Common Ground Research Networks

Our editorial process commits to editorial independence. We seek to be fair, transparent, and encourage intellectual excellence against clearly articulated disciplinary standards:

• Submitted articles are evaluated according to their intellectual merit, without regard to the race, gender, sexual orientation, religious beliefs, ethnic origin, citizenship, political philosophy, or institutional affiliation of the author(s)
• Editorial decisions on manuscripts submitted to our journals are based on independent, anonymized peer review reports
• We commit to an editorial process that is not compromised by financial or political influence
• We actively seek and encourage submissions from underrepresented segments of the global scholarly communication ecosystem
• We provide clear and transparent processes for appeal of editorial decisions
• We do not tolerate abusive behavior or correspondence towards our staff and others involved in the publishing process on our behalf

If you have questions, concerns, or wish to appeal or file a complaint contact us (see bottom of page)

We are committed to upholding the highest standards of peer review. At the Common Ground Media Lab, we also commit to researching the future of peer review as a defining characteristic of scholarly communication. Our approach to peer review is founded on rigorous and double-anonymized peer review. Reviewers are assigned based on the subject matter and disciplinary expertise, and ranking is based on clearly articulated criteria. The result is a peer-review process that is scrupulously fair in its assessments and, at the same time, offers a carefully structured and constructive contribution to the shape of the published article.

Qualifications & Reviewer Selection:

• Peer reviewers are selected from a list of volunteers or from a list of qualified authors.
• Volunteer reviewers with the appropriate credentials, skills, and expertise are carefully selected by our editorial staff to review appropriately fitting assignments.
• Authors of article submissions which have qualified to enter the peer review process also qualify to be selected as reviewers for other articles currently in peer review.
• All reviewers are carefully selected by the editorial staff to properly match areas of expertise to appropriate submissions. Reviewers are assigned on the basis of subject matter and disciplinary expertise.
• Reviewers are encouraged to request reassignment if an article is outside their area expertise, if the article for review is too closely related to the reviewer's niche of expertise, or if the selection results in a conflict of any kind. If a peer reviewer feels unqualified to review a particular assigned article, the reviewer must notify a member of Common Ground Research Networks' editorial team to be withdrawn from the assignment.

Our Commitment:

• At the Common Ground Media Lab, the research and development arm Common Ground Research Networks, we build software infrastructures to facilitate rigorous, fair, and effective peer review for all our publications
• We encourage our editors and peer reviewers to familiarize themselves with and act in accordance with relevant best practice guidelines on peer review established by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE)
• We expect those who oversee the peer review process, and support our editors and peer reviewers, to act on any suspected cases of manipulated or fraudulent peer review
• As part of our publishing and peer review processes, we seek full disclosure of commercial interests and potential conflicts of interest on the part of both authors and reviewers
• We protect the confidentiality of participants in the peer review process

Our Model:

• All Common Ground Research Networks journals use the double-anonymized peer review method. Peer reviewers are requested to provide constructive criticism and feedback regarding critical elements of scholarly writing and a publishing recommendation in their peer review report. Each manuscript is reviewed by at least two reviewers before a publication decision is made. The Editorial Team inspects each peer reviewer report and has final discretion to accept or reject a manuscript based on the peer reviewer reports and subsequent author revisions.
• Peer review is conducted by members of the Research Network Advisory Board, Editorial Board, Author Reviewers, and Volunteer Peer Reviews, based on the relevance of their area of expertise to the work under review.

Scoring Criteria:

• Your reviewer was asked to evaluate your paper on five criteria: 1) its thematic focus and empirical grounding; 2) its conceptual model; 3) its explanatory logic; 4) its implications and applications; and 5) the quality of communication. Further elaboration of these criteria is to be found at link.
• As a scholarly publisher that expects high quality reviews, we would like your feedback on each of the reviews you have received. We will use your scores to provide feedback to the reviewers. Please be fair in your assessment. The intention is that your feedback will help the reviewer to improve their reviewing skills. Every peer reviewer has an aggerated Peer Review Score based on feedback from Authors and our Editorial teams.

