POLICIES | SaferSocietyJournal

Safer Society Publication Policies

Safer Society participates in the Public Knowledge Project (PKP) Preservation network (PN), which uses the LOCKSS open source code to digitally preserve content. Published articles remain the intellectual property of the authors, with first publication rights granted to the journal. All content is published under creative commons, attribution, non-commercial rights.

The journal adheres to ethical standards of open-access publication; it never charges review fees. Further, in an effort to ensure that researchers and practitioners in low-income countries have an equal opportunity to be published, read, and cited, Safer Society does not charge author publication or reader access fees.

Safer Society tries to be fully transparent in all of policies and procedures. Further details about the journal's policies are provided below.

Authorship and Contribution

Before writing a research manuscript, carefully consider who should be included as co-authors.

Issues in disaster risk management are often interdisciplinary. Safer Society publishes interdisciplinary research and encourages researchers to proactively build diverse research teams. When researchers proactively invite thoughtful contribution from diverse perspectives, insights are often enhanced. Lead authors should carefully consider who to invite to be part of research design, analysis and the manuscript writing processes. Potential co-authors may even include active and insightful field staff and community members.

At the same time, authorship cannot, and should not, be extended to every person who contributes, however small, to a research endeavor. When a single person has developed an informed opinion or carried out research independently, a single author manuscript is wholly appropriate.

Authorship of a published journal article is an important signifier of both contribution and accountability. Authors must have truly shared the responsibility of authorship. In Safer Society, only those who meet EACH of the four authorship requirements below should be considered for inclusion as authors:

Substantially contribute to the conception or design of the work; the acquisition of data; and the analysis or interpretation of data; and
Substantially contribute intellectual content to the drafting and revision of the manuscript; and
Give final approval for the version to be published; and
Agree to be accountable for all aspects of the work, including being able to defend the work and answer questions about the accuracy or integrity of any part of it.

Authors should consider using an acknowledgement to thank people, groups, and organizations that have contributed to the research and writing of a manuscript, but do not fully meet the authorship requirements above. To support authors in developing ethical authorship lists, please consider our authorship scenarios.

To ensure authorship integrity, Safer Society also has the following procedures:

Authors will submit a brief authorship statement explaining the role of each author in the development of the manuscript.
If the number of authors exceeds four, the authorship statement may be printed with accepted manuscripts. If the number of authors is three or less, the editorial staff may, or may not, include an authorship statement. Authors may elect to include such a statement even if the editorial staff does not require it.
After manuscript submission, authors cannot be added or deleted without a formal and justified request. The Editor-in-Chief will review this request and contact all current and proposed authors before deciding to accept or decline authorship change.

Organization Balancing

Organizational Balancing

Safer Society encourages researchers, policy makers, practitioners, academics, and students working on disaster risk management in South Asia to submit manuscripts. To insure diversity of perspective and a robust conversation, Safer Society will balance the organizational affiliations of authors.

Advertising and Sponsorship Policy

Advertising and Sponsorship

To support our open-access model where content if free to all and authors are not required to submit their work, Safer Society may seek grants and private sector sponsors. To maintain journalistic independence and ensure sponsors do not influence the content or layout of the journal, the following policies will be applied:

Safer Society sponsors may have their logo included on the Journal’s sponsorship web page and on the back cover of printed copies.
Sponsors can receive 10 copies of the print bulletin for free each year; subsequent print copies may be purchased at cost.
Paid staff of sponsoring organizations cannot be on the editorial board or serve as peer reviewers.
Sponsors and advertisers will never be shown manuscripts or other content prior to publication.
Safer Society staff has full and final approval of any sponsors and content of all advertisements.
The sponsor may not request specific placement or size requirements for any use of their logo; they may refuse use of their logo at any time.
Any "Pop-up" or "banner" ads used on the Safer Society website or digital publication shall appear on a random, rotating basis. The advertiser will have no control or input over the pages where their ads appear.

Digital Preservation Policy

Digtal Preservation

Digital preservation is an effort to ensure digital materials is accessible, backed up, and widely distributed on servers so that readers and authors will have access to the material long into the future. Digital preservation includes a commitment to migrating digital files to new formats as technology changes. Safer Society preserves content through two means:

Safer Society participates in the Public Knowledge Project (PKP) Preservation network (PN), which uses the LOCKSS open source code to store multiple digital copies of Safer Society peer-reviewed material in geographically distributed nodes.
NSET, the host organization of Safer Society, stores a digital copy of all peer-reviewed published material on its local server for a minimum of 25 years. It stores, at minimum, a single copy of printed, peer-reviewed material at its headquarters in Kathmandu, Nepal for the same period of time.

Peer Review Process Integrity

The scholarly peer-review process was conceived as a way to support rigorous conversation among a community of practice by having authors submit to anonymous critique prior to publication. Yet, this process, like all processes, is fallible. Authors, reviewers, and editors can all attempt to manipulate the peer review process to favor the work of friends or to disfavor those with whom they compete.

