Ethics and Policies

Ethics and Malpractice Statement

Urbanie & Urbanus (U+U) adheres to the standards set by COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics) while addressing the unique ethical considerations of urban research and practice. We expect all contributors, including authors, reviewers, and editors, to uphold these principles throughout the publication lifecycle. The editorial team is responsible for ensuring the integrity of scholarly literature in the journal and will address ethical issues, such as plagiarism, citation manipulation, data falsification/fabrication, and conflicts of interest, in accordance with COPE guidelines (https://cope.onl/guidance).

1. Ethical Guidelines for Authors
Authors submitting manuscripts to U+U must ensure their work complies with ethical and scholarly standards. Research findings should be presented accurately, with an objective discussion of their significance. Authorship must be limited to those who have made substantial contributions to the research, and each author’s role should be clearly stated. Any potential conflicts of interest—whether financial, institutional, or personal—must be disclosed at the time of submission.

Data and methodologies must be described in sufficient detail to allow replication by other researchers. Whenever possible, raw data should be made publicly available, except where ethical or legal restrictions apply (e.g., sensitive urban case studies involving vulnerable populations). Simultaneous submission to multiple journals is strictly prohibited.

Authors must ensure that their work is original and has not been published elsewhere. If previously published material is included (such as figures, tables, or extended quotations), written permission from the copyright holder must be obtained. Should errors or inaccuracies be identified after publication, authors are expected to promptly notify the journal so that corrections can be made.

2. Ethical Guidelines for Reviewers and Editors
Reviewers and editors play a critical role in safeguarding the quality and integrity of published research. They must evaluate submissions objectively, free from personal or professional bias. Any conflicts of interest, such as institutional affiliations, collaborative relationships, or financial ties, must be disclosed, and individuals with such conflicts should recuse themselves from the review process.

Editors are responsible for ensuring that manuscripts undergo rigorous peer review by experts in the relevant field. Reviewers should assess whether the research is methodologically sound, ethically conducted, and aligned with the journal’s scope. Concerns regarding plagiarism, data manipulation, or ethical violations must be reported to the editorial office for further investigation.

3. Authorship and Contributionship
U+U requires that all listed authors meet the following four conditions:

1. ​Substantial contribution​ to the conception, design, acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of the work;
2. ​Drafting or critical revision​ of the manuscript for important intellectual content;
3. ​Final approval​ of the version to be published; and
4. ​Agreement to be accountable​ for all aspects of the work, including investigation and resolution of any questions related to accuracy or integrity.

Individuals who do not meet all four criteria but contributed to the research (e.g., technical support, data collection, or general supervision) should be acknowledged in the ​Acknowledgments​ section.

3.1 Author Contributions
To ensure transparency, all manuscripts must include a ​contributorship statement​ detailing each author’s specific role (e.g., "X designed the study; Y analyzed data; Z wrote the manuscript"). For multi-author papers, a concise summary of contributions is required.

The ​corresponding author​ serves as the point of contact between the editorial team and co-authors, ensuring co-authors are informed of submission status and editorial decisions.

​Joint first authorship​ may be indicated by the statement, "X and Y contributed equally to this work," with their roles clarified in the contributorship statement.

3.2 Deceased Authors
If an author passes away during manuscript processing, the corresponding author must notify the editorial office. If the deceased was the corresponding author, the co-authors must designate a replacement. The deceased author’s contributions and any conflicts of interest must be confirmed in writing. A publication note will acknowledge their involvement.

3.3 Changes to Authorship
Authors are expected to carefully consider authorship before manuscript submission. Authorship changes (additions, removals, or order adjustments) require written consent​ from all co-authors, including those being removed. Requests must be submitted via a signed ​authorship change form​ with a rationale. Changes after acceptance delay publication; post-publication modifications necessitate a ​Correction. The journal reserves the right to request proof of contributions.

