As a scholarly publisher, Studia Humanitatis establishes and applies rigorous editorial standards to all of its academic publications. The institution is committed to ensuring effective compliance with these policies through transparent, ethical and excellence-oriented editorial processes at every stage of scientific publication.

The editorial policy of Studia Humanitatis, which is outlined below, is founded on international best practices within the sector. This policy is subject to periodic review, with a view to adapting to developments in scientific research, technological transformations (including artificial intelligence technologies) and contemporary dynamics in academic communication.

Contents

1 General policies
2 Research standards
- 2.1 Informed consent

General policies

Scope and editorial governance

The present Editorial Policy establishes the principles, standards and procedures that govern all academic publications edited by Studia Humanitatis, including extant journals and those that may be created in the future.

The objective of this policy is to ensure academic excellence, scientific integrity, editorial independence, procedural transparency and public accountability in the communication of knowledge. It is a code of conduct for individuals involved in academic publishing, including editorial teams, authors, and reviewers.

The organisational structure of each journal is characterised by a distinct composition of editorial functions, which are contingent upon the nature of the publication.

The responsibility for final editorial decisions lies with the Editorial Board (comprising one or more editors-in-chief).
Should the situation apply, the responsibility for the management of the academic publication will fall to the Editorial Office (manager or editorial assistant).
The journal’s scientific development is supported by an Editorial Committee, which comprises an associate editor(s).
The establishment of an International Scientific Committee is instrumental in ensuring academic quality and disciplinary diversity.

Editorial decisions are made exclusively on the basis of academic merit, scientific quality and thematic relevance of the manuscripts.

The responsibility for published content lies with the Editorial Committee, in conjunction with the Editorial Board and the Editorial Office. It is incumbent upon them to ensure the scientific rigour of the publication process, to prevent the publication of research results that do not meet the requisite standards, and to manage the editing of submitted works in a timely manner.

Authorship

Authorship is the fundamental mechanism by which researchers’ intellectual contributions to scientific works are recognised and, at the same time, establishes explicit responsibilities regarding the integrity, accuracy and transparency of published work. Consequently, Studia Humanitatis adopts authorship criteria aligned with widely accepted international standards in scientific communication, particularly those proposed by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) and contemporary frameworks for transparency in academic research (DOAJ, COPE).

To be recognised as an author of a manuscript, each participant must have made substantive contributions to the intellectual development of the research. Such contributions may include, among others, the conception or design of the study; the acquisition, analysis or interpretation of data; the development of software or methodological tools used in the research; or the writing of the manuscript and the critical review of its academic content. In addition to these intellectual contributions, each author must have approved the final version of the manuscript submitted for evaluation—including any revised versions involving their contribution—and accept individual responsibility for their participation in the work, as well as collective responsibility for ensuring that any issues related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the study are properly investigated, resolved, and documented in the scientific literature.

In line with the principles of academic integrity, the publisher does not accept improper authorship practices, such as the exclusion of researchers who have made substantial contributions to the work (ghost authorship), the inclusion of authors without significant participation in the research (guest or honorary authorship), or the attribution of authorship to non-human entities. In particular, artificial intelligence tools, automated systems, or any form of generative software cannot be listed as authors of a manuscript. When other individuals have contributed to the development of the study or the preparation of the manuscript without fully meeting the criteria for authorship—for example, through technical assistance, administrative support, editorial services, or expert advice—such contributions should be explicitly acknowledged in the acknowledgements section, indicating the nature of their participation.

Authorship also implies a commitment to transparency and traceability in the scientific process.

Consequently, Studia Humanitatis promotes the inclusion of detailed author contribution statements in all published articles. These statements allow for a clear specification of each author’s responsibilities in the development of the study, following models of academic contribution taxonomy widely used in contemporary scientific communication, such as the CRediT (Contributor Roles Taxonomy) model. These statements will be published alongside the article in order to strengthen transparency in the attribution of academic responsibilities.

In research carried out through inter-institutional or international collaborations, research teams are expected to include local researchers as co-authors when they have participated substantially in the design, execution, analysis or interpretation of the study. The editorial policy encourages equitable scientific collaboration practices, especially in research conducted in geographical or institutional contexts other than the researchers’ main environment, with the aim of avoiding extractive academic practices and promoting fair participation by all actors involved in the production of knowledge.

Likewise, in research involving local communities, biological resources, cultural heritage or traditional knowledge, authors may be required to include additional statements on ethics and inclusion in research. These statements should address, among other aspects, the participation of local researchers in the scientific process, the local relevance of the study, agreements on intellectual property and data, approval by ethics committees where appropriate, and measures taken to protect the safety, dignity, and well-being of research participants.

ICMJE, Defining the Role of Authors and Contributors
Transparency in authors’ contributions and responsibilities to promote integrity in scientific publication, McNutt at all, PNAS February 27, 2018

Responsibilities of the corresponding author

The author designated as the corresponding author assumes a central responsibility in the editorial process and in the management of the manuscript. Among their main functions is to ensure that all authors included in the manuscript have reviewed and approved the version submitted to the journal, that they have accepted their inclusion in the list of authors, and that they agree with the order in which they appear.

Submitting a manuscript without the consent of all authors constitutes a serious ethical violation and may result in the immediate rejection of the manuscript. The corresponding author is responsible for managing all communications with the publisher before, during, and after the peer review process, as well as for promptly conveying to the co-authors any editorial comments, review reports, or editorial decisions related to the manuscript.

They must also ensure that all authors are informed and comply with best practices in scientific integrity, research ethics and transparency in academic publishing.

With regard to the reproducibility and integrity of the research, the corresponding author must ensure that the data, research materials, software and codes used in the study comply with the standards of transparency and reproducibility appropriate to the discipline and the journal. This includes ensuring that the original data on which the study is based are preserved in accordance with good scientific practice and can be retrieved for eventual reanalysis. Similarly, they must confirm that the presentation of data, materials, and methods in the article accurately reflects the original sources and that the necessary measures have been taken to facilitate, where possible, access to the data and materials described in the research.

