Policies and Publication Ethics
To ensure ethical standards and best practices of scholarly publishing, Clinical Psychology in Europe (CPE) has implemented a set of editorial policies as guidance for
As part of the PsychOpen GOLD journal platform (operated by the Leibniz Institute for Psychology, ZPID), CPE follows common policies for PsychOpen GOLD journals, adapted as necessary to the specific article types and content published by CPE.
1. Journal Management and Publishing Policies
Open Access Policy
Clinical Psychology in Europe (CPE) provides immediate open access to its content on the principle that making research freely available to the public supports a greater global exchange of knowledge. CPE also charges no author fee for submission or publication of papers.
Authors who publish with CPE agree to the following terms: Articles are published under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0). Under the CC BY license, authors retain ownership of the copyright for their article, but authors grant others permission to use the content of publications in CPE in whole or in part provided that the original work is properly cited. Users (redistributors) of CPE are required to cite the original source, including the authors' names, CPE as the initial source of publication, year of publication, volume number, and DOI.
Authors may publish the manuscript in any other journal or medium but any such subsequent publication must include a notice that the manuscript was initially published by CPE.
Authors grant CPE the right of first publication. Although authors remain the copyright owner, they grant the journal the irrevocable, nonexclusive rights to publish, reproduce, publicly distribute and display, and transmit their article or portions thereof in any manner.
Permanency of Content
In accordance with widely accepted standards of scholarly publishing CPE generally does not alter articles after publication: "Articles that have been published should remain extant, exact and unaltered to the maximum extent possible" (STM, 2006. Preservation of the objective record of science). In cases of serious errors or (suspected) misconduct, CPE publishes corrections, expressions of concern and retractions (see below).
Corrections. When serious errors become apparent after the publication of an article, CPE publishes a correction note. Serious errors may be incorrectly reported results, but may also be errors that significantly impede the understanding or evaluation of the results. These errors must not invalidate the article as a whole (which would result in a retraction). The editor(s), in consultation with the author(s), will decide whether serious errors exist. If an error is found to be serious in this way, the journal publishes a correction note that is linked to the article. In addition, readers who have downloaded the article prior to the publication of the correction will be notified of the correction via the Crossmark mechanism. In general, the original, published article itself remains unchanged. Only in very rare exceptional cases (e.g., if an article was published without figures due to a production error) may a corrected article version be republished. This is usually indicated in the Article History by a corresponding additional publication date for the "corrected version of record" (cVoR) and described in a Publisher Note.
Retractions and Expressions of Concern. In accordance with the "Retraction Guidelines" by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) CPE will retract a published article if
- significant parts of the findings prove to be unreliable due to honest error (e.g., miscalculation);
- the article, in whole or in part, is based on scientific misconduct such as plagiarism, fabrication or falsification of data or results, unauthorized use of data or materials, copyright infringement or other serious legal issues;
- the peer review process has been compromised or manipulated, or the author(s) failed to disclose a major competing interest that, in the view of the editor, may have had an impact on the reviewer recommendations or editor decision;
- the findings have previously been published elsewhere without disclosure to the editor and proper crossreferencing;
- the article reports unethical research.
An article is retracted by CPE publishing a retraction note. Apart from rare exceptions (e.g., copyright infringement), retracted articles remain online. To prevent results of the retracted article from being considered in future research CPE takes various measures to clearly identify a retracted article as such (e.g., by linking the retraction note to the article and vice versa and by adding an appropriate watermark to the article PDF). In addition, readers who have downloaded the article prior to the publication of the retraction note will be notified of the retraction via the Crossmark mechanism.
If an investigation is underway that might result in the retraction of an article, CPE may choose to alert readers by publishing an expression of concern.
Alerting Readers to Changes. CPE uses Crossref’s Crossmark service to notify readers of significant changes to articles after they are published. By clicking the Crossmark button embedded in article web pages and PDF files, readers can retrieve information about post-publication corrections, retractions, additions of supplementary materials, or new article versions. By participating in Crossmark, CPE (through its publisher PsychOpen GOLD) agrees to maintain its content and promptly register any updates.
Allegations of Research Misconduct
Allegations of research misconduct should be addresses (anonymously or non-anonymously) to the editors-in-chief (firstname.lastname@example.org). If the Editors-in-Chief decide that there is sufficient evidence to support the claim they will investigate it following the appropriate guidelines from the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). In any case, the journal will protect the whistleblower's identity.
CPE uses Crossref’s Similarity Check service to screen articles for originality. Prior to publication, CPE articles are checked against a huge corpus of published research papers (including open access as well as restricted/paid articles), online documents, and other sources. Based on a detailed similarity report editor(s) are able to evaluate the originality of the manuscript and prevent publication of plagiarized content. Read more at Crossresf's Similarity Check & Reseachers page.
This journal ensures the long-term availability of its contents by partnering with CLOCKSS. CLOCKSS system has permission to ingest, preserve, and serve this Archival Unit.
Complaints and Appeals
Complaints, criticism, or feedback about management, services, policies etc. should be sent to the editors-in-chief (email@example.com). Complaints against reviewers or handling editors and appeals against final editor decisions should also be sent to the editors-in-chief (editors@CPE.psychopen.eu). An editor-in-chief will consult the case with the reviewers and the handling editor and – if necessary – other members of the editorial team. Complaints against editors-in-chief can be addressed to the president of the European Association of Clinical Psychology and Psychological Treatment (EACLIPТ). (CPE is the official academic journal of the EACLIPT.)
Confidential Data and Privacy
The Journal collects data only to fulfill the standard functioning of peer-reviewed journals. Read CPE's Privacy Statement
3. Reviewer Policies
Competing Interests of the Reviewers
Invited reviewers are asked to disclose potential competing interests before agreeing to review a paper. Sources of possible competing interests are manifold: personal, social, professional, or financial (e.g., mentor-mentee relationships, research collaborations, working at the same institution, business relationships, competition for funding). But also political, religious or ideological reasons might impair an unbiased evaluation of the research. Even if author names are blinded, reviewers could possibly know or guess who is doing this research which in turn could result in competing interests.
Confidentiality and Trustworthiness
Reviewers must treat any document and information obtained through peer review strictly confidential and must respect the intellectual property of the authors.
Principles of Good Practice
- Reliability. Reviewers should accept a reviewing request only if they are able to complete the review within the deadline set by the journal. If they need more time this should be clarified with the journal editors before accepting to review.
- Competency. Reviewers should accept a reviewing request only if they have the required expertise. If they think that they are qualified to review only some (substantial) parts of the paper this should be clearly indicated in the review.
- Respectfulness. Reviewer comments should be respectful, non-offensive, and focused on content. See the Reviewer Guidelines for suggestions on important aspects to consider when writing a review.
4. Editor Policies
Competing Interests of the Editors
Editors should not handle articles where financial or non-financial competing interests might influence their actions and decisions. Editors can publish articles in their own journal but should not be involved or intervene in any form in the peer review and decision-making process. If a CPE editor is an (co-)author of a submitted paper (that is subject to peer-review), then the editor-in-chief will ensure that the paper is assigned to a guest handling editor, i.e., a handling editor who is not an associate editor or editors-in-chief. In addition, this (co-)author's affiliation with the journal and their (lack of) involvement in the peer review of the submission will be disclosed in the declaration of Competing Interests.
Confidentiality and Trustworthiness
Editors must treat any document and information submitted to the journal strictly confidential and must respect the intellectual property of authors and reviewers.