Editor pem
In deciding which of the articles submitted to Hume Studies shall be published, the editor(s) shall
• ensure that the sole factor governing editorial decisions shall be the mandate of Hume Studies to “publish important original work bearing on the thought of David Hume” that “meets the highest standards of scholarship, and demonstrates mastery of the pertinent secondary literature” (https://www.humesociety.org/ojs/index.php/hs/index)
• ensure that, consistently with this mandate, Hume Studies is receptive to work engaging a variety of topics, philosophical, historical, political, economic, and literary, and employing a variety of methods, and approaches
• ensure that their decisions are not affected by the origins of the manuscript, including the reputation, nationality, ethnicity, political beliefs, race, or religion of the author(s)
• ensure that no policies create an exclusionary environment for anyone wanting to engage with the journal.
The editor(s) shall ensure that the peer review process is fair, unbiased, free from conflict of interest as defined below, and timely.
The editor(s) shall use the use the journal’s standard electronic submission system for all journal communications.
Submissions shall be double-blind peer reviewed by at least two external and independent reviewers. Where necessary the editor(s) shall seek additional opinions.
Where reviewers call for substantive revisions, the resubmission shall whenever possible be returned to the same reviewers for reassessment.
The editor(s) shall review all disclosures of potential conflicts of interest and suggestions for self-citation made by reviewers in order to determine whether there is any potential for bias.
The editor(s) must not attempt to influence journal rankings by artificially increasing any journal metric. In particular, the editor(s) shall not require that references to Hume Studies or any other journal’s articles be included except for genuine scholarly reasons and authors should not be required to include references to any editors’ or reviewers’ articles. Editors may remove suggested inappropriate citations from reviewer comments before sharing with the authors.
The editor(s) must protect the confidentiality of all submitted material and all communications with reviewers, unless otherwise agreed with the relevant authors and reviewers. Reviewers shall as a matter of course be asked to divide their reports into a portion intended only for the editor(s) and a portion to be communicated to the author(s). In cases where a reviewer declines to reassess a resubmission the Editor(s) shall disclose that reviewer’s complete report to the substitute reviewer. In exceptional circumstances and in consultation with the publisher, the editor may share limited information with editors of other journals, institutions, and other organizations that investigate cases of research misconduct where deemed necessary to investigate suspected ethical breaches.
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.
The editor(s) must not be involved in decisions about papers about which they have a conflict of interest, such as papers that positively or negatively assess the editors’ work or that of their students or colleagues, or papers by authors who are not at arm’s length from the editors, such as their graduate students or collaborators. Such submissions must be handled by a member of the Editorial Board who does not share the conflict of interest, and there should be a clear statement to this effect on any such paper that is published.
The editor(s) shall ensure that accepted work is published in a timely fashion and barring circumstances beyond their control in no case more than eighteen months after the date of acceptance.
The editor(s) should review and assess reported or suspected misconduct in conjunction with the Society. Such measures will generally include contacting the author and giving due consideration to the respective complaint or claims made, but may also include further communications to the relevant institutions and research bodies. Editors presented with convincing evidence of misconduct should arrange the prompt publication of a correction, retraction, expression of concern, or other correction to the record, as may be relevant. The editor(s) should remain up to date on all relevant policies and procedures designed to protect the integrity of the publication record, including policies that pertain to their duties and also those that pertain to the reviewers and authors.
The editor(s) shall report their activities to the Hume Society on an annual basis. The Society may at its discretion require more frequent reports on any of the duties outlined above.