When a manuscript cites unpublished materials—such as unpublished data, manuscripts in preparation, personal communications, or results in press—the corresponding author must obtain written permission from the relevant authors prior to submission of the article. Similarly, the author must clearly identify any previously published material included in the manuscript—for example, figures or tables—and provide the necessary permissions for its reuse where applicable.

Once the manuscript has been accepted for publication, the corresponding author will be responsible for carefully reviewing the proofs and ensuring the accuracy of all information included in the article, particularly the names of the authors, their institutional affiliations, and any statements of contribution or conflict of interest.

Following publication of the article, the corresponding author will continue to be the main point of contact between the journal and the team of authors. If errors, inconsistencies, or any circumstances requiring correction or clarification in the scientific record are detected, the authors must immediately inform the publisher in order to proceed, as appropriate, with the publication of corrections, clarifications, or retractions.

Author identification and academic transparency

In order to strengthen the unambiguous identification of researchers and improve the traceability of academic contributions, Studia Humanitatis requires corresponding authors to provide their ORCID (Open Researcher and Contributor Identifier) identifier. It is also recommended that all co-authors include their ORCID identifier, which allows for the correct attribution of scientific output and facilitates interoperability between academic indexing systems.

The institutional affiliations indicated in the article must correspond to the institution where the author carried out most of the work that gave rise to the research. If an author has subsequently changed institutions, their current address may be indicated as additional information.

Changes in authorship

Any modification to the list of authors—including the addition, removal, or change in the order of authors—must be approved in writing by all authors involved. Such modifications may only be made during the editorial process prior to acceptance of the manuscript. Once the article has been accepted, no changes in authorship will be permitted except in exceptional circumstances duly justified and evaluated by the publisher.

Disputes related to authorship must be resolved, in the first instance, by the authors themselves or by the corresponding academic institutions. The publisher does not act as an arbitrator in disputes over authorship between researchers.

Change of author name

Studia Humanitatis recognises that authors may request changes to their name in previous publications for various personal or professional reasons, such as changes in gender identity, marital status or personal beliefs. In such cases, authors may request that their name be updated in the records of previous publications. Where technically possible, the publisher will update the author’s name in the digital files of the article (HTML, PDF and metadata), preserving the academic continuity of their scientific output and respecting the privacy of the requesting author.

Conflicts of interest

The integrity of the editorial process and trust in the scientific record require that readers, reviewers, and editors have sufficient information to evaluate potential factors that could influence—or be perceived as influencing—the presentation, interpretation, or evaluation of research. To this end, Studia Humanitatis requires the full and transparent disclosure of any conflict of interest or competing interest that may directly or indirectly affect the objectivity of academic work.

This policy applies to all content published by Studia Humanitatis, including research articles, reviews, academic essays, commentaries, editorials, and any other scientific contributions submitted for evaluation.

Definition of conflict of interest

For the purposes of this editorial policy, a conflict of interest is understood to be any financial or non-financial relationship that may influence, or reasonably be perceived as influencing, the professional judgement of an author, reviewer or editor with regard to the conception, execution, analysis, interpretation or publication of an academic work.

The existence of a conflict of interest does not necessarily imply a lack of scientific integrity. However, transparency in its disclosure is an essential condition for ensuring the credibility of the editorial process and allowing readers to adequately assess the context in which the research was conducted.

When there is reasonable doubt about the relevance of a relationship or interest, authors, reviewers, or editors should choose to disclose it.

Disclosures required from authors

All authors of manuscripts submitted to Studia Humanitatis must provide complete and accurate information on three fundamental aspects: institutional affiliations, sources of funding, and potential competing interests.

Institutional affiliations

The title page of each manuscript must include the complete institutional affiliations of all authors, indicating the academic, governmental, corporate, industrial, or other institution where the research was conducted. When an author has changed institutions after the work was completed, their current address may be indicated in an explanatory note. If the corresponding author has changed affiliation since the study was conducted, this circumstance must be explicitly stated.

Sources of funding and contributions to the study

Authors must fully disclose all sources of funding that contributed to the research, including institutional grants, public or private agency funding, corporate support, or any other relevant funding. This information should be included in a funding statement, usually located in the acknowledgements section of the manuscript.

The statement should specify, where applicable, the role played by the funders in aspects such as the conception of the study, the methodological design, data collection, analysis of results, the decision to publish, or the preparation of the manuscript.

Likewise, non-monetary contributions—such as the provision of equipment, materials, software, technical services, or logistical assistance—may be acknowledged in the acknowledgements section when they constitute relevant support for the conduct of the study.

Competing interests

Authors must declare any financial or non-financial interests that may influence, or be perceived as influencing, the interpretation or presentation of the research results.

This declaration shall be included in the published manuscript in a specific section on competing interests (Competing interests statement).

Relationships or interests that must be declared include those that existed during the five years prior to the start of the research or during the course of the study. However, previous interests must also be declared if they could reasonably be perceived as relevant to the content of the manuscript.

Possible financial interests that must be declared include, but are not limited to:

direct or indirect funding of the research by entities that may benefit from or be affected by the publication of the study;
current, recent, or planned employment in organisations with interests related to the subject of the article;
shareholdings, stocks, or property rights in companies that may benefit from the publication;
fees for consulting, scientific advice or participation in advisory committees;
payments or compensation for conferences, consulting or participation in activities related to the subject of the manuscript;
patents granted, patent applications pending or patent plans related to the research, either by the authors or their institutions.

Authors must also declare any non-financial interests that could influence the objectivity of the scientific or editorial process. These may include, among others:

participation as an expert witness or expert in legal proceedings related to the subject of the study;
membership in government agencies, advisory committees, or boards of directors related to the field of research;
participation in political advocacy organisations, advocacy associations, or pressure groups related to the subject of the article;
professional or personal relationships with institutions or individuals who may be affected by the publication;
significant personal relationships—such as family ties, mentoring, close collaboration, or academic rivalry—that could influence the evaluation of the work;
personal, ideological, religious, or political convictions directly related to the subject of the study that could affect the perception of impartiality.

