How the record is kept honest, and what happens when it is not.
Five documents: Publication ethics and malpractice, Research integrity, Generative AI, Corrections and retractions and Complaints and appeals.
What Caravel Press expects of authors, reviewers and editors, and what happens when those expectations are not met.
The editorial policies of Caravel Press are written to follow the and the , and the published jointly by COPE, DOAJ, OASPA and WAME. Where a case is not covered here, we follow the relevant .
Caravel Press follows COPE's guidance and is not currently a member. The member directory is at the COPE member directory.
Members of the editorial board may submit to the journal. When they do, they are removed from the handling of their own paper entirely: they cannot see it in the system, cannot select its reviewers, and cannot influence its decision, which is taken by a different editor.
An allegation of misconduct is taken seriously wherever it comes from, including anonymously, and is assessed on evidence rather than on the standing of the person making it.
We look first
The editorial office establishes what is actually being alleged and gathers the record: the submission, the reviews, the correspondence and the published version.
We ask the authors
The corresponding author is told what has been raised and is given a reasonable opportunity to respond in writing before any conclusion is reached.
We escalate where it belongs
Where a matter concerns how research was conducted rather than how it was reported, it is referred to the authors' institution, which has the standing to investigate it. We do not attempt to investigate research conduct ourselves.
We correct the record
Where the published record is wrong, it is corrected, marked with an expression of concern, or retracted. See the corrections and retractions policy.
Cases are handled following the relevant COPE flowcharts. The outcome is communicated to the person who raised the matter.
Caravel Press applies the ICMJE authorship criteria. An author is someone who meets all four conditions: substantial contribution to conception, design, acquisition, analysis or interpretation; drafting or critically revising the work; approval of the final version; and agreement to be accountable for its accuracy and integrity.
Contributions are recorded on the published article using CRediT (ANSI/NISO Z39.104-2022), so a reader can see what each named author actually did. Contributors who do not meet all four conditions are named in the acknowledgements with their contribution described.
Every submission carries a competing interests statement covering every author. Where there is nothing to declare, the article says so explicitly rather than leaving the field out. Financial and non-financial interests are both declarable: employment, consultancy, funding, patents, shareholdings, and personal or professional relationships that a reasonable reader might think could have influenced the work.
Data, reporting standards, research ethics approval, funding and preprints.
Every article published in a Caravel Press journal carries a data availability statement. Where there is no underlying data, or the data cannot be shared, the statement says so and says why.
Authors are strongly encouraged to deposit the data behind a paper in a recognised repository and to cite it with its own persistent identifier, following the FAIR data principles: findable, accessible, interoperable and reusable. Where data cannot be released, for example because it identifies people or is held under a third-party agreement, the statement names the constraint and the route by which a reader could apply for access.
Code that is necessary to reproduce a result is treated as data. Caravel Press works towards the TOP Guidelines.
Where a recognised reporting guideline exists for the study design, authors are expected to follow it and to submit the completed checklist. The current guidelines are collected by the EQUATOR Network.
Research involving human participants, human material or identifiable human data must have been approved by a properly constituted research ethics committee before it began, and must have been conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki (2024). The article must name the approving body and quote the approval reference.
Informed consent must have been obtained from every participant. Where an individual is identifiable in any part of the article, including an image, written consent to publication is required and must be available to the editor on request.
Research involving animals must have been approved by the relevant body and must be reported in accordance with the ARRIVE guidelines.
An editor may ask to see the approval documentation at any point, before or after publication. A submission that cannot produce it will not be published.
Every article carries a funding statement naming every source of support, with grant numbers where they exist and the funder identified by its ROR identifier where one is available. Where the work received no specific funding, the statement says so.
A funder has no role in the design of a study, in the collection, analysis or interpretation of data, in the writing of the article, or in the decision to submit it. Where a funder has had any such role, it must be described in the funding statement.
Every submission to a Caravel Press journal is screened with iThenticate before it reaches an editor. The report is read by the editorial office rather than reduced to a threshold: a high overlap that is entirely correctly quoted and cited is not misconduct, and a low overlap concentrated in a results section can be.
Where screening raises a concern, the submission is held and the corresponding author is asked to account for it before any decision is taken.
Posting a preprint before submission is permitted and encouraged. It is not prior publication. Authors should disclose the preprint at submission and give its DOI, and should update the preprint record with a link to the published version once the article appears.
Where AI tools may and may not be used, by authors, by reviewers and by editors.
Caravel Press follows the COPE position statement on authorship and AI tools and section II.A.4 of the ICMJE Recommendations.
This policy applies to the tools as they are today. It will be revised as the position of COPE and the ICMJE develops, and the date of the current version is shown at the foot of this page.
How the published record is put right when something in it is wrong.
A published article is a permanent record. It is never quietly edited, replaced or removed. Where something in it is wrong, the correction is itself published, is linked to the article from both directions, and carries its own DOI, so that anyone who has the original also finds the correction.
Correcting the record is a sign that a journal is working, not that it has failed. Web of Science states that journals are not penalised for issuing retractions. We would rather publish a retraction than leave a wrong result standing.
Correction
For an error that affects a part of the article but not its conclusions. A typographical error in an equation, a mislabelled figure, a missing funder. The article is amended, the amendment is described, and the date is recorded.
Expression of concern
For a serious concern that has been raised but not yet resolved, where readers should be told while an investigation proceeds. It is withdrawn or replaced by a correction or retraction once the matter is settled.
Retraction
For findings that are unreliable, whether through honest error or misconduct, and for plagiarism, redundant publication, unethical research, or unauthorised use of material. The article remains available, clearly watermarked as retracted, with a retraction notice stating who retracted it and why.
Removal
Used only where leaving the article available would itself cause harm or break the law, for example defamation or a serious breach of privacy. The metadata and a note remain so the citation still resolves.
Which instrument applies is decided following the COPE retraction guidelines.
Anyone may ask for a correction, including a reader who is not an author of the paper. Write to info@caravelpress.com with the article DOI and what you believe is wrong. You will be told what has been decided and why.
How to appeal a decision, and how to complain about the journal itself.
An author may appeal any editorial decision, including a desk rejection. Write to info@caravelpress.com within 30 days of the decision, quoting the reference number, and set out specifically what in the assessment you believe is mistaken.
An appeal must engage with the reasons given. A restatement of the paper's importance is not an appeal. New data, a correction of a factual error in a review, or evidence that a reviewer misunderstood the method all are.
Acknowledged within five working days
You are told the appeal has been received and who is handling it.
Considered by someone who did not decide
The appeal is assessed by an editor who took no part in the original decision. Further independent review may be sought.
Answered in writing
You receive a reasoned decision. The decision of the editor-in-chief on an appeal is final, and there is one appeal per submission.
An appeal does not hold the manuscript. You are free to submit elsewhere at any point, and should tell us if you do.
Complaints about the conduct of the journal, its staff, its editors or its processes go to the editorial office at info@caravelpress.com, and are acknowledged within five working days.
Where a complaint concerns the editor-in-chief, or where the complainant is not satisfied with the answer, it is escalated to the publisher at info@caravelpress.com, which will respond independently of the journal.
Where a complaint cannot be resolved between us, it may be taken to COPE flowcharts for guidance, or raised with the authors' or complainant's institution where that is the appropriate forum.
These policies apply to every journal we publish. Last revised 28 August 2026.
United Kingdom
