Editorial policy and ethical statement 

Eon is a peer - reviewed scholarly journal open to reflections on the transformative potential of our times through the lenses of philosophy, literature, cultural studies, theology, anthropology, and communication studies. We aim to contribute to the dissemination of relevant knowledge and to build bridges between cultures and generations of researchers. 
The main objective of Eon is to publish articles of a high scholarly standard. Decisions to publish or reject articles are made in line with editorial policy, which involves the considerations of legal and ethical issues. The journal reserves the right to reject submissions in cases of slander, the proliferation of xenophobia, copyright infringement, multiple publications of an article and plagiarism. Articles are evaluated in a double-blind peer review procedure and are scanned with a plagiarism software: 
Plagiarisma.net 

Eon's editorial policy and ethical standards follow the international editorial rules and recommendations of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and publishing Ethics Resourse Kit for editors (PERK). Taking into account the principles of transparency and good practice, all parties involved in the editorial process have a number of duties: 


Editors and publisher

Reviewers

Authors/Authorship

Publication decisions and editorial independence

The editor-in-chief of a peer-reviewed journal is solely and independently responsible for deciding which of the articles submitted to the journal will be published.

The selection of manuscripts is based on the following criteria: originality, clarity, scholarly quality and ethical rigor, as well as thematic framing. 

Decisions to publish or reject articles are made in line with editorial policy, which involves the considerations of legal and ethical issues.

The journal reserves the right to reject submissions in cases of slander, the proliferation of xenophobia, copyright infringement, multiple publications of an article and plagiarism. 

The editor-in-chief has full authority over the entire editorial content of the journal and the timing of the publication of that content.

Objective evaluation

The double-blind peer review process strictly adheres to scholarly criteria of quality assessment and seeks to avoid discrimination (on the ground of race, ethnicity, religion, gender, citizenship, sexual orientation or political ideology).

Confidentiality

The editor-in-chief and the editors involved in the evaluation process are obliged not to disclose the names of the authors who submitted texts for publication or the names of the scholarly experts involved in the peer review of these texts.

Until their publication, the editors keep complete confidentiality about materials submitted.

Editors are not allowed to disclose information about articles submitted for publication, other than to authors, reviewers, and the publisher, as appropriate.

Disclosures and conflicts of interest

Members of the editorial board may not use, in their own papers, ideas from rejected articles. If, however, an editor wishes to use such information, he or she must seek the written consent of the author(s).

Editors are required to maintain strict confidentiality about the ideas and information presented in the evaluated articles, and it is forbidden to use them for personal purposes.

Editors must reject articles that generate a conflict of interest (competitive, collaborative, or other relationship with authors, companies, or institutions related to the paper).

Editors should ask authors, before or after publication, if they are or have been in a situation that has created a conflict of interest.

In the case of a conflict of interest, the author must make a public apology.

In connection with quoting articles from his own journal

The editor-in-chief and editors are prohibited from obliging authors to cite articles from the journal they represent as an implicit or explicit condition for the publication of the submitted article.

Recommendations concerning further reading and references, when made, are intended to improve the published material.

Involvement and cooperation in ethical investigations

The editor-in-chief and the editors are obliged to take the most correct measures and decisions in cases where ethical issues are reported in connection with the published articles.

The author will be contacted, the case will be analyzed and the investigations will also include a communication with institutions, if necessary, to elucidate the case.

If the complaint is confirmed, a note acknowledging the error will be published.

If, after several years from publication, a complaint is made about an article, it  will be treated in analogy to previous articles.

Contribution to editorial decisions

The reviewer evaluates the article and prepares the report that he sends to the publisher, together with his decision.

The reviewer takes part in the evaluation of the article, assists the editor and supports the author, if necessary, in order to improve the article.

Peer review is the essential component underlying the scholarly evaluation of submissions.

Promptness and fairness

Reviewers who consider themselves  insufficiently qualified to review an article are obliged to withdraw from the evaluation process of that material.

Referees  who are unable to respond promptly to the request for peer review should notify the editor or the editor-in-chief to be replaced by other experts in the field.

Confidentiality

Any material received for evaluation must be treated with the utmost confidentiality. The article must not be presented or discussed with persons other than those authorized by the responsible publisher.

Standards and objectivity 

Evaluations must be made objectively. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate. Reviews must express referee's opinions about the text only, and must be clearly written and founded on, sound scholarly arguments.

Identification of relevant works and sources

Reviewers should, if possible, identify relevant works that have not been cited by the author and recommend them to him.

Comments and arguments must be accompanied by relevant citations.

Any similarity between the material analyzed and another published paper must be reported to the editor-in-chief.

Disclosure and conflict of interest

Information or ideas obtained from the evaluation process should not be used by the reviewer for personal gain.

Reviewers should only give a scholarly assessment of the article and should not look at whether or not the author is in a conflict of interest.

Reporting standards

In the article, the authors must present the information accurately.

Sufficient details and references must be included in the content of the article.

Fraud and false statements constitute unethical behaviour and are unacceptable.

Data access and storage

Authors may be asked by the journal for the raw data of their investigations for editorial analysis.

Public access to these data must also be allowed after the publication of the article.

Multiple, redundant
or simultaneous publications

The author(s) should not propose for publication an article that replicates the same research or research outcomes as already published in another journal.

Sending the same material to multiple journals is considered unethical behaviour.

Recognition of sources

The authors must cite accurately the publications they drew on for their research.

Privately obtained information, such as from conversations, correspondences or discussions with third parties, must not be used without the written permission of the source.

The legal responsibility for plagiarism belongs entirely to the author(s)

Plagiarism is unacceptable and will result in the immediate rejection of any article.

Fundamental errors in published works

If the author discovers a significant error in the published work, he or she has the obligation to promptly inform the editors in order to correct or withdraw the material.

Disclosures and conflicts of interest

All authors must specify in their work any conflict of interest (for example: employment, consultancy, paid expert testimony, patent applications or registrations, grants or other funding).


Authorship

Authorship should be limited to those who have made a significant contribution to the design, elaboration and interpretation of the study.

If several authors have significantly contributed to the work, then they must be mentioned as co-authors or, if they had a smaller contribution, as collaborators.

The author must ensure that all co-authors are listed in the paper and that they have seen and approved of the final version of the paper and have accepted its submission for publication.