In cases where authors are subject to confidentiality agreements that prevent them from disclosing details of certain interests, they must declare this circumstance using a general formula indicating the existence of contractual restrictions on the full disclosure of such interests.

All published articles must include one of the following standardised statements:

‘The authors declare the following competing interests: …’
‘The authors declare that there are no competing interests.’

The corresponding author is responsible for submitting the declaration of interests on behalf of all co-authors and for ensuring that the information provided is complete and accurate.

Conflicts of interest in the peer review process

Reviewers are an essential component of the peer review process. To preserve the impartiality of the editorial process, Studia Humanitatis endeavours to select reviewers who do not have relationships that could generate conflicts of interest with the authors or the research being evaluated.

Reviewers invited to review a manuscript must inform the editors of any financial, professional, or personal interests that could influence their evaluation of the manuscript.

When there is a significant conflict—for example, recent collaboration with the authors, direct academic competition, or close institutional ties—the reviewer must decline the invitation to review the manuscript.

Information about potential conflicts declared by reviewers will be considered by the editors when evaluating their recommendations and making editorial decisions.

Conflicts of interest of editors and editorial board members

Editors, editorial board members and guest editors are equally subject to the rules on disclosure of conflicts of interest. Any financial, institutional or personal interest that could influence the exercise of their editorial functions must be disclosed to the publisher.

When an editor has a conflict of interest with regard to a specific manuscript—for example, because they belong to the same institution as the authors, have recently collaborated with them, or are listed as a co-author of the work—they must refrain from participating in its editorial evaluation. In such cases, the manuscript will be assigned to another independent editor.

Editorial decisions shall always be made on the basis of academic and scientific criteria, without interference from financial, commercial or institutional interests.

Editorial independence

Studia Humanitatis maintains a strict commitment to editorial independence. Decisions regarding the acceptance, revision, or rejection of manuscripts are based exclusively on academic, scientific, and ethical criteria. No commercial, advertising, or institutional relationship may influence editorial decisions or published content.

When there are sponsorship agreements, institutional funding, or collaboration with external entities that could be perceived as potentially influential on editorial content, such information will be disclosed in a transparent manner.

Peer review

Peer review is the central editorial procedure through which Studia Humanitatis ensures the independent academic evaluation of manuscripts, the methodological consistency of arguments, the soundness of results, and the clarity of scientific communication. This process aims to strengthen the quality of the submitted text, support informed editorial decisions, and preserve the integrity of the academic record. Peer review is applied, with the nuances provided for in each journal and type, to research manuscripts, essays, reviews, analyses, technical reports, short communications, perspective or academic discussion articles, and, where appropriate, scientific correspondence, replies, post-publication comments, and editorial corrections.

Scope and general principle

All manuscripts received are first subject to an internal editorial evaluation. This phase verifies: (i) the suitability of the text to the thematic scope, objectives and editorial line of the journal; (ii) compliance with formal requirements (structure, bibliographic standards, anonymisation where appropriate, metadata integrity, mandatory declarations); and (iii) minimum conditions of argumentative and methodological quality that justify referral for external evaluation. In order to optimise editorial times and preserve the work of reviewers and authors, manuscripts that, after internal review, are clearly incompatible with the editorial line or have substantive deficiencies that prevent their academic evaluation may be rejected without external review. This decision may be supported, when necessary, by informal technical consultation with specialists, without this constituting peer review in the strict sense.

Manuscripts that pass the internal evaluation will be sent for external peer review. As a standard, at least two independent reports will be requested; depending on the complexity of the work, the interdisciplinary nature of the approach or the need for specialised expertise (e.g. in statistics, modelling, specific techniques or data evaluation), the journal may incorporate additional reviewers. When there are substantially divergent opinions, a third report may be requested to guide the editorial decision.

Review modalities and anonymity

Unless expressly indicated by each journal or call for submissions, Studia Humanitatis uses an anonymous review model, in which the identity of the reviewers is not revealed to the authors. Certain journals or sections may offer double-blind (double-anonymised) review, in which case authors must adequately anonymise the manuscript and its supplementary files in order to preserve the impartiality of the process. Failure to comply with the anonymisation guidelines may result in the manuscript being returned for formal correction or, when it substantially affects the evaluation, in the editorial process not continuing.

Voluntary signing of reports by reviewers is possible when the specific policy of the journal allows it; however, the disclosure of identity during the evaluation should not occur without the knowledge of the responsible editor, and behaviour aimed at inferring or confronting the identity of reviewers is discouraged. The publisher maintains, as a principle, the protection of the confidentiality of the evaluation process, without prejudice to applicable legal obligations.

Selection of reviewers

Reviewers are selected based on criteria of academic suitability, methodological experience and thematic relevance, seeking complementarity of approaches and diversity of perspectives. The publisher may consider suggestions for reviewers proposed by authors, as well as reasoned requests for the exclusion of certain individuals or groups, especially when there are objective circumstances that could compromise impartiality. However, the final decision on the appointment of reviewers rests with the editorial team.

Reviewers are contacted in advance and must confirm their availability and the absence of relevant conflicts of interest before receiving the manuscript. All invitation communications, as well as the materials submitted for evaluation, are considered confidential.

Confidentiality and responsible use of information

Manuscripts submitted for review are privileged communications. Reviewers must not share them, circulate them or seek support from third parties without the express authorisation of the editor responsible. If limited technical consultation is required (e.g. on a specific method), the reviewer must request authorisation and guarantee confidentiality, also informing the identity of those who have collaborated in such consultation.

Reviewers may not make personal, academic or professional use of data, interpretations or results contained in an unpublished manuscript. This restriction remains in place regardless of the final outcome of the editorial process.