Community Model:

• The sustainability of our journals depends on a shared commitment to the peer-review process. Every author who submits an article is also invited to serve as a reviewer for other submissions within the network. This reciprocal model ensures that authors receive high-quality, constructive feedback without the need for submission or review fees.
• Our approach to peer review is inclusive and community-driven.
• Our peer-review model is founded on reciprocity and professional respect. Authors who submit manuscripts are expected to review approximately three articles for each submission, supporting their peers as their peers support them. Reviewer assignments may come from within or beyond one’s own Research Network, depending on subject expertise and need.

Authorship and Co-Authorship:

• Authorship should be limited to those who have made a significant contribution to the conception, design, execution, or interpretation of the study.
• All those who have made significant contributions should be listed as co-authors.
• Where there are others who participated in certain substantial aspects of the research project, they should be acknowledged or listed as contributors.
• Co-Authors must be listed at the time of submission.

Author Responsibilities:

We establish the following general rules for the corresponding author’s responsibilities:

• Manuscript correction and proofreading
• Handling the revisions and re-submission of revised manuscripts up to the acceptance of the manuscripts
• Provision of raw data upon which the paper is based, for editorial review and public access to such data whenever possible. If the data is not published with the paper, authors should be prepared to retain such data for a reasonable amount of time after publication
• Authors should ensure that they have written an entirely original work, and if they have used the work and/or words of others that this has been appropriately cited and quoted. Articles found to have plagiarized material will be withdrawn from consideration for publication
• Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal concurrently constitutes unethical publishing behavior, and it is unacceptable. Manuscripts must only be peer reviewed by one journal at a time
• Proper acknowledgment of the work of others must always be made. Authors should cite publications that have been influential in determining the nature of the reported work
• Authors should disclose in their manuscript any financial or other substantive conflict of interest that might be construed to influence the results or interpretation of the manuscript. All sources of financial support for the project should be disclosed.
• When an author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in their own published work, it is the author's obligation to promptly notify the publisher and cooperate with Common Ground’s Editorial Team to correct or retract the article.

We recognize the potential value of AI in academic writing and acknowledge that the technology is advancing quickly. We, therefore, offer the following as a guide.

General:

• Generative AI and AI-assisted technologies can be used when preparing a manuscript for a Common Ground journal. Where authors use AI technologies in the writing process, these technologies should be used only to improve the written expression and readability of the work and not to replace essential authoring tasks such as the framing of arguments. Any use of AI must be displayed in an “AI Acknowledgement” section of the work, explaining how it has been used as a functional tool to assist in the process of drafting. One of the following statements must be included:
• The authors declare that generative AI and AI-assisted technologies were not used in any way to prepare, write, or complete this manuscript. The authors confirm that they are the sole authors of this article and take full responsibility for the content therein, as outlined in COPE recommendations.
• The authors acknowledge the use of [insert AI system(s) and link] to [specific use of generative and/or assisted AI]. The prompts used include [list of prompts]. The output from these prompts was used to [explain use]. While the authors acknowledge the usage of AI, they maintain that they are the sole authors of this article and take full responsibility for the content therein, as outlined in COPE recommendations.
• The use of AI does not preclude papers going through our publication workflow, as long as the correct acknowledgment is included. However, the Editorial Team reserves the right to withdraw an article at any point if the use of AI is considered inappropriate or if full disclosure has not been supplied.

AI and Peer Review:

• Peer reviewers should be aware of CGRN’s AI policy, as noted above. Using the same principles, reviewers may use AI to assist them with their writing, but they may not use AI to generate the review itself.

A word of caution: We strongly recommend that you exercise caution if using AI tools for references/citations, as this can result in errors or fabricated details. It is the author's responsibility to cross-check references/citations against the original source material prior to submission. Manuscripts found to have unverifiable references at any stage in the publication process will be withdrawn from consideration.

Please note that content generated by AI tools does not meet the requirement of “authorship,” and you cannot list AI and AI-assisted technologies as an author or co-author. Also, as Generative AI does not reliably present facts or report its sources, it cannot be cited as a reference in a scholarly work.