Safer Society uses a double-blind peer review process to reduce the opportunity for manipulation of the review process. In a double-blind review, neither reviewer nor author knows each others' identity. Such a process helps reduce overt reviewer bias and the author's ability to manipulate a review in their favor. To maintain the integrity of the double-blind review, authors and reviewers are asked to take reasonable steps to prevent their identities from being revealed:

As an author, please deleted your and your co-authors' names from the manuscript text. Replace author names with "Author" in the in-text citations, references and footnotes. Remove article titles you or your co-authors wrote and replace with "Title".

As an author or reviewer, please remove your identifying information from document properties on any file uploaded during peer review by taking the following steps:

Microsoft Word for Windows:

Go to File
Select Info
Click on Check for Issues
Click on Inspect Document
In the Document Inspector dialog box, select the check boxes to choose the type of hidden content that you want inspected.
Click Remove All
Click Close
Save the document

Microsoft Word for MacOS:

Go to Tools
Click Protect Document
Select Remove personal information for this file on save
Click OK and save the file

PDF:

Go to File
Select Properties
Remove any name in the author field
Click OK
Save the document

Furthermore, to guard against peer-review process manipulation, Safer Society adheres to the following good practices in publishing:

Authors cannot recommend or select potential reviewers.
Only reviewers that are not, or have not in the last three years, been affiliated with the organization of the manuscript's lead author(s) will be invited to review.
Authors will sign a form indicating their approval of the accepted manuscript, including the list of authors.

Conflict of Interest/Competing Interests

Before publication, the lead author will declare all competing interests or perceived competing interests of the lead and other authors.

Safer Society will use the COPE flowchart if a reviewer or reader suspects an undisclosed Conflict of Interest.

If the omission appears to be intentional and/or deceptive, the Editor-in-Chief may use the Complaints and Appeals process. That review may consider additional sanctions beyond publishing a correction to the competing interest statement, such as article retraction and notification of the incident to the author’s organization.

Complaints and Appeals

Safer Society follows a formal complaint and appeals process. Any Safer Society affiliate – author, reader, reviewer, board member, or editorial staff member – may make a complaint of bias, including a whistle-blower complaint where the identity of the complainant remains anonymous. This formal complaint and appeal process may be used to raise concerns about peer review manipulation, unethical research, plagiarism or fabrication, or reviewer/editor bias, as well as other concerns related to the management of the publication.

The procedure for addressing complaints related to unethical behavior by author or reviewer (e.g. plagiarism, fabrication, manipulation of the peer-review process) or whistle-blower claims regarding potential scientific unsoundness of published articles is as follows:

Complainant submits a written complaint to the Editor-in-Chief and Managing Editor, along with any documentation that helps to substantiate the complaint.
Editor-in-Chief acknowledges receipt within 2 weeks.
The Editor-in-Chief follows appropriate COPE guidelines in investigating complaint, up until finalizing decision:
Before concluding the investigation and notifying the complainant and relevant parties of a final action, the Editor-in-Chief informs the entire Advisory Board of the complaint, investigation, findings, and proposed corrective action (if any).
The Advisory Board is given 3 weeks to respond and comment.
The Editor-in-Chief responds to all parties, including Advisory Board, with final decision.
When the Editor-in-Chief believes that requesting or sharing information about potential research or publication misconduct may be relevant, the Editor-in-Chief shall follow the COPE Guidelines regarding the Sharing of Information Among Editors-in-Chief Regarding Possible Misconduct.

The general procedure for addressing complaints related to reviewer or editorial staff bias or failure to follow Safer Society procedures is as follows:

Complainant submits a written complaint to the Advisory Board Chair, with copies to the Editor-in-Chief and Managing Editor. The complainant should also submit any documentation that helps to substantiate the complaint.
Advisory Board Chair acknowledges receipt of complaint within 2 weeks.
Advisory Board Chair gathers any additional materials, including allowing parties implicated in the complaint to submit a written response, within 6 weeks.
Advisory Board Chair forms a review panel of three advisory board members and sends complaint and supporting/responding materials to the review panel.
Advisory Board review panel considers materials within 4 weeks.
During the review period, the Chair provides a means by which panel can seek clarification from complainant and respondents. The Chair ensures both complainant and respondent are afforded the same opportunity to provide clarification.
Advisory Board panel members vote on merits of the complaint. (The Chair is ex officio and does not vote.)
The Advisory Board Chair will determine an appropriate sanction or other form of redressing the complaint, consulting with Advisory Board review panel as needed.

The procedure may be adjusted to meet the needs of specific cases, in which case complainant and other parties will be notified.

Intellectual Property

Intellectal Property

Safer Society is an open-access, peer-reviewed, not-for-profit journal. All published content in the Safer Society is freely accessible to the public without subscription or fees. In its commitment to avoid predatory publishing, Safer Society does not charge authors a peer review fee. Furthermore, to ensure all authors have equal access to the publication, Safer Society does not charge article publication fees.

Authors retain the ability to share their manuscripts on their own websites and repositories. However, Safer Society requires that any pre-publication or post-publication version of the article include a full citation referencing Safer Society, volume and issue number (or statement of submission or forthcoming) when posting or sharing.