Artificial intelligence in peer review

Given that the review process relies on expert critical evaluation and a framework of trust and confidentiality between authors, reviewers and editors, Studia Humanitatis establishes as a general rule that reviewers should not upload manuscripts, manuscript fragments, data, figures, tables, supplementary material or review reports to generative artificial intelligence tools or equivalent systems, due to the risks associated with confidentiality, intellectual property, data processing, and possible biases or inaccuracies.

If, exceptionally, the reviewer uses support tools that do not involve the disclosure of the manuscript’s content to third parties and are limited, for example, to improving the wording of their own report, such use must be declared transparently in the report, with the reviewer remaining fully responsible for the accuracy, originality and integrity of their observations.

Content and criteria of reports

The main purpose of the review report is to provide the editor with the necessary elements to make an informed editorial decision and, at the same time, to offer authors specific guidance to strengthen their manuscript. Reports are expected to be objective, well-argued, respectful, technically accurate and sufficiently detailed. Criticism should focus on academic content and avoid personal assessments. When a reviewer considers that they cannot evaluate impartially or that a relevant part of the manuscript exceeds their competence, they must communicate this in a timely manner.

In general terms—with adjustments according to discipline and type of article—reviewers may be invited to comment on the following aspects:

Academic contribution and relevance: contribution of the manuscript to the debate in the field and its relevance to the journal’s audience.
Methodological validity and quality of evidence: consistency between objectives, method, data, and conclusions; sufficiency of information to understand and, where appropriate, reproduce the results.
Analytical treatment and use of statistics: appropriateness of analytical techniques; clarity in the presentation of uncertainties, assumptions, measurements, and results.
Interpretation and conclusions: inferential consistency, recognition of limitations, avoidance of overinterpretation.
Bibliographic framework and attribution: timeliness, relevance, and sufficiency of references; recognition of relevant background information.
Clarity of presentation and structure: quality of the abstract, introduction, and conclusions; order of argumentation; terminological precision.
Ethical considerations and editorial integrity: identification of possible research ethics issues, access to data/materials where applicable, or inappropriate or potentially defamatory language.

Reviewers may include comments for the authors and, separately, confidential observations for the editor. Confidential observations should not contradict the essential points communicated to the authors, except in the case of sensitive information relating to editorial integrity, conflicts of interest or other issues that require confidential editorial treatment.

Editorial decisions and stages of the process

Based on internal evaluation, external reports, and editorial deliberation, possible decisions include:

Acceptance (with or without minor editorial adjustments).
Minor revision: the manuscript is publishable after specific corrections to form or content.
Major revision: the manuscript could be publishable if substantive, methodological, or argumentative changes are made, duly responded to and documented.
Rejection with possibility of resubmission: the manuscript is not acceptable in its current form, but further development could justify resubmission.
Definitive rejection: due to incompatibility with the editorial line or substantive deficiencies that prevent its publication.

Editorial decisions are not made by vote, but by assessing the strength of the arguments, the consistency of the critiques, and the authors’ response. When authors submit a revised version, they must accompany it with a response letter detailing, point by point, how the comments were addressed. Revisions are usually returned to the same reviewers to ensure continuity; however, the editor may dispense with a new external round when he or she considers that the previous comments have not been substantively addressed, or when the changes are strictly formal.

In certain cases, and in accordance with the policy of each journal, the publisher may propose transferring the manuscript to another publication under the Studia Humanitatis imprint when the work is of high quality but is more suited to the subject matter or audience of another journal. In the event of a transfer, and with the authors’ knowledge, the review reports may be transferred to avoid duplication of effort and preserve editorial efficiency.

Deadlines and editorial diligence

Studia Humanitatis promotes an efficient editorial process and requests that reviewers comply with the deadlines agreed upon when accepting the invitation. If the reviewer anticipates delays, they must communicate this immediately to allow for reassignment or adjustment of expectations. The editorial team will endeavour to keep authors informed of the status of the process and, where appropriate, of the need for reasonable extensions due to technical complexity or reviewer availability.

For manuscripts accepted with the condition of substantive changes, the publisher may establish deadlines for the delivery of revised versions. Once the manuscript has been definitively accepted, the text will undergo style correction and proofreading; during the proofreading phase, only corrections of errors or minor adjustments will be accepted, without substantive changes to the content.

Post-publication commentary, corrections, and integrity safeguards

The publisher recognises the importance of post-publication academic dialogue in the form of replies, clarifications, critical comments or replication communications, subject—depending on their nature—to editorial evaluation and, where appropriate, peer review. Similarly, any relevant corrections, errata or clarifications may be published in accordance with editorial procedures in order to preserve the accuracy of the academic record.

In situations involving well-founded suspicion of research or editorial misconduct, the publisher may request additional information and, when necessary, contact institutions, funders, or competent bodies, in accordance with recognised ethical standards in academic publishing. The final decision on whether to publish, correct, retract, or issue expressions of concern rests with the editor in charge, with the support of the journal’s editorial bodies.If required, this section can be adapted precisely to a single model for the entire imprint (with variables per journal: single-blind, double-blind, transparent review, continuous flow, monographs with guest editors, and maximum times), maintaining uniform wording throughout the Editorial Policy of Studia Humanitatis.

Learn more about ICMJE’s responsibilities in the submission and peer review process.
Read COPE’s ethical guidelines for peer reviewers.

Corrections, retractions and matters arising

Studia Humanitatis considers the preservation of the integrity and reliability of the academic record to be an essential editorial responsibility. Consequently, it maintains formal procedures to identify, investigate and, where appropriate, correct or update published content. These measures seek to inform readers in a clear, timely and verifiable manner about substantive errors, relevant uncertainties or possible impacts on the reliability of findings, without distorting the documentary nature of academic literature or unduly altering the publication record.

