SST follows the guidelines of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) (Code of Conduct and Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors). With the exception of book reviews and editorial introductions, all papers published in SST are subject to (at least) double-blind peer review. This standard also applies to papers authored or co-authored by members of the SST editorial board. Peer reviewers are asked to abide by the guidelines of the Committee on Publication Ethics (Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers).
Conflicts of interest Actual, potential, or apparent conflicts of interest must be declared at the time of article submission or as soon as such conflicts arise. Conflicts of interest include professional, business, financial, personal, or legal relationships between an author and an organisation being studied or discussed in a paper, which could influence the manner in which the research has been conducted and/or presented. Conflicts of interest are not in themselves reasons for rejecting a paper, but such conflicts may affect the way in which a paper is assessed. Failure to declare actual, potential, or apparent conflicts of interest may result in the rejection of submitted articles, retraction or a clarification of published articles. For questions involving conflicts of interest and other ethical issues, please contact the SST Executive Editor by email: sst@um.edu.mt.
Plagiarism Attributing someone else's work as one's own is unreservedly unprofessional. The SST Editor will examine each potential case of plagiarism on its own merits, considering article type, disciplinary norms, and thesis or dissertation policies. SST follows COPE's recommendations not to use a specific percentage of duplication or overlap as a benchmark for conducting an investigation into potential plagiarism. For questions involving actual or potential plagiarism and related ethical issues, contact the SST Executive Editor by email:sst@um.edu.mt.
Before submitting a manuscript, those who intend to publish in SST are required to read the Journal’s author instructions and ethical policies carefully, and to adhere to their terms.
SST promotes good quality scholarship. Nevertheless, errors may sometimes appear in the published version of the journal. In such cases, the SST editor is to be notified immediately and, if the error is verified, a correct version of the published material will replace the former one online at the earliest opportunity.
Situations may also arise where it is alleged that ethical standards have been breached in relation to academic material related to SST. Allegations of research misconduct – such as plagiarism, ghost authorship, gift authorship, guest authorship, and abuse of intellectual property and copyright infringement – may be related either to a published article (or book review) in SST or to a manuscript under peer review for SST. Such allegations are taken most seriously by the Journal. Any such allegations are handled with sensitivity, tact, in confidence, and as follows:
The SST Editor would receive a complaint that a published article or a submitted manuscript is suspected of being associated with research misconduct.
The complainant needs to indicate the specific manner and detail of the alleged misconduct clearly. For example, in a case of plagiarism, the plagiarized text should be clearly highlighted and the original and suspected articles should be referred to clearly.
The SST Editor, or designate, will investigate the allegations.
If grounds for research misconduct result from the investigation, the SST Editor will be in contact with the corresponding author(s) of the suspected article or manuscript. The corresponding author(s) will be asked to provide an explanation, with factual statements and any available evidence, and given a deadline for such a submission.
If the author(s) of the suspected article accepts the misconduct complaint, and the article has already been published, the SST Editor will publish an erratum and retract the article in question.
If the author(s) of the suspected manuscript accepts the misconduct complaint, and the misconduct is reported during the review process, the review process may resume, once the author(s) makes the relevant changes.
In the case of non-response by the corresponding author(s) within the stipulated time, or of an unsatisfactory explanation from the said author(s), the article or manuscript may be permanently retracted or rejected. Before making a decision, confirmation will be sought by the SST Editor from the SST International Editorial Board, from relevant institutions and/or other authorities, as may be required.
The complainant will be informed of the outcome, once the issue is resolved. The case will thereupon be considered closed.
Should the SST Editor be accused of research misconduct, then the SST Deputy Editor for Institutional Affairswould receive the complaint from the complainant, and would initiate and follow the protocol explained above.
Preamble Artificial Intelligence (AI) refers to a machine’s ability to perform cognitive functions that are usually associated with the human mind: such as perceiving, reasoning, learning, taking decisions. This includes the generation and polishing of text, imagery and sound, which are most relevant to academic work. Generative AI models work on the basis of large language models that contain vast amounts of data.
