying the AI tool version. The use of AI to edit or translate text is permissible, provided it is disclosed. This disclosure should be included in the manuscript’s acknowledgments section. However, the Use of AI to write original text is not allowed, even if disclosed.
  • When AI tools are utilized for analytical tasks, such as data analysis, text mining, or other computational analyses, authors must describe what the tool was used for, including the specific AI tool name and version. This disclosure should be included in the manuscript’s acknowledgments section.
  • Ensure that all content derived from AI-generated analyses or outputs appropriately cites the original source of ideas, data, methods, or materials. Authors must adhere strictly to ethical standards regarding attribution and intellectual property.

Research Involving Human and Animal Participants; Research Involving Children, Adolescents, and Vulnerable or Incapacitated Study Participants

If a study involves human or animal participants, the authors must include an ethics statement in the manuscript, detailing the following information:

  • Confirmation that the research adheres to recognized ethical standards (e.g., APA’s Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct, Declaration of Helsinki). The respective standards must be properly cited.
  • Confirmation that guidelines were followed as required by the affiliated institution(s) with which any of the authors are or were affiliated (this pertains to all authors). If these guidelines require approval by an Institutional Review Board (IRB) or by an equivalent ethics committee, confirmation that the study was approved by the respective committee (name of the awarding body and a reference number if available). If the study has been granted exemption from requiring ethics approval, name the committee that granted the exemption and clearly state the reasons.
  • Only in the case of human participants: Confirmation that participants were instructed correctly and that they gave informed consent. Authors are responsible for ensuring that the anonymity of human research participants is carefully protected. Authors are also responsible for following the guidelines for experimental studies with human participants as required by their institution(s).
  • Only in the case of vulnerable populations: If the study examined vulnerable populations (individuals who are unable to give full informed consent themselves), the authors must confirm in the manuscript that written informed consent was obtained from the parents or guardians. The age of majority for this purpose is determined by the country in which the study participants live (usually between 16 and 18 years of age). If no written informed consent was obtained, but only oral informed consent, the authors must indicate and justify this in the manuscript.

Example 1

This research was approved by the Research Ethics Board at XXX University (File 2022-456). All subjects gave written informed consent in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki (2013).

Example 2

At the time these studies were conducted, our faculty did not have an Internal Review Board to grant ethical approval. However, we certify that the research adhered to the ethical principles outlined in the American Psychological Association (APA, 2017) guidelines. Written informed consent was obtained by asking participants to continue only if they were willing to participate and had read and understood the instructions and information provided. Participants were told that participation was voluntary and that they had the right to withdraw from the study at any time. Upon completion of the study, participants were fully debriefed. The data were anonymized and treated confidentially.

Example 3

Our research did not rely on personal identifying data, which forms an exception from ethics approval under the Norwegian Law (Norsk Senter for Forskningsdata). Therefore, no ethics approval has been required. Written informed consent was obtained from all participants.

Example 4

The study does not require ethical review because it involves the observation of people in public places, where the researcher has made no intervention. The individuals have no reasonable expectation of privacy, and the dissemination of research results does not allow for the identification of specific individuals.

3. Reviewer Policies

Competing Interests of Reviewers

Reviewers are asked to disclose any potential competing interests before agreeing to accept an invitation to review. Sources of possible competing interests are manifold, including personal, social, professional, or financial (e.g., mentor-mentee relationships, research collaborations, working at the same institution, business relationships, competition for funding, etc.). Additionally, political, religious, or ideological reasons might impair an unbiased evaluation of the research. Even if author names are blinded, reviewers may still be able to identify or guess who conducted the research, which could give rise to competing interests.

Confidentiality and Trustworthiness

Reviewers must treat any document and information obtained through peer review as strictly confidential and must respect the intellectual property of the authors.

Use of Artificial Intelligence

The use of AI tools during the peer review process is prohibited. Peer review is founded upon responsibilities that can only be fulfilled by human reviewers. 

Please note that the manuscript under review represents a confidential document. Thus, uploading another researcher's work may constitute a violation of authors' rights. Similar concerns may arise when uploading the review itself, for instance, to improve language quality, as the review may contain references to the authors' work.

Please note that authors may utilize AI tools for purposes such as text editing or translation. However, they are required to disclose this usage in the paper’s acknowledgments (see "Use of Artificial Intelligence" in the Author Policies Section).

Principles of Good Practice

  • Reliability. Reviewers should accept a reviewing request only if they are able to complete the review within the deadline set by the journal. If they need more time, this should be clarified with the journal editors before agreeing to conduct the review.
  • Competency. Reviewers should accept a reviewing request only if they have the required expertise. If they think that they are qualified to review only some (substantial) parts of the paper, this should be clearly indicated in the review.
  • Respectfulness. Reviewer comments should be respectful, non-offensive, and focused on content.

4. Editor Policies

Competing Interests of the Editors

Editors should not handle articles where financial or non-financial competing interests might influence their actions and decisions. Editors can publish articles in their own journal but should not be involved or intervene in any form in the peer review and decision-making process. If an editor of the Journal is an author or co-author of a submitted paper (that is subject to peer review), then the editor-in-chief must ensure that the paper is assigned to a guest handling editor. Additionally, the author/co-author's affiliation with the journal and their involvement or lack thereof should be disclosed in the declaration of competing interests.

Confidentiality and Trustworthiness

Editors must treat all documents and information submitted to the journal as strictly confidential and must respect the intellectual property of authors and reviewers.