Etnolinde conducts its editorial procedures in accordance with the principles of integrity, transparency, independence, and editorial accountability. It refers to COPE guidance when assessing publication-related concerns. Such reference does not imply membership in, certification by, or endorsement from that organization.

Responsibilities of Authors

Authors must provide truthful information, describe their methods with sufficient detail, and clearly distinguish evidence, interpretation, and limitations. They must acknowledge the contributions and sources used, obtain any necessary permissions, and disclose conflicts of interest, funding, and prior dissemination. Authors are expected to cooperate during the review process and to notify the journal of any significant errors identified before or after publication.

Plagiarism, data fabrication or falsification, misleading image manipulation, fictitious authorship, concealed contributions, undisclosed redundant publication, and practices intended to manipulate peer review or citations are not permitted.

Responsibilities of Reviewers

Reviewers should accept only manuscripts for which they have the necessary expertise and availability. They must disclose conflicts of interest before beginning the review, provide a reasoned and respectful assessment, and protect unpublished information. They may not use others’ findings for personal benefit or make their recommendation conditional on unjustified citations.

Research and review articles are evaluated through double-blind peer review. During the review process, authors do not know the identities of the reviewers, and reviewers do not know the identities of the authors.

Responsibilities of the Editorial Team

The editorial team makes decisions on the basis of academic merit and relevance to the journal. It maintains records of the editorial process, manages conflicts of interest, communicates reasoned decisions, and seeks to comply with published timelines. The journal’s leadership is responsible for the editorial quality of all published content, including special issues.

Personal, institutional, financial, or commercial relationships do not determine acceptance. Anyone with a conflict of interest must recuse themselves from handling the manuscript. Copyediting does not authorize silent alteration of the meaning of a work.

Research Involving Individuals and Communities

Articles must explain how consent was obtained and maintained, how identities were protected, and what measures were adopted to reduce risk. When review by an ethics committee is required, the relevant body and the applicable approval or exemption must be identified. If formal institutional review is not applicable, authors must justify this and describe the safeguards implemented.

In ethnographic research, consent may require ongoing negotiation and culturally appropriate forms of documentation. Community authorization does not automatically replace individual consent, nor does one individual’s consent authorize disclosure of restricted collective knowledge.

Publication of photographs, recordings, identifiable accounts, or sensitive locations requires specific assessment. The use of pseudonyms may be insufficient when contextual details make an individual or community identifiable. Agreements reached during fieldwork concerning attribution, return of results, and limits on dissemination must be respected.

Allegations and Investigation of Potential Misconduct

Anyone who identifies a possible breach may contact the journal’s editorial office, identify the relevant article or submission, and provide supporting evidence. The editor records the communication, assesses its basis, and assigns the matter to a person without a conflict of interest. A complaint involving the journal’s director is referred to another independent member of the board; if none is available, an external specialist is consulted.

The person responsible for the assessment requests any explanations and documentation needed, preserves confidentiality, and may temporarily suspend the editorial process. When the matter requires an institutional investigation, the journal seeks the cooperation of the competent bodies and does not seek to replace such an investigation.

The decision is communicated with reasons. Depending on the findings, the journal may continue the evaluation, require corrections, reject the manuscript, or take action concerning the published record. Mere suspicion is not publicly presented as established misconduct.