This policy applies to research articles, reviews, and other types of academic contributions, including, where relevant, sections not subject to peer review, supplementary material, methodological annexes, extended data, and resources linked to the article (e.g., tables, figures, appendices, and supplementary files). Post-publication changes are managed in accordance with internationally recognised ethical standards in academic publishing and guidelines for good editorial practice (COPE).

General principles of post-publication action

Transparency and traceability. All post-publication interventions must preserve the traceability of changes. As a general rule, notices of amendment (corrections, addenda, expressions of concern, retractions, or others) are published as separate documents, with unambiguous identification, and are reciprocally linked to the original article.
Timeliness. Studia Humanitatis endeavours to act diligently upon receiving a substantiated report of error or concern, balancing speed with investigative rigour and the right of reply.
Editorial proportionality. The measure taken is determined according to the nature, magnitude, and consequences of the identified problem, distinguishing between minor errors, correctable substantive errors, and issues that compromise the overall reliability of the work.
Due editorial process. Authors are informed of the concerns raised and are given a reasonable opportunity to respond. When necessary, the publisher may request original unprocessed data, supporting materials or methodological clarifications, and consult independent experts.
Independence and competence. The publisher decides on the status of the published record (correct, warn, retract, republish), while the determination of individual responsibilities for misconduct is, as a rule, the responsibility of the competent institutions through formal investigations. Where public institutional reports exist, the publisher may refer to them as contextual reference.

Channels for communicating concerns

Concerns regarding the accuracy, integrity, or reliability of an article may be communicated by authors, readers, reviewers, or other interested parties through the official channels defined by each journal in the imprint. Communications should include, where possible, the full reference of the article (title, authors, year, DOI or equivalent identifier) and a specific description of the issue (e.g., affected section, specific figure or table, nature of the error, evidence or justification).

Types of post-publication amendments and updates

In order to ensure editorial consistency, Studia Humanitatis employs different categories of post-publication intervention. Unless otherwise specified for technical or legal reasons, these amendments are recorded, linked to the article and explicitly identified for the reader.

1. Author Correction

Published when there is an error attributable to the authors that significantly affects the accuracy of the article, the publication record, or the academic understanding of the content. Depending on the case, it may cover errors in results, methodological descriptions, tables, figures, references, statements, or substantive elements that require clarification. The correction must accurately describe what is being changed and why, and when the change involves altering the data presented (e.g., numerical values, error bars, curves, or results), the correction shall transparently document the original content and the corrected content so that the reader can understand the scope of the adjustment.

2. Publisher/Editorial Correction

This is published when the error originates in the editorial or production process (e.g., layout, metadata, errors introduced during editing, technical omissions) and has a significant impact on the accuracy, citability, or interpretation of the article. The notice will explain the editorial origin of the error and how it is corrected.

3. Erratum or correction citable for scientific accuracy

When the correction is directly related to the scientific or academic accuracy of the content—and is not merely a minor adjustment—the publisher may issue a formal citable correction, with separate identification, that sufficiently explains the change and its justification, while maintaining the reciprocal link to the affected article.

4. Addendum

This is published when, after publication, significant additional information emerges that is crucial to the proper understanding of the article (e.g., decisive methodological clarifications, indispensable contextual information, updates on the availability of data/materials, or clarifications that do not amount to a correction of an error but do modify the interpretative framework). The addendum does not replace the original article but complements it and is reciprocally linked to it.

5. Editor’s Note

Used to alert readers that the journal has initiated an editorial inquiry due to relevant concerns about a published article. Its purpose is informative and precautionary, especially when the integrity investigation requires time (e.g., to obtain original data, consult experts, or await institutional results). The Editor’s Note does not prejudge conclusions and may be replaced later by another formal measure (correction, expression of concern, or retraction) once the evaluation is complete.

6. Editorial Expression of Concern

This is published when there are serious concerns about the integrity or reliability of an article, and the editorial team considers it necessary to formally and visibly warn the reader. It can be used as a provisional measure while an investigation is being completed, or as a final measure when it is not possible to reach a definitive conclusion, but significant doubts remain about the reliability of the content. This document is published with formal identification and a reciprocal link to the article to ensure its visibility and traceability.

7. Retraction

This is published when the reliability of the work is substantially compromised due to serious errors in the conduct, analysis or reporting of the study, or due to significant breaches of research or publication ethics. The purpose of the retraction is to correct the literature and warn readers that the findings and conclusions of the article should not be considered reliable in their published form.

In the event of retraction:

the original article remains accessible as part of the academic record, clearly marked as retracted;
a retraction notice is published and linked back to the article;
the notice may include, where appropriate, the authors’ agreement or disagreement with the retraction, or the editorial position when there is no consensus.

8. Retraction and republication (where applicable)

In situations where the work contains extensive errors that substantially alter the interpretation, but it is possible to reconstruct a fully reliable corrected version (e.g., calculation or classification errors affecting multiple results), the publisher may, on an exceptional basis, consider a retraction and republication scheme. In such cases, the republished version will be resubmitted for editorial scrutiny and, where appropriate, peer review; in addition, the nature of the relevant changes will be made transparent to facilitate comparison by readers.

Corrections in supplementary files, extended data and supplementary material

Substantive errors in supplementary files (supplementary material, appendices, extended data, methodological resources, code, etc.) are corrected using procedures equivalent to those applicable to the main text, when such errors affect the comprehension, reproducibility, or reliability of the article. The correction must clearly indicate which file is being modified, which version replaces which, and the reason for the amendment.

Post-publication editorial investigation procedure

Upon receipt of a substantiated concern, the publisher may:

Record and preliminarily evaluate the nature of the report (scope, evidence, potential impact).
Notify the authors and request a documented response within a reasonable time frame.
Request supporting materials, including original unprocessed data, logs, protocols, source files for figures, scripts or codes, as appropriate.
Consult independent experts (e.g., statistical reviewers, methodologists, technical specialists) when necessary.
Take provisional action (Editor’s note or Expression of concern) if the matter could significantly affect the interpretation of the article and the investigation would take time.
Issue a final decision (correction, addendum, retraction, retraction and republication, or other appropriate action), preserving transparency and cross-referencing between documents.

