The Journal of Usability Studies’ policies on publication ethics can be found below. To learn about our peer review process, read our call for papers.
Both the author and the journal agree that the content hereby provided is published under a Creative Commons Attribution license, referenced at https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/legalcode, which is summarized by the following statements.
Anyone is free:
- to copy and distribute the material in any medium and format;
- to remix, transform, and build upon the material for any purpose.
Under the following conditions:
- Attribution — The person copying, distributing, remixing, transforming and building upon the material must give the appropriate credit, and indicate what changes have been made (if any were made) in the manner specified by the author or licensor (but not in any way that suggests that he or she endorses you or your use of the work).
Policy Regarding Conflicts of Interest
Conflicts of interest exist when a primary interest (e.g., validity of research) might be actually influenced or appear to be influenced by a secondary interest. Financial relationships (employment, patent royalties, etc.) are obvious secondary interests, but others include personal relationships (positive or negative), academic competition, and intellectual beliefs.
When submitting manuscripts for publication, authors must disclose all financial and personal relationships that might bias or appear to bias their work. Avoid entering into agreements that interfere with access to all of a study’s data or your ability to independently analyze and interpret the data. If conflicts exist, disclose them in the submitted manuscript in a section entitled “Conflicts of Interest” immediately before the References section and include a statement similar to “The author(s) had full access to all of the data in this study and take complete responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis.”
Peer Reviewer Responsibilities
The invitation to review sent to potential peer reviewers should include a reminder to check for conflicts of interest that could complicate their reviews. If conflicts or the appearance of conflict exists, reviewers should recuse themselves from the review of that manuscript. Reviewers must treat the information in the submission as confidential, and must not use information reviewed before publication to further their own interests.
Editor and Staff Responsibilities
Editors who have a conflict of interest or personal relationship with authors should recuse themselves from editorial decisions related to the submission under consideration. Editors and staff must not use information from unpublished submissions for private gain.
Policy Regarding Allegation of Misconduct
Responsibility for Accuracy
Authors contributing to JUS are responsible for the accuracy of data collection, analysis, and interpretation in papers submitted for publication in JUS. Our advisory and editorial boards are not investigative agencies. If misconduct is reported to JUS, investigation of the allegations is the responsibility of the institution(s) with which the author(s) are affiliated and/or the funding agency (or agencies).
To report misconduct associated with a manuscript submitted to or published in JUS, send an email describing the allegation to firstname.lastname@example.org. The Editor(s)-in-Chief will review the charges and will consult with the advisory board, ensuring that no one involved in the review has a conflict of interest.
If the charges are found to be without merit, a note of explanation will be sent to the person(s) originating the complaint, and no further action will be taken. If the charges are determined to have merit, the Editor(s)-in-Chief will contact the institution with which the author(s) is affiliated to inform them of the charges. If the paper has been published, the Editor(s)-in-Chief will conduct an evaluation of the review process to verify that the process was proper and not subject to any bias or conflicts of interest.
The retraction/correction process can be initiated by (1) a majority of the authors, (2) the administrative official(s) responsible at the research institution(s) of the author(s), (3) an official from the research funding agency or agencies, or (4) Editor(s)-in-Chief. Send the request for retraction/correction to email@example.com.
The Editor(s)-in-Chief and the advisory board (excluding anyone with a conflict of interest) will review the request. Following a majority vote of the reviewers, the Editor(s)-in-Chief will prepare a statement for publication in JUS stating the retraction/correction of the paper, which will be linked to the online article. The online article will be updated to reflect the retraction/correction.
Policy Regarding Complaints
Definition of Complaint
An important aspect of the communication between a journal and its authors/readers is appropriate handling of complaints. Complaints help journals to improve their processes, so it is our goal to provide quick, courteous, and constructive responses. Complaints differ from other communications in that they:
- Clearly indicate the desire to report a complaint
- Describe a potential failure of process that is within the responsibility of the editorial staff (e.g., long delay, rude response, severe misjudgment) rather than simple disagreement with an editorial decision or journal publication.
Submitting a Complaint
To submit a complaint, please send an email to firstname.lastname@example.org. Please include the word “complaint” in the subject line, and in the body of the note provide as much information as is applicable about the paper in question (volume, issue, title, page number). Please also indicate the category (or categories) of complaint which include but are not limited to:
- Simultaneous submission
- Multiple, duplicate, or concurrent publication
- Misappropriation of research results
- Allegations of research errors or fraud
- Violations of research standards
- Violations of research standards
- Undisclosed conflicts of interest
- Reviewer bias or harmful acts by reviewers
Our goal is to handle complaints in the most appropriate way, offering right of reply when necessary, investigating without blame to determine how to improve our processes. The Editor(s)-in-Chief will receive the emailed complaint. Complaints will be acknowledged within three working days and, if possible, a definitive response will be sent within two weeks. If a definitive response is not possible, interim responses will be sent at two-week intervals until the issue is resolved. Editor(s)-in-Chief will consult as needed with the advisory board. The decision described in the definitive response will be final.