Small States & Territories (SST) has already been presented with academic work that has been impacted, to some degree, by the use of AI tools. This experience is increasingly being faced by journal editors, publishing houses, research institutes and other institutions associated with the publication and dissemination of academic work.
SST is committed to uphold and maintain academic integrity and ethical standards. And so, this policy is being proposed to offer guidance to: authors planning to submit manuscripts or book reviews to be considered for publication in the journal; as well as scholars invited by the journal to act as its peer reviewers.
Given the very fast pace of development and quality in AI tools, SST’s AI policy is necessarily based on current understandings of AI and may be updated as the technology evolves.
AI usage by authors submitting material (text or graphic) being considered for publication in SST 1.1 Authorship and accountability: Authorship remains limited to individuals who have made significant intellectual contributions to the work being considered for publication. Authors are fully responsible for the accuracy, originality, and integrity of their work, including any AI-generated content. Presenting AI tools as an author on any SST publication is not acceptable. 1.2 Transparency and disclosure of AI tools: Authors must disclose the use of any AI tools in their manuscript or book review. This means that (a) the type of AI tools used needs to be specified and disclosed; as well as (b) how they were employed. This includes AI assistance in brainstorming, proofreading, structural and stylistic feedback, syntax and grammar correction, translation assistance, data analysis and visualization. The author should disclosure AI use either in the manuscript proper (e.g., in its methodology section) or as additional information submitted with the manuscript to the editor. 1.3 Use of AI-generated images: The rapidly evolving field of generative AI image creation raises complex legal, copyright, and research integrity challenges. Due to these legal uncertainties, SST does not currently permit their use in submitted manuscripts. 1.4 AI as a source: Citing chatbots or AI-generated content as primary or secondary sources in manuscripts or book reviews is not acceptable. Content produced by Large Language Models (LLMs) lacks reproducibility, traceability, and may inadvertently contain third-party material without proper attribution, as well as fictional references. On the other hand, the resort to AI tools in: sourcing relevant literature (e.g. Scopus AI, Web of Science AI), formulating an analytical framework, and analysing data (e.g. MAXQDA has an AI assistant) is acceptable. 1.5 Ethical use of AI: AI must be used ethically and responsibly, avoiding plagiarism, copyright infringement, data fabrication, or misrepresentation of research. Authors must ensure AI-generated content does not violate copyright and that all appropriate citations are provided. 1.6 Data privacy and consent: Authors must continue to comply with data privacy regulations when using AI tools that process data, especially sensitive or personal data. Ethical practices around informed consent, respondent anonymity, data protection and data confidentiality remain rigidly in force and must be maintained, with or without AI usage. 1.7 Quality control and verification: Authors are responsible for verifying the accuracy and reliability of AI-generated content. Rigorous quality control and human oversight are absolutely essential to meet scholarly publishing standards.
AI use by SST’s peer reviewers 2.1 Uploading of unpublished manuscripts: Peer reviewers must not upload unpublished manuscripts, including any associated files, images or information, onto available AI tools. Such actions risk breaching confidentiality and copyright issues, as well as pose security risks. 2.2 Use of generative AI: Generative AI may only be used by SST’s peer reviewers to enhance the clarity and quality of language in their review. Peer reviewers remain fully responsible for ensuring the accuracy and integrity of their reviews.
Additional considerations 3.1 Reservations:SST reserves the right to request additional information or clarification on AI usage in submitted manuscripts. 3.2 Risk of rejection or retraction: Non-disclosure of AI usage or unethical AI practices may result in manuscript rejection or retraction of published work.
Salient points AI is fast being mainstreamed as a valuable tool for academic research and writing. But it does not and cannot replace human judgment, creativity and accountability. When using AI in scholarly publishing, full disclosure, transparency and ethical considerations remain paramount.
SST encourages a responsible use of AI that complements, but never replaces, human expertise and which helps to advance knowledge, but not rehash what is already known.