When signs of potentially serious problems are identified (e.g., possible misconduct, data manipulation, relevant ethical violations, or legal risks), the publisher may inform the authors’ affiliated institution or other competent authorities, as appropriate, without prejudice to due process.

Academic debate and post-publication comments

Studia Humanitatis recognises the value of post-publication academic debate as part of the development of knowledge. Therefore, it may accept formal post-publication comment contributions—e.g., methodological critiques, substantive clarifications, discussions, replication attempts, or responses—which, depending on their nature, may be subject to editorial evaluation and, where appropriate, peer review. Usually, when a formal critical commentary is published, the publisher may invite the authors of the original article to submit a reply, in order to offer the reader the complete academic exchange.

Exceptional removal of published content

In exceptional circumstances, Studia Humanitatis may temporarily or permanently remove content from its platforms when there are legal or security grounds for doing so, for example: (i) substantiated allegations of defamation; (ii) infringement of intellectual property rights, privacy or other legal rights of third parties; (iii) the existence or imminence of a court or administrative order for removal; or (iv) immediate and serious risk to health if the content were to be used.

In the event of removal, the publisher will endeavour to retain the essential bibliographic metadata of the record (title, authors, citation data) accompanied by an explanatory note informing the reader of the general reason for the removal, to the extent permitted by applicable regulations.If desired, this section can be harmonised with an internal operating format (flowchart + indicative deadlines + persons responsible for each phase) for use by the editorial team, with this text remaining the public version of the Editorial Policy.

Corrections policy (PDF)
COPE Guidelines on retraction

Artificial intelligence (AI)

Studia Humanitatis recognises that artificial intelligence technologies, including generative tools, large-scale language models, writing assistance systems, image generators, automated agents, and other related applications, are transforming various stages of research and academic communication. In this context, the publisher’s editorial policy aims to provide clear criteria for responsible use, transparency, and accountability, preserving the integrity of the scientific process, the originality of manuscripts, editorial confidentiality, and the reliability of the academic record.

Given the dynamic nature of this field, Studia Humanitatis may periodically review and update this policy as applicable regulations, editorial ethics standards, internationally accepted academic practices, and the technical, legal, and epistemological implications of the use of these tools evolve.

General principle of human responsibility

The use of artificial intelligence tools in the process of researching, writing, editing or evaluating a manuscript does not replace or reduce human responsibility for the content submitted for publication. In all cases, academic, ethical and legal responsibility for the work lies exclusively with the human authors, reviewers and editors involved in the process.

AI can be used as an auxiliary tool, but it cannot replace critical judgement, disciplinary expertise, interpretative deliberation, source verification, methodological evaluation or the intellectual responsibility required by scientific communication. Anyone using AI tools must carefully review their results, check their accuracy, detect possible biases, correct errors, avoid bibliographic or factual fabrications, and ensure that the final product authentically reflects their intellectual contribution.

Authorship and attribution

Artificial intelligence tools do not meet the authorship criteria required by Studia Humanitatis and therefore cannot be listed as authors or co-authors of a manuscript. Authorship implies substantive intellectual contribution, the ability to approve the final version of the text, acceptance of responsibility for the published content, and a willingness to respond to questions regarding its accuracy or integrity. These conditions can only be attributed to human beings.

For the same reason, AI tools should not be cited as authors of referenced works. When it is appropriate to mention a tool used in the development of the work, this should be done as a resource, system or support instrument, with sufficient identification of its name, version, provider and function performed.

Use of AI by authors

Authors may use artificial intelligence tools to support certain tasks associated with the preparation of the manuscript, provided that such use is responsible, verifiable, compatible with the rights of third parties, and fully supervised by human beings. However, the use of AI should never replace the author’s own intellectual work or compromise the originality, integrity, or traceability of the academic work.

Among other requirements, authors must:

verify the accuracy, integrity, and relevance of all content generated or assisted by AI;
critically review the references, citations, data, interpretations, and formulations produced by the tool;
ensure that the final manuscript reflects their own intellectual contribution and not an autonomous production of the tool;
verify that the use of AI does not infringe on copyright, confidentiality, privacy, professional secrets or contractual restrictions;
review the terms and conditions of the tool used, especially regarding the use of inputs, system training, content reuse, data protection and restrictions on the subsequent exploitation of results.

Authors are responsible for any errors, omissions, distortions, biases or misuse arising from the use of AI tools in the preparation or execution of the work.

Mandatory declaration of AI use

In order to ensure transparency for readers, reviewers and editors, authors must declare the use of artificial intelligence tools when these have been substantially involved in the preparation of the manuscript or in the research process.

The declaration must specify, at a minimum:

the name of the tool or system used;
the purpose of its use;
the scope or degree of intervention;
the level of human supervision and control exercised over the results.

When AI has been used in the research phase—for example, in data analysis, classification, modelling, text mining, image processing, automated interpretation, or generation of technical results—such use must be described in detail and in a reproducible manner in the methodological section of the manuscript. This description should allow for an understanding of how the tool was used, with what parameters or conditions, and to what extent it affected the production of results or inferences.

When AI has been used primarily in the preparation of the manuscript, the statement may be placed in a specific section at the end of the text or in another appropriate place defined by the journal. Basic revisions of grammar, spelling, punctuation, or minor linguistic corrections do not require a statement, provided they do not involve substantive content generation, autonomous argumentative reformulation, or creative intellectual intervention on the text.

On the other hand, any use of AI that has contributed to organising content, summarising literature, proposing argumentative structures, drafting passages, suggesting interpretations, producing tables or syntheses, generating analytical responses, assisting in the formulation of hypotheses, or intervening in a relevant way in the construction of the manuscript must be declared.