The following Intellectual Property statement will be included on the inside cover of the Safer Society publications and at the end of each free-standing article:

Copyright for articles published in Safer Society is retained by the authors, with first publication rights granted to Safer Society. By virtue of their appearance in this open-access journal, articles are free to use, with proper attribution, in educational and other non-commercial settings.

Data and Reproducibility

Safer Society encourages all authors to make their data available publicly via a public website or by direct request to the lead author. Where the data used in analysis includes information about individuals, identifying information should be removed or replaced in a way that conceals individual identities but does not mislead viewers.

Allegations of Misconduct

All allegations of misconduct, whether pre- or post-publication and whether presented by an identified or anonymous complainant, will be addressed through Safer Society’s Complaints and Appeals process.

Post-Publication Discussions and Corrections

Post-Publication Discssions and Corrections

Safer Society's Editorial Board will consider retracting publication under the following circumstances:

Clear evidence that the findings are unreliable due to misconduct or unintentional error
Clear evidence that the manuscript, or substantial portions of it, has been previously published elsewhere without proper citation
Clear evidence of plagiarism or fabrication
A complaint and finding of unethical research

Safer Society Editorial Board will consider publishing an expression of concern under the following circumstances:

Inconclusive evidence of unreliable findings due to misconduct or unintentional error
Evidence of misconduct and the authors’ organization is unwilling to investigate the case or is unable/unlikely to produce a fair, impartial and conclusive investigation
An serious investigation is underway but may take considerable time

Safer Society Editorial Board will consider issuing a correction under the following circumstances:

A small portion of a published article is likely to be misleading, especially due to honest error or typographical mistake
The authorship list or acknowledgements list needs to be revised to more accurately reflect contributions in line with the Journal Authorship and Contributors Policy

In all instances, retractions, corrections, and statements of concern will clearly reference, and where possible provide a digital link for, the related article or content. These corrections will be posted in a timely manner on Safer Society's website and included in the next online and/or print publication issue.

Ethical Oversight

To help support ethical research and publishing, Safer Society asks that authors adhere to the following guidelines:

Consent to publish. All lead and co-authors should approve of the final version of the manuscript prior to proofing.

Ethical research on human participants and vulnerable populations. All researchers that systematically collect data about human behavior (demographics, attitudes, knowledge, behaviors, or actions) as part of their research should be familiar with and apply the protocols for protecting human subjects in their country. Where Ethical Review Boards exist, researchers should submit their research protocols for review and approval. Nepalese researchers should apply relevant standards of the National Ethical Guidelines for Health Research in Nepal and Standard Operating Procedures.

In particular, researchers should follow research practices that:

Respect the autonomy of the participant
Benefit the participants directly or indirectly and ensure their research does not harm participants
Treat people with similar circumstances alike
Seek informed consent from participants

Researchers that are systematically collecting data from individuals should give each research participant an informational statement (in written or oral form). This form should explain what the research is, how the collected data will be used, state that participation is voluntary, state that withdrawal is possible at any time, explain how personal information will be kept confidential, and provide the name and contact information of someone they can contact if they have questions or concerns. See two examples here: informational statement 1 and information statement 2.

Protection of confidential information. When manuscripts report systematic data on human behavior, authors should take care to conceal personal information about the participants in the research. Authors are encouraged to use pseudonyms, fictitious place names, and similar methods to obscure individual identities in case studies and direct quotes; such methods should be described in the manuscript. When writing about the actions of public official acting in their official capacity, authors should use professional titles (e.g. compliance engineer, deputy minister) rather than the person's name.

The use of personal names is permitted only when the researcher a) obtains written consent from the individual to use their name in a journal article, and b) that consent followed the authors' national guidelines for ethical informed consent.

While many countries do not have specific ethics guidelines for disaster risk management research, biomedical guidelines provide some common considerations for any research involving human subjects. Authors are encouraged to review these guidelines, such as Nepal’s National Ethical Guidelines for Health Research in Nepal and Standard Operating Procedures or India’s National Ethical Guidelines for Biomedical and Health Research involving Human Subjects.

Prior to systematically collect data about human, Safer Society encourages all researchers to participate in training on how to ethically conduct research with human subjects. Ethical conduct is especially important when researching vulnerable populations such as children, those who have disabilities, minorities, and people with limited education. Researchers are encouraged to access resources and online training courses such as:

Converge Training Modules https://converge.colorado.edu/resources
FHI 360’s Research Ethics Training Curriculum https://www.fhi360.org/sites/all//libraries/webpages/fhi-retc2/index.html

Important Note: Authors of research articles should be sure to describe the steps they took in their research to ensure ethical data collection and storage in the methods sections of their manuscripts.

Journal Management

Safer Society board members and staff will take part in training(s) to ensure they understand ethical publishing, peer-review, and journal management.

Editor-in-Chief and Managing Editor:

Read and follow the Principle of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing
Complete all ten e-Learning modules of the Committee on Publication Ethics

Editorial Review Board and Other Invited Reviewers:

Read the COPE ethical guidelines for peer reviewers