Preamble and Scope

The Journal of Women’s & Gender Studies is immanently committed to upholding the integrity of the academic records. We solemnly recognise that in the field of Women’s and Gender Studies, ethical conduct extends beyond data management to include the respectful and non-exploitative treatment of subjects, particularly those from the minority groups.

 

The following Ethical statement outlines the code of conduct for all parties involved during the Publication process: Editors, Authors, Reviewers, and the Publisher. Our policies are modelled upon the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) Core Practices and the principles of feminist research ethics.

 

Ethical Oversight  

1. All decisions to accept or reject a manuscript are based solely on its originality, clarity, scope and relevance to the Journal’s vision, in accordance with the WSDC’s broader mission statement.

2. The Editor-in-Chief reserves the sole authority over the editorial content and timing of the publication. Any form of commercial revenue or grants has no bearing on editorial decisions.

3. The submitted manuscripts are evaluated without any regards to the authors’ race, caste, gender, creed, sexual orientation, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political affiliation. In addition, our Editors strive to ensure that the board of Reviewers reflect a diverse and nuanced expertise over the concerns of Women and Gender, thus, avoiding any possibility of hegemonic bias in the review process.

 

Duties of Editors

1. The Journal strictly follows a double blind-peer review system. Editors are under the strict onus to protect the anonymity of both authors and reviewers.

2. Editors are not to disclose information about a submitted manuscript to anyone other than the corresponding author(s), reviewer(s), potential reviewer(s), and the Publisher.

3. Editors must recuse themselves from considering manuscripts in which they have a conflict of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or personal relationships with authors or institutions. In such cases, a Co-Editor or a different Associate Editor will oversee the review.

4. Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in an Editor's own research without the express, written consent of the author.

 

Ethical Duties of Reviewers

1. Reviews should be objective and constructive. Hostile, inflammatory, or libellous language is strictly prohibited.

2. Reviewers are encouraged to be mindful of unconscious biases related to gender, personal practices, the Global North/South divide or the local geographical distinctions that may affect their assessment of the work’s scope.

3. Manuscripts received for review are confidential documents. They must not be shown to or discussed with Others (including students or other academicians) without prior authorisation from the Editor/Publisher.

4. Reviewers are strictly prohibited from uploading manuscripts to Generative AI tools (e.g., ChatGPT) for the purpose of generating summaries or reviews

5. Reviewers must disclose any conflicts of interest (financial, institutional, collaborative, or other) before agreeing to a review. If a conflict becomes apparent during the review, the reviewer must notify the Editor immediately.

 

Ethical Duties of Authors

1. Authorship should be limited to those who have made a significant contribution to: (a) conception and design, or acquisition of data, analysis and/or interpretation of data; (b) drafting the article or revising it critically for important intellectual content, and (c) final approval of the version to be published.

2. The inclusion of "guest" authors (who made no contributions) or the exclusion of "ghost" authors (who made significant contributions) is unacceptable.

3. The authors should agree on the order of authorship prior to the submission(s).

4. Authors must not publish manuscripts emphasising what may essentially be the same research in more than one Journal.

5. Publishing a translation of a paper previously published in another language is acceptable only if the Editors of both journals grant approval and the original source is fully acknowledged.

6. Use of AI tools (e.g., ChatGPT, LLMs) for drafting, editing, or data processing is strictly prohibited. Further, AI tools also cannot be listed as authors as they cannot assume responsibility for any original work. 

​

Plagiarism and Academic Misconduct

Definition: Copying text verbatim from another source without quotation marks or attribution, taking the core idea or structure of another’s argument and presenting it as one’s own (paraphrasing without credit), and reusing significant portions of one’s own previous work without citation (text-recycling), are all accounts of plagiarism, and are strictly unacceptable.

 

All submissions are screened via iThenticate throughout the editorial process. In the cases plagiarism is found, following may be the outcomes:

• Minor Overlap: The author(s) will be asked to revise and cite correctly.

• Significant Plagiarism: The manuscript will be rejected immediately.

• Post-Publication Discovery: If plagiarism is proven after publication, the article will be formally Retracted, and a notice will be published explaining the reasons. The author’s institution may be notified.

 

 

Research Involving Vulnerable Communities, Consent, and Positionality

Reflecting the specific nature of Women’s & Gender Studies, the Journal enforces strict ethical standards regarding power dynamics, consent, and the representation of any minority groups.

1. For research involving survivors of trauma, domestic violence, refugees, or minors, authors must demonstrate that Consent was informed, voluntary, and ongoing.

2. Authors must detail how they mitigated the risk of coercion, particularly when the researcher holds a position of power (e.g., teacher-student, doctor-patient, etc.).

3. Where the disclosure of identity could lead to legal, social, or physical harm (e.g., LGBTQIA+ subjects in traditional or repressive geographies), authors must use strict pseudonymisation and remove all identifying metadata.

4. Authors must confirm that data handling complies with the relevant regional privacy frameworks.

5. We strongly encourage authors to include alongside their manuscripts a "Statement of Positionality”, acknowledging the researcher's own social location (race, gender, class, nationality) and how it may have influenced data collection, interaction with participants, and interpretation of results.

6. Research should aim to be non-extractive. Authors are encouraged to discuss how the research benefits the community studied, rather than treating participants solely as data sources.

 

Procedures for Allegations of Misconduct 

The Journal takes all allegations of misconduct seriously both pre-publication and post-publication. Allegations can be raised by reviewers, readers, or librarians, and the Editor(s) hold the onus to protect the identity of the whistleblower wherever possible. The Editor(s) will follow the COPE flowcharts for investigating any allegations. This involves:

1. Investigations

• Gathering evidence.

• Contacting the author for an explanation.

• If the explanation is unsatisfactory, contacting the author’s institution or funding body.

2. Corrections and Retractions:

• Erratum: For production errors.

• Corrigendum: For author errors that do not compromise the validity of the results.

• Retraction: For serious misconduct (fabricated data, plagiarism) or errors that invalidate the conclusions. Retracted papers remain online but will be watermarked as “RETRACTED."

 

Data Availability and Reproducibility

1. Authors are encouraged to make their datasets available in public repositories (e.g., OSF, Figshare) whilst ensuring that all personal identifiers are removed to protect participant privacy.

2. If requested, authors must be prepared to provide raw data to the Editorial Board for verification purposes during the review process