4. Complaints and Appeals
U+U maintains a formal process for addressing concerns regarding published content while ensuring fairness and transparency for all parties involved. Readers who identify potential issues in published articles are encouraged to first contact the corresponding author directly to seek clarification or resolution. Should this approach prove unsatisfactory or inappropriate, individuals may escalate their concerns to the Editorial Office for formal investigation.

When submitting a complaint, readers must provide comprehensive details including the specific article in question, a clear description of the perceived issue with supporting evidence, an explanation of its academic significance, documentation of any prior correspondence with authors, and disclosure of potential conflicts of interest. The Editorial Office will acknowledge receipt of all properly submitted complaints within 5 business days and conduct an initial assessment to determine whether the concern warrants full investigation.

For complaints to be considered substantive, the journal will initiate a thorough examination process. This involves consultation with relevant Editorial Board members and, when necessary, independent subject matter experts to evaluate the technical merits of the claim. Authors will be formally notified of the complaint and given 14 to 21 days to respond with clarifications or counterarguments. The Editorial Office will carefully review all submitted evidence, which may include requests for original data in cases of alleged misconduct. Based on this comprehensive evaluation, the Editor-in-Chief will make a preliminary determination that may result in no action, a published correction, an expression of concern, or in severe cases, article retraction.

The journal recognizes that parties may disagree with editorial decisions and therefore maintains a formal appeals process. Complainants or authors seeking to appeal a decision must submit their request within thirty days of notification, providing a point-by-point rebuttal addressing the investigation's conclusions along with any new evidence not previously considered. Appeals receive tiered review by an independent Editorial Board member not involved in the initial decision, at least one external expert through double-blind peer review, and final determination by the Editor-in-Chief. Possible appeal outcomes include upholding the original decision, modifying the sanction level, or reopening the investigation if compelling new evidence emerges.

Throughout both complaint resolution and appeals processes, U+U maintains strict confidentiality regarding the identities of all involved parties unless disclosure becomes legally mandated. While anonymous complaints will receive consideration, the journal notes that such submissions may limit the scope of possible investigation. The Editorial Office commits to providing status updates for investigations exceeding 60 days and will notify all relevant parties of final outcomes. However, the journal reserves the right to terminate communication in instances of unprofessional conduct or harassment.

This policy reflects the journal's commitment to maintaining rigorous academic standards while ensuring due process for authors and constructive engagement with readers. All decisions align with COPE guidelines and emphasize evidence-based resolution of scholarly disputes. Appeals and complaints should be submitted through the journal's designated contact portal with clear identification of the matter as either a complaint or appeal.

5. Allegations of Research Misconduct
U+U takes all allegations of research misconduct seriously and follows the guidelines established by the COPE when investigating such claims. To ensure a fair and thorough process, all allegations must be submitted with substantive evidence supporting the claim of misconduct, which may include plagiarism, data fabrication, image manipulation, or citation malpractice.

Upon receiving an allegation, the Editorial Office will first conduct an initial screening to assess the validity and severity of the claim. If the allegation warrants further investigation, the journal will engage independent experts in the relevant field to evaluate the evidence while maintaining confidentiality throughout the process. The accused author(s) will be formally notified and given an opportunity to respond within a specified timeframe.

Based on the findings of this investigation, the Editorial Board, in consultation with the Editor-in-Chief, will determine the appropriate course of action. Proven cases of misconduct may result in manuscript rejection or retraction of published articles, accompanied by an official notice explaining the decision. For errors that do not constitute misconduct but affect the interpretation of findings, a correction may be issued instead.

5.1 Plagiarism
U+U maintains a strict policy against all forms of plagiarism, which encompasses the unauthorized use of text, ideas, images, or data without proper attribution to the original source. This prohibition applies equally to content from external publications and an author's own previous work. When referencing prior research, authors must clearly distinguish between paraphrased material and verbatim text, with the latter always appearing in quotation marks accompanied by appropriate citation.

