UBR Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement

UBR is an academic journal published by the English Department, Faculty of Foreign Languages; one of the priorities of the editorial team is to publish quality papers. We encourage the best standards of publication ethics and take all measures against publication malpractices. The integrity of the content published is critical to the prestige of our publication. To that purpose, all the actors of an UBR publication, authors, reviewers, members of the editorial team, are expected to fully adhere to our policy regarding publication ethics. The editors of UBR are committed to providing fair, unbiased, and transparent peer review processes and editorial decisions.

The editorial board fully adheres to the Code of Conduct and Best-Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors (Committee on Publication Ethics, 2011). To ensure the integrity of the content published in the University of Bucharest Review, editors use COPE’s flowcharts in case of any concern over publication ethics.

Ethical Guidelines for Authors

UBR only accepts critical articles that fully comply with high standards of academic research and with critical excellence. Articles submitted to the journal should report original and previously unpublished research.

Originality, plagiarism and acknowledgement of sources

Authors will submit entirely original works, exclusively to UBR, and will appropriately cite or quote the work and/or words of others. Author(s) must explicitly state (in an email or in a separate signed document) that the submission represents their own original work, that all sources have been cited in accordance with academic standards and that, to the best of their knowledge, the work contains no factual errors. If authors become aware of any errors, these must be corrected as soon as possible. In the spirit of transparency, authors must also aknowledge any financial aid (for example national or international research grants, scholarships) that supported the writing of the article.

Ethical Guidelines for Reviewers

The UBR review process

Papers which conform to the journal’s scope and theme will be sent to two reviewers by a member of the editorial team, who will then act as the coordinating editor.

UBR applies double-blind peer review, which ensures that authors and reviewers remain anonymous to each other…

Responsibilities of reviewers

Peer reviewing assists the editorial team in making editorial decisions and, through the communications with the author, also assists the author in improving the paper. Reviewers are expected to objectively evaluate papers and must maintain the confidentiality of the manuscripts they are reviewing. Reviewers may not use any of the findings included in an article under review, unless they have sought and obtained written consent from the author.


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

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 immediately call to the editor’s attention any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published paper of which they have personal knowledge, or any suspicion of a breach of academic ethics, providing supporting evidence. 

Ethical Guidelines for Editors

Editorial decision

At the end of the review process, the editor-in-chief makes the final decision of acceptance or rejection and is responsible for deciding which of the articles submitted to the journal should be published, based on the reviewers’ reports. Such decisions are always driven by the importance of the work in question to researchers and readers. The editor is guided by the policies of the journal’s editorial board and may confer with other editors or reviewers in making this decision. 

Reviewer anonymity

UBR editors will automatically anonymize the reviewers’ comments to authors. Reviewers can also send attached files (review report, commented manuscript) that can be communicated to the author; in this case the version sent to the author is also automatically anonymized (the author of the comments cannot be identified).


The editorial staff must not disclose any information about a submitted manuscript to anyone other than the corresponding author, reviewers, other editorial advisers, and the publisher, as appropriate. Editors may not use any of the findings included in an article under review, unless they have sought and obtained written consent from the author.

Policy with regard to Malpractice

Any proven breach of ethical conduct by authors (including, but not limited to, plagiarism, submission of previously published research, simultaneous submission of the same work to other journals) will lead to the exclusion of the submission in question or to the removal of the article. Any collaboration between UBR and the author found in breach of academic ethical norms shall cease.

Malpractice by editors or reviewers with respect to the articles handled will result in the immediate termination of the editor’s/reviewer’s collaboration with UBR.

UBR will promptly publish corrections, clarifications as well as retractions and apologies, in line with its commitment to academic and editorial integrity.


Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). (2011, March 7). Code of Conduct and Best-Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors. http://publicationethics.org/files/Code_of_conduct_for_journal_editors_Mar11.pdf

The Editorial Team