Our guidelines align with the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) position statement: "Authors are fully responsible for the content of their manuscript, even those parts produced by an AI tool, and are thus liable for any breach of publication ethics."

For research studies using human or animal subjects, the trial’s design, conduct, and reporting of results must conform to Good Clinical Practice guidelines (such as the Good Clinical Practice in Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-Regulated Clinical Trials (USA) or the Medical Research Council Guidelines for Good Clinical Practice in Clinical Trials (UK)) and/or to the World Medical Association (WMA) Declaration of Helsinki.

Any work describing a study that used human subjects must include a statement that affirms the experiments were performed with prior informed consent (written or verbal, as appropriate) from each participant.

Humans: When reporting experiments on human subjects, authors should indicate whether the procedures followed were in accordance with the ethical standards of the responsible committee on human experimentation (institutional and national) and with the Helsinki Declaration of 1975, as revised in 2008 (5). If doubt exists whether the research was conducted in accordance with the Helsinki Declaration, the author(s) must explain the rationale for their approach and demonstrate that the institutional review body explicitly approved the doubtful aspects of the study.

Animals: When reporting experiments on animals, authors should indicate whether the institutional and national guide for the care and use of laboratory animals was followed. Experimental research on vertebrates or any regulated invertebrates must comply with institutional, national, or international guidelines, and where available should have been approved by an appropriate ethics committee. A statement detailing compliance with guidelines and/or ethical approval must be included in the work. For studies involving client-owned animals, author(s) must document informed client consent and adherence to a high standard (best practice) of veterinary care.

Consent: For all research involving human subjects, informed consent to participate in the study should be obtained from participants (or their parent or guardian in the case of children under 18) and a statement to this effect should appear in the work.

Consent for publication of individual patient data: For all works that include details, images, or videos relating to individual participants, written informed consent for the publication of these must be obtained from the participants (or their parent or legal guardian in the case of children under 18) and a statement to this effect should appear in the work. A consent form must be made available to the editor(s) on request and will be treated confidentially. In cases where images are entirely unidentifiable and there are no details on individuals reported within the manuscript, consent for publication of images may not be required. The final decision on whether consent to publish is required lies with the editor(s).

Patients have a right to privacy that should not be infringed without informed consent. Identifying information, including patients’ names, initials, or hospital numbers, should not be published in written descriptions, photographs, or pedigrees unless the information is essential for scientific purposes and the patient (or parent or guardian) gives written informed consent for publication. Informed consent for this purpose requires that a patient who is identifiable be shown the manuscript to be published. Authors should identify individuals who provide writing assistance and disclose the funding source for this assistance. Identifying details should be omitted if they are not essential. Complete anonymity is difficult to achieve, however, an informed consent should be obtained if there is any doubt. For example, masking the eye region in photographs of patients is inadequate protection of anonymity. If identifying characteristics are altered to protect anonymity, such as in genetic pedigrees, author(s) should provide assurance that alterations do not distort scientific meaning and the author(s) are responsible to notify the editor(s) in such instances and editor(s) should so note accordingly. The requirement for informed consent should be included in the journal’s instructions for authors. When informed consent has been obtained it should be indicated in the published work.

Freedom of expression is critical to healthy democracies and the production of scholarly communication. Our journals contain the views, thoughts, assertions, and opinions of contributing authors. The inclusion of information in our journals should not be construed as an endorsement, either explicitly or implicitly, by Common Ground Research Networks. At the same time, we do not support publishing false statements that may harm the reputation of individuals, groups, or organizations.

We will consider retractions or corrections in line with COPE’s Retraction Guidelines. If an author is found to have made an error, the journal will issue a corrigendum. If the journal is found to have made an error, they will issue an erratum. In exceptional cases, we may remove an article from an online publication where we believe it is necessary to comply with our legal obligations.

If you wish to flag work for possible redaction or correction, please contact us.