All submitted manuscripts undergo screening using plagiarism detection software (e.g., turnitin). Instances of plagiarism identified during peer review will lead to immediate rejection, while cases discovered post-publication will trigger a formal investigation. Authors may be required to provide original source materials to verify the reliability of contested content. The journal reserves the right to contact institutional authorities in cases of severe or repeated violations.

5.2 Data Fabrication
The journal requires that all research data presented be reliable and complete. The invention of false data and the selective manipulation or omission of results to distort conclusions are considered serious ethical violations. This includes but is not limited to: excluding outlier data points without justification and manipulating statistical analyses to improve statistical significance.

To promote transparency and reproducibility, researchers must retain their original datasets for a minimum of five years following publication, preferably archived in recognized public repositories or institutional servers. The Editorial Office may request access to these raw data files at any stage of the publication process or during post-publication investigations.

5.3 Image Manipulation
Digital images included in manuscripts must accurately represent the original experimental data without misleading alterations. Permissible adjustments are limited to minor enhancements of brightness, contrast, or color balance that do not obscure, eliminate, or misrepresent any elements of the image. The following practices are strictly prohibited:

1. Adding, removing, or relocating elements within an image
2. Combining images from different sources without clear demarcation
3. Applying selective modifications to specific regions of an image
4. Using cloning or healing tools to alter image content

When concerns about image integrity arise, authors must provide the original, unprocessed image files for verification. Failure to produce these materials when requested may result in manuscript rejection or retraction. Cases involving deliberate deception may be reported to the authors' affiliated institutions.

5.4 Citation Manipulation
Proper citation practices are fundamental to maintaining academic integrity. Authors must ensure that all referenced material, including their own prior work, is cited accurately. The journal prohibits several forms of citation malpractice:

1. Excessive self-citation that artificially increases an author's impact metrics
2. "Citation stacking" where authors preferentially cite works from colleagues or institutions without academic justification
3. Inclusion of references not directly consulted or relevant to the research

All verbatim text from external sources must appear in quotation marks with precise page references. The journal follows COPE's guidelines on citation integrity and may question citation patterns that appear manipulative rather than academically motivated.

6. Conflicts of Interests

6.1 For Authors
Authors must transparently declare any personal, professional, or financial interests that could reasonably be perceived as influencing their research or its interpretation. Conflicts of interest may arise from, but are not limited to:

1. ​Financial ties, including employment, consultancies, stock ownership, patents, honoraria, or funding from entities with a stake in the research outcomes.
2. ​Non-financial relationships, such as personal connections, institutional affiliations, or deeply held beliefs that could bias the work.

Authors must explicitly state the involvement of funding sponsors in study design, data collection/analysis, manuscript preparation, or publication decisions. A summarized Conflicts of Interest statement must appear in the manuscript before the references, reflecting all declared interests.

6.2 For Reviewers and Editors
All participants in the peer-review process, including editors, editorial board members, and reviewers, must proactively identify and disclose conflicts that could compromise objectivity.

Recusal is mandatory when:

1. The manuscript involves authors from the reviewer’s/editor’s institution or recent collaborators (within 3 years).
2. Personal relationships exist (e.g., family, close friends, or mentor/mentee dynamics).
3. Financial or professional benefits could arise from the work’s publication (e.g., consulting fees, patent holdings, or corporate funding tied to the research).

Even if a reviewer or editor believes they can assess the work impartially, they must withdraw to uphold the process’s integrity and avoid perceived bias. Undisclosed conflicts​ discovered post-publication may trigger corrections, retractions, or notifications to relevant institutions. The journal follows COPE guidelines to investigate and resolve conflicts, prioritizing scholarly integrity over individual or institutional interests.

7. Data Sharing and Reproducibility
U+U strongly encourages authors to share research data, code, and materials to support research transparency and reproducibility. We endorse the FAIR principles (Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, Reusable) as best practice for data management.

Authors are encouraged to deposit datasets in trusted disciplinary repositories before publication. This includes raw data, processed data, and code. When possible, please include persistent identifiers (DOIs or accession numbers) that can be cited in the manuscript.