AI in style editing and linguistic correction

Studia Humanitatis distinguishes between the use of AI for assisted linguistic correction and the use of AI for autonomous or semi-autonomous content generation. Improving the readability, clarity, grammar, punctuation, tone, or style of a text previously written by the authors can be considered a form of assisted editorial support, provided that it does not replace the intellectual development of the text, does not introduce new substantive content, and is reviewed in its entirety by the authors.

In these cases, disclosure will not be necessary when only minor adjustments to the expression are involved. However, if the tool has substantially reworded the content, generated new fragments, reorganised the argumentation, or contributed beyond mere formal correction, its use must be declared.

In any case, authors must ensure that the final version accurately reflects their thinking, analysis, and academic decisions.

Use of AI in figures, images, illustrations, and other visual materials

As a general rule, Studia Humanitatis does not permit the use of generative artificial intelligence tools to create, alter or manipulate images, figures, illustrations, videos, artistic graphics, graphic summaries or visual materials intended for publication, when this involves introducing, removing, moving, obscuring, enhancing or modifying elements in a way that may affect the authenticity, interpretation or reliability of the visual content.

This restriction includes, among other cases, the generation of completely synthetic images to illustrate results, the alteration of research figures using AI, the artificial reconstruction of visual evidence, and the production of artistic graphic material with generative systems for ordinary editorial purposes.

Only conventional technical adjustments—such as brightness, contrast, or colour balance—will be allowed when they do not alter or conceal information present in the original material. The publisher may use forensic analysis tools or technical verification procedures to examine possible irregularities in images or figures submitted for evaluation.

Limited exceptions in visual materials

Exceptionally, the use of AI in visual materials may be considered in the following cases:

when AI generation or processing is part of the methodological design or research objective itself and is essential to understanding the results of the study;
when the article deals specifically with artificial intelligence, machine learning or related technologies, and the image or audiovisual material is part of the phenomenon being analysed;
when the materials are obtained from legitimate and legally authorised sources, with duly clarified rights;
when the system used is based on identifiable, verifiable and attributable scientific data sets, and its use can be described with sufficient methodological precision.

In all these cases, authors must expressly and visibly state that the material has been generated, processed or altered with the help of AI, indicating the name of the system, version, function and mode of use. In addition, they must provide, if requested by the journal, the pre-processing versions, source files or inputs necessary for editorial evaluation.

AI and data protection, confidentiality and third-party rights

The use of AI tools must not compromise privacy, confidentiality or intellectual property rights. Authors must not enter unpublished manuscripts, personally identifiable data, confidential files, protected documents, material subject to contractual confidentiality or sensitive information into AI platforms, unless there is complete certainty that the conditions of use guarantee sufficient protection and that such use is legally legitimate.

Similarly, images, voices or representations that reproduce real people, identifiable brands, third-party products or copyrighted materials should not be generated without proper authorisation. Any infringement of rights arising from the use of AI will be the responsibility of those who have used the tool.

Use of AI by reviewers

Peer review requires specialised critical judgement, strict confidentiality and intellectual independence. Therefore, reviewers should not upload manuscripts, manuscript fragments, data, tables, figures, supplementary materials, or review reports to generative AI systems or equivalent technologies. This prohibition is based on the need to protect the confidentiality of the manuscript, the rights of the authors, the integrity of the evaluation process, and the quality of expert judgement.

The same restriction applies to the review report itself, as it may contain confidential information about the manuscript, the authors, or the editorial process. Consequently, reviewers should not use AI to draft, rephrase, or linguistically improve their reports when this involves entering the content of the evaluation into external systems.

Only in exceptional cases may the use of secure, non-generative tools be permitted for limited technical support, provided that they do not involve the uploading of confidential content and that such use is transparently declared to the publisher. In any case, the reviewer remains entirely responsible for the originality, accuracy, impartiality, and quality of their report.

Use of AI by editors

Editors should also not enter manuscripts, editorial decisions, letters to authors, review reports or confidential communications into external generative AI tools when this could compromise the confidentiality of the editorial process, the rights of authors or data protection.

Editorial evaluation, deliberation on the relevance of manuscripts, interpretation of reports, decision-making, and official communication with authors are functions that require human judgement and cannot be delegated to automated systems. Therefore, AI should not be used to replace editorial decision-making or critical assessment of academic content.

However, the publisher may use, under human supervision, secure institutional tools or internal developments for auxiliary technical or administrative support tasks, such as formal integrity checks, detection of omissions, verification of completeness, support in identifying potential reviewers, consistency review, or generation of non-substantive ancillary content. In these cases, human supervision will remain mandatory and decisive.

Institutional editorial use of AI

Studia Humanitatis may use AI technologies developed or licensed in secure environments to assist certain editorial or production processes, provided that such tools respect confidentiality, data security, and process integrity. This may include, for example, technical submission checks, support in verifying document integrity, detection of duplicates, formal consistency checks, proof preparation, or the creation of ancillary content.

Ancillary content is understood to be content that is not part of the core argument or the main scientific contribution of the article, such as key points, informative summaries, glossaries, editorial highlights, or dissemination materials. All ancillary content generated or assisted by AI must be reviewed, corrected, and validated by a human editor or author prior to publication. If a journal makes substantive use of AI beyond these auxiliary functions, this must be explicitly stated in the article or in the relevant editorial information.

Detection of misuse and editorial consequences

If, during the editorial evaluation, inappropriate, undeclared or incompatible use is detected, the publisher may request clarification, require corrections to the AI statement, request additional materials for verification, or take editorial action depending on the severity of the case. Such measures may include suspension of the evaluation, rejection of the manuscript, initiation of an editorial integrity review, or, if the article has already been published, the issuance of corrections, editorial notes, or other post-publication actions provided for in the editorial policy.

Declaration on Generative AI

The use of artificial intelligence in the process of academic research, writing, or publication is permissible only when it functions as an auxiliary tool subordinate to human judgement, does not compromise intellectual originality, respects the confidentiality of the editorial process, protects copyright and data privacy, and is declared transparently when its intervention is substantive.

