01Purpose and scope
Panorama Scholarly Group publishes research and scholarship through journals, books, edited works, and related scholarly outputs. This policy sets group-wide expectations for responsible research, fair editorial practice, and a reliable scholarly record.
It applies to authors, contributors, editors, board members, reviewers, production teams, publishing staff, and external partners acting for a Panorama publication. Publication-specific requirements, agreements, and applicable law continue to apply.
02Research and publication integrity
Authors are responsible for presenting their work accurately, completely, and in a form that allows readers to understand how conclusions were reached. Fabrication, falsification, plagiarism, duplicate publication, manipulated images, and deliberate concealment of material information are not acceptable.
- Methods, data, materials, limitations, funding, approvals, and relevant use of tools must be reported accurately.
- Questions about integrity may be referred to editors, institutions, funders, or other responsible bodies where appropriate.
- Corrections, expressions of concern, and retractions are used when the evidence and applicable process require them.
03Authorship and contributorship
Authorship must reflect a substantial contribution to the work and responsibility for its content. All listed authors should approve the submission and be able to identify their contribution.
- The corresponding author confirms that all authors have approved the submission and that no eligible contributor has been omitted.
- Contributions, funding, professional assistance, and relevant tool use should be reported accurately.
- Changes to authorship after submission or publication require a documented explanation and the agreement of affected authors, subject to editorial review.
- Unresolved authorship matters may be referred to the relevant institution or employer.
04Editorial assessment and peer review
Each journal, book programme, or scholarly service states its assessment model. Editors apply the stated criteria consistently, select suitably expert reviewers where peer review is used, and protect confidential material unless an open-review process has been announced.
- Reviewers should accept an assignment only when qualified, available, and sufficiently independent.
- Reviewers must disclose relevant conflicts, keep material confidential, and provide evidence-based, respectful comments.
- Editors should not allow commercial, personal, institutional, or political interests to determine a decision.
- Authors should receive a decision explaining the principal grounds for the outcome, subject to necessary confidentiality.
A positive decision means that the work met the publication’s requirements at the time of assessment. It does not endorse every claim in the work.
05Conflicts and transparency
Authors, editors, reviewers, and contributors must disclose financial, personal, professional, institutional, or other relationships that could reasonably be understood to affect the work or its assessment. Disclosures should be made and updated at the stages required by the publication.
Funding, sponsor involvement, competing interests, data and materials availability, registrations, contributor roles, and relevant use of automated tools should be stated in the required form. Editors may request clarification or publish a correction when a material disclosure is missing or inaccurate.
06Ethical oversight and participant protection
Research involving human participants, personal data, animals, vulnerable groups, clinical interventions, or potentially harmful applications must comply with relevant ethical, legal, and institutional requirements. Authors should identify the responsible review body or explain why formal review was not required, and describe consent, privacy, confidentiality, registration, and participant-protection measures where relevant.
Editors may request evidence of approval, consent, registration, data governance, or permissions. Publication may be paused while an immediate or serious risk is assessed.
07Concerns, complaints, and investigations
We accept credible concerns about research integrity, authorship, conflicts, peer review, editorial conduct, permissions, or the accuracy of a published work. Reports should contain enough information for the responsible team to understand the concern and identify supporting evidence.
- Reports are handled as confidentially as circumstances allow, while preserving a fair opportunity to respond.
- We may request documents, consult responsible bodies, and pause editorial action while facts are established.
- We do not make findings based on identity, nationality, affiliation, status, or disagreement with a lawful scholarly position.
- Good-faith reporting is not grounds for retaliation; deliberately false or abusive reports may be treated separately.
A publication may reject, withdraw, correct, annotate, or refer a work when the evidence and process support that action.
08Corrections, expressions of concern, and retractions
We preserve the version of record and make material changes visible. A material error, unresolved concern, or unreliable result may require a correction, clarification, expression of concern, or retraction.
A retraction notice should be clearly labelled, linked to the affected work, freely available, and published promptly. The original record is not silently erased except for legal, safety, privacy, or other exceptional reasons, and retraction status should be carried through relevant DOI, indexing, and discovery metadata.
Important: A work marked Retracted is not treated as a current reliable publication. Readers should follow the retraction notice and use the corrected or replacement record where one exists.
09Appeals and post-publication discussion
Authors may appeal an editorial decision when they can identify a material procedural error, a significant misunderstanding of the work, or evidence that the applicable policy was not followed. An appeal should address the stated grounds and should not simply repeat the original submission.
Appeals are considered by the responsible editor or an independent editor designated for that purpose. An appeal may be declined when it provides no material new information. Post-publication questions are considered on their merits and may lead to an appropriate notice.
10Publisher responsibility and contact
Panorama Scholarly Group supports editors in applying publication criteria, maintaining editorial independence, protecting confidential information, preserving the version of record, and responding to credible concerns. We maintain public policies and reliable metadata so readers can understand the status and provenance of published work.
This policy is a group-wide framework, not an exhaustive code for every discipline or situation. Questions or complaints can be sent to the relevant editorial office or through the group contact page when the appropriate destination is unclear.