A Data Availability Statement is required for all submissions, indicating where supporting data can be found or explaining any access restrictions. For sensitive data involving human participants, authors may describe alternative arrangements for controlled access while protecting confidentiality and complying with ethical guidelines.

During peer review, editors may request access to original datasets to verify analyses. Authors unable to share certain data should provide a clear justification in their submission. We recommend retaining research data for at 5 years to facilitate future verification and reuse.

While data sharing is strongly encouraged, we recognize that legitimate constraints may exist. The editorial team will consider these case-by-case, prioritizing both research transparency and ethical responsibilities. Our goal is to support authors in making research as open as possible while respecting necessary limitations.

8. Ethical Oversight
U+U requires all research involving human participants to follow strict ethical standards. Authors must obtain and document appropriate informed consent, with written consent required for any publication of identifiable personal information including images, videos, or personal details. In exceptional cases where verbal consent is used, such as ethnographic research, authors must submit the verbal consent script and justify this approach.

All participant data must be rigorously anonymized unless identification is scientifically essential to the research. Authors should remove all direct identifiers and minimize inclusion of unnecessary demographic details that could compromise anonymity. When working with vulnerable populations, researchers must provide additional documentation of ethical approvals and justify any categorization by demographic characteristics.

The editorial office reserves the right to request documentation of ethical approvals and consent forms at any stage of the review process. Studies that fail to demonstrate proper ethical oversight or adequate participant protections may be rejected. We maintain these standards to ensure research integrity while protecting participant rights and confidentiality throughout the publication process.

9. Intellectual Property
Authors retain copyright of their work published in Urbanie & Urbanus. By submitting, authors grant the journal exclusive first publication rights and a non-exclusive license to distribute and archive the work.

For original content, authors may reuse their work elsewhere with proper citation to the original publication, and the journal retains distribution rights to the published version.

For third-party materials, authors must obtain written permission to reproduce any copyrighted material (including figures, tables, or substantial text excerpts) that they did not create themselves. Documentation of these permissions must be provided upon submission.

Following publication in U+U, authors may reuse their work in other publications provided that:

1. The original U+U publication is properly cited
2. The reuse does not conflict with the journal's distribution rights
3. Any subsequent publication includes a notice of prior publication in U+U

Special exceptions to these policies may be considered on a case-by-case basis for government works, institutional requirements, or other legally mandated circumstances. Authors should contact the editorial office before submission to discuss any such requirements.

10. Post-publication Discussions
U+U welcomes scholarly discourse about published articles. Readers may submit formal letters to the editor or contact corresponding authors directly through provided email links. All substantive correspondence should maintain academic rigor and professional tone.

The journal encourages open dialogue while reserving the right to moderate discussions that violate professional standards. Authors are expected to engage constructively with reader inquiries about their published work.

11. Corrections and Retractions
U+U maintains rigorous standards for addressing errors or ethical concerns in published articles. When issues are identified, we implement corrections or retractions following COPE guidelines.

For minor errors that do not affect scientific interpretation, such as typographical mistakes or formatting issues, corrections would be done by updating the article version with a footnote annotation. These updates do not trigger separate correction notices. More substantial errors that could influence reader understanding or research conclusions warrant formal correction notices. These major corrections are published as standalone notices in the current journal issue and link to the updated article version, ensuring readers can identify all modifications.

In cases of serious ethical violations, fundamental errors undermining conclusions, or research misconduct including data fabrication or plagiarism, articles will be retracted. Retracted publications remain accessible with prominent watermarks, but are clearly marked as unreliable and should not be cited. The journal publishes formal retraction notices explaining the rationale, using the original authorship information to ensure that the notice and the original retracted paper can be found within indexing databases.

Complete article removal occurs only under extraordinary circumstances, such as legal requirements, privacy violations that cannot be remedied through redaction, unlawful content, or materials posing genuine public safety risks. Even in these rare cases, basic metadata including title and authors are preserved while the full text is withdrawn.

Authors