Conservation Update


For all parties involved in the act of publishing (the author, the journal editor/s, the peer reviewer and the publisher) it is necessary to agree upon standards of expected ethical behavior. The journal submits to the Code of Conduct of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), https://publicationethics.org/files/Code_of_conduct_for_journal_editors_1.pdf. In cases of possible authorial misconduct, including but not limited to plagiarism, falsification of data, or double publication, the Editorial Board will request an explanation and, where warranted, undertake appropriate steps according to the guidelines described in the COPE flowcharts (https://publicationethics.org/resources/flowcharts). This may eventually include notification of the authorities at the author's institution, withdrawal of the article in question, and exclusion of any further submissions by the same author from the journal.

The publication of an article in the peer-reviewed journal Conservation Update is an essential building block in the development of a coherent and respected network of knowledge. It is a direct reflection of the quality of the work of the authors and the institutions that support them. Peer-reviewed articles support and embody the scientific method. It is therefore important to agree upon standards of expected ethical behaviour for all parties involved in the act of publishing: the author, the journal editorial board, the peer reviewer, and the scholarly society.

Editor and Editorial Board Responsibilities


The Editor of the peer-reviewed Conservation Update takes the duties of guardianship over all stages of publishing and recognize all ethical and other responsibilities. The editor is responsible for deciding which articles submitted to the journal should be published. In making these decisions, the Editor may be guided by the policies of the journal’s Editorial Board as well as by legal requirements regarding libel, copyright infringement and plagiarism. The Editor should maintain the integrity of the academic record, preclude business needs from compromising intellectual and ethical standards, and always be willing to publish corrections, clarifications, retractions and apologies when needed. The Editor is committed to ensuring that advertising, reprint or other commercial revenue has no impact or influence on editorial decisions. When useful or necessary, the Editor and the Editorial Board may communicate with other editors or reviewers at taking publication decisions.

Fairness and confidentiality

The validation of the work ptoposed for publishing and its importance to researchers and readers must always drive the decisions. The Editorial Board must be guided by the policies of the journal and constrained by such legal requirements as shall then be in force regarding libel, copyright infringement and plagiarism. The Editorial Board may confer with reviewers in making the decision.
The Editorial Board should evaluate manuscripts for their intellectual content without regard to race, sex, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy of the author/s.
The Editorial Board will inform the author about its decision. The Editor and the Editorial Board will not disclose any information about a manuscript under consideration to anyone other than the author/s, reviewers and potential reviewers, and in some instances the Editorial Board members, as appropriate.

Disclosure, conflicts of interest, and relevant issues

The editor will be guided by COPE’s Guidelines for Retracting Articles when considering retracting, issuing expressions of concern about, and issuing corrections pertaining to articles that have been published in Conservation Update.

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 should seek to ensure a fair and appropriate peer review process. Editors should recuse themselves (i.e. should ask a co-editor, associate editor or other member of the editorial board instead to review and consider) from considering manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers.

Editors should require all contributors to disclose relevant competing interests and publish corrections if competing interests are revealed after publication. If needed, other appropriate action should be taken, such as the publication of a retraction or expression of concern.

Authors should disclose in their manuscript any financial or other substantive conflict of interest that might be construed to influence the results or interpretation of their manuscript. All sources of financial support for the project should be disclosed. Examples of potential conflicts of interest which should be disclosed at the earliest stage possible include employment, consultancies, honoraria, paid expert testimony, and grants or other funding.

If needed, other appropriate action should be taken, such as the publication of a retraction or expression of concern.

In case of violation of ethical riles by authors, the Editorial Board is entitled to refuse to publish the materials at each stage of the editorial-publishing process.

Involvement and cooperation in investigations

Editors should guard the integrity of the published record by issuing corrections and retractions when needed and pursuing suspected or alleged research and publication misconduct. Editors should pursue reviewer and editorial misconduct.