In all cases, authors, reviewers, and editors retain full responsibility for the published content, including verifying the accuracy of the information, the integrity of the data, and the legitimacy of the sources used.

Authors are hereby required to declare and detail the specific contributions of any GenAI tools and services used in the preparation of their work. This ensures transparency and provides readers, editors, and Studia Humanitatis with a clear understanding of the role GenAI played in the production of the published work.

This disclosure must include the following:

Tools and services: A complete listing of all GenAI tools and services employed, such as ChatGPT, Gemini, and others;
Tools’ contributions: A precise description of the specific contributions made by each GenAI tool or service, categorised in accordance with the established GenAI Usage Taxonomy.

Guidelines for Generative AI usage
Generative AI contribution roles

Example of declaration

During the preparation of this work, the author(s) used ChatGPT, Grammarly in order to: Grammar and spelling check, Paraphrase and reword. After using this tool/service, the author(s) reviewed and edited the content as needed and take(s) full responsibility for the publication’s content.

Evolving nature of the policy

Given that artificial intelligence technologies, their academic uses, and their regulatory implications are evolving rapidly, Studia Humanitatis will periodically review this policy to bring it into line with international standards of editorial integrity, rights protection, transparency, and scientific quality. Any updates will be communicated through the publisher’s official channels and will be integrated into the instructions for authors, reviewers, and editors.

Research standards

Informed consent

All individuals have individual rights that are not to be infringed. Individual participants in studies have, for example, the right to decide what happens to the (identifiable) personal data gathered, to what they have said during a study or an interview, as well as to any photograph that was taken. This is especially true concerning images of vulnerable people (e.g. minors, patients, refugees, etc) or the use of images in sensitive contexts. In many instances authors will need to secure written consent before including images.
Identifying details (names, dates of birth, identity numbers, biometrical characteristics (such as facial features, fingerprint, writing style, voice pattern, DNA or other distinguishing characteristic) and other information) of the participants that were studied should not be published in written descriptions, photographs, and genetic profiles unless the information is essential for scholarly purposes and the participant (or parent/guardian if the participant is a minor or incapable or legal representative) gave written informed consent for publication. Complete anonymity is difficult to achieve in some cases. Detailed descriptions of individual participants, whether of their whole bodies or of body sections, may lead to disclosure of their identity. Under certain circumstances consent is not required as long as information is anonymized and the submission does not include images that may identify the person.
Informed consent for publication should be obtained if there is any doubt. For example, masking the eye region in photographs of participants is inadequate protection of anonymity. If identifying characteristics are altered to protect anonymity, such as in genetic profiles, authors should provide assurance that alterations do not distort meaning.

Exceptions where it is not necessary to obtain consent:

- Images such as x rays, laparoscopic images, ultrasound images, brain scans, pathology slides unless there is a concern about identifying information in which case, authors should ensure that consent is obtained.
- Reuse of images: If images are being reused from prior publications, the Publisher will assume that the prior publication obtained the relevant information regarding consent. Authors should provide the appropriate attribution for republished images.

Consent and already available data and/or biologic material

Regardless of whether material is collected from living or dead patients, they (family or guardian if the deceased has not made a pre-mortem decision) must have given prior written consent. The aspect of confidentiality as well as any wishes from the deceased should be respected.

Data protection, confidentiality and privacy

When biological material is donated for or data is generated as part of a research project authors should ensure, as part of the informed consent procedure, that the participants are made aware what kind of (personal) data will be processed, how it will be used and for what purpose. In case of data acquired via a biobank/biorepository, it is possible they apply a broad consent which allows research participants to consent to a broad range of uses of their data and samples which is regarded by research ethics committees as specific enough to be considered “informed”. However, authors should always check the specific biobank/biorepository policies or any other type of data provider policies (in case of non-bio research) to be sure that this is the case.

Consent to participate

For all research involving human subjects, freely-given, informed consent to participate in the study must be obtained from participants (or their parent or legal guardian in the case of children under 16) and a statement to this effect should appear in the manuscript.

In the case of articles describing human transplantation studies, authors must include a statement declaring that no organs/tissues were obtained from prisoners and must also name the institution(s)/clinic(s)/department(s) via which organs/tissues were obtained.

For manuscripts reporting studies involving vulnerable groups where there is the potential for coercion or where consent may not have been fully informed, extra care will be taken by the editor and may be referred to the Springer Nature Research Integrity Group.

Consent to publish

Individuals may consent to participate in a study, but object to having their data published in a journal article. Authors should make sure to also seek consent from individuals to publish their data prior to submitting their paper to a journal. This is in particular applicable to case studies.

Summary of requirements

The above should be summarized in a statement and included in a section entitled “Declarations” before the reference list. Other declarations include Funding, Conflicts of interest/competing interests, Ethics approval, Consent, Data and/or Code availability and Authors’ contribution statements.

Please see the various examples of wording below and revise/customize the sample statements according to your own needs.

Provide “Consent to participate” as a heading (see template)

Sample statements consent to participate:

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Informed consent was obtained from legal guardians.

Written informed consent was obtained from the parents.

Verbal informed consent was obtained prior tothe interview.

The patient has consented to the submission of the case report for submission to the journal.

Provide “Consent to publish” as a heading (see template)

The authors affirm that human research participants provided informed consent for publication of the images in Figure(s) 1a, 1b and 1c.

The participant has consented to the submission of the case report to the journal.

Patients signed informed consent regarding publishing their data and photographs.

Sample statements if identifying information about participants is available in the article:

Additional informed consent was obtained from all individual participants for whom identifying information is included in this article.

If any of the sections are not relevant to your manuscript, please include the heading and write ‘Not applicable’ for that section.

Authors are responsible for correctness of the statements provided in the manuscript. The Editor-in-Chief reserves the right to reject submissions that do not meet the guidelines described in this section.

Images will be removed from publication if authors have not obtained informed consent or the paper may be removed and replaced with a notice explaining the reason for removal.

Editorial Policies