If fraudulent research, research misconduct, or plagiarism is found after an article is published, the publisher will contact the author for a response to the allegations. In cases of proven misconduct or if there is a nonresponse/inadequate response, the offending article will be retracted and a statement from the publisher will be inserted in its place in the relevant journal issue.

If you wish to flag work for possible fraudulent research, research misconduct, or plagiarism, please contact us.

We strive to follow COPE’s Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing and encourage our publishing partners to uphold these same principles.

Ownership, Management, and Governing Bodies:

Common Ground Research Networks is not-for-profit corporation registered in the State of Illinois, USA, organized and operated pursuant to the General Not For Profit Corporation Act of 1986, 805 ILCS 105/101.01, et seq., (the "Act") or the corresponding section of any future Act.

Common Ground Research Networks is an independent organization that is funded by: research grants, conference registrations, memberships, Article Publication Charges (APC), subscriptions, content, and software sales. Common Ground Research Networks is a member of the following industry associations: Association of American Publishers, Association of Learned and Professional Society Publishers, The Society for Scholarly Publishing, and Crossref.

All published content is overseen by the Chief Social Scientist, in collaboration with our Research Network Chairs, Advisory Board, and Editorial Board members, Author and Volunteer Peer Reviewers—based on their expertise. These roles are clearly marked on each Research Network website.

Access:

Common Ground Research Networks journals and individual articles are available to readers via Membership, standalone subscriptions, or pay-per-view fees.

At Common Ground Research Networks, we are committed to providing low-cost access to all our published content. We also consider requests for APC or Membership fee waivers to Emerging Scholars and researchers from developing countries.

We currently self-archive all content that is no longer published, keeping it assessable in our CGScholar repository. We are also working with CLOCKSS to establish longer term system for electronic backup and preservation of access in the event a journal is no longer published.

Copyright and Licensing:

Our policy for copyright is clearly stated in our author guidelines during the submission and rights agreement phases. We offer a number of Creative Commons licenses for our Hybrid Open Access journals. Immediately upon acceptance, authors are permitted to submit the accepted version of their manuscript with a CC-BY license or a CC-BY-NC-ND license, if required, to their funding body or institution's database, archive, or designated repository. This is the version of the paper accepted for publication after changes resulting from peer review but before editing, formatting, and production of the final PDF by CGRN staff. There are no fees associated with this option. We have clear and accessible guidance regarding author rights and permissions for posting the final accepted versions or published articles on third-party repositories.

Author Fees:

Authors are required to pay an Article Publication Charge (APC) once their manuscript is accepted for publication. Our journals are a mix of Hybrid and Gold Open Access models. Depending on the journal, we offer three Publication Pathways at different price points: All Rights Reserved (+ Green Open Access), Open Access (CC-BY-NC-ND), and Gold Open Access (CC-BY).

Research Network Members can apply their Points to the APC. Our Research Networks are purpose-driven, member-based scholarly communities. Membership is more than an APC and provides a variety of Research Network Membership Benefits. Membership can be purchased independently or bundled with a conference registration.

We also offer the Common Ground Author Fund Award to researchers from countries classified by the World Bank as low-income economics and lower-middle economics. This award grants full or partial APC waivers for journal articles of exceptional quality and global significance. Awards are granted on a case-by-case basis.

Usage Metrics and Reporting:

All metrics for individual access to content is available on the product page for all journal content in the CGScholar Bookstore. For institutional subscribers, we endeavor to ensure that our reporting of content usage remains compliant with the industry standard and the COUNTER Code of Practice.

We are also committed to promoting best practices in reporting scholarly research according to the San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment (DORA).

Data Privacy:

We are committed to data privacy and the protection of the personal information of authors. We may disclose personal data to third-party service providers engaged to assist in the conduct of the publication process. Information provided when submitting an article may be shared with those parties, and the treatment of such information is further subject to the privacy policies of those parties. Except as described herein, Common Ground Research Networks will not disclose personal data to any other third party without consent except where required to do so by law.

Direct Marketing, Communication, and Advertising:

By providing your email address during the creation of your CGScholar account and article submission, you agree that Common Ground Research Networks may send you related information. We do not sell data to third parties