The Editorial Board should take reasonably responsive measures when ethical complaints have been presented concerning a submitted manuscript or published paper, in conjunction with the relevant scholarly society. Such measures will generally include contacting the author of the manuscript or paper and giving due consideration of the respective complaint or claims made, but may also include further communications to the relevant institutions and research bodies, and if the complaint is upheld, the publication of a correction, retraction, expression of concern, or other note, as may be relevant. Every reported act of unethical publishing behavior must be looked into, even if it is discovered years after publication.

Author Responsibilities

Reporting standards

Authorship credit should be based on substantial contributions to analysis and interpretation of primary sources and data, to the overview of the secondary literature, and to critical revision and final approval of the text to be published.

A paper should contain sufficient detail and references to permit others to replicate the work. Review and professional publication articles should also be accurate and objective, and editorial opinion works should be clearly identified as such.

Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behavior and are unacceptable.

Authorship of the paper

Authorship should be extended to those who have made a significant contribution to the conception, design, execution, or interpretation of the reported study. All those who have made significant contributions should be listed as co-authors. Where there are others who have participated in certain substantive aspects of the research project, they should be acknowledged or listed as contributors. The corresponding author should ensure that all appropriate co-authors and no inappropriate co-authors are included on the paper, and that all co-authors have seen and approved the final version of the paper and have agreed to its submission for publication.

In cases of co-authorship, the individual contributions of each author must be specified.

Data access and retention

Authors may be asked to provide the raw data in connection with a paper for editorial review, and should be prepared to provide public access to such data, if practicable, and should in any event be prepared to retain such data for a reasonable time after publication.

Originality and plagiarism

Authors should ensure that they have written entirely original works, and if the authors have used the work and/or words of others, that this has been appropriately cited or quoted. Plagiarism in all its forms – passing off another paper as the author own paper, copying or paraphrasing substantial parts of another paper (without attribution), claiming results from research conducted by others – constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable.

Multiple, redundant or concurrent publication

Authors should not publish manuscripts describing essentially the same research in more than one journal or primary publication. Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable. In general, an author should not submit for consideration in journal a previously published paper.

Acknowledgment of sources

Proper acknowledgment of the work of others must always be given. Authors should cite publications that have been influential in determining the nature of the reported work. Information obtained privately, as in conversation, correspondence, or discussion with third parties, must not be used or reported without explicit, written permission from the source. Information obtained in the course of confidential services, such as refereeing manuscripts or grant applications, must not be used without the explicit written permission of the author of the work involved in these services.

Hazards and human or animal subjects

If the work involves chemicals, procedures or equipment that have any unusual hazards inherent in their use, the authors must clearly identify these in the manuscript.

Fundamental errors in published works

When an author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in his/her own published work, it is the author’s obligation to promptly notify the journal editor and cooperate with the editor to retract or correct the paper. If the editor learns from a third party that a published work contains a significant error, it is the obligation of the author to promptly retract or correct the paper or provide evidence to the editor of the correctness of the original paper.

Publisher’s confirmation

In cases of alleged or proven scientific misconduct, fraudulent publication or plagiarism the publisher, in close collaboration with the editors, will take all appropriate measures to clarify the situation and to amend the article in question. This includes the prompt publication of an erratum or, in the most severe cases, the complete retraction of the affected work.

Reviewer Responsibility

Contribution to editorial decisions

Peer review is an essential component of formal scholarly communication, and lies at the heart of the scientific method.

Each paper is reviewed by two reviewers who have no information about the author.
Peer review assists the editorial board in making editorial decisions and through the editorial communications with the author may also assist the author in improving the paper.


Any selected referee who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a paper or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should notify the editor and excuse himself from the review process.


Any manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. They must not be shown to or discussed with others except as authorized by the Editorial Board.

Standards of objectivity

Reviews should be conducted objectively. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate. Referees should express their views clearly with supporting arguments.

Acknowledgement of sources

Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors. Any statement that an observation, derivation, or argument had been previously reported should be accompanied by the relevant citation. A reviewer should also call to the editor's attention any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published data of which they have personal knowledge.

Disclosure and conflict of interest

Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage. Reviewers should not consider evaluating manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the submission.

Copyright and Access

The copyright of Conservation Update belongs to European Research Centre for Book and Paper Conservation-Restoration (ERC) Conservation Update is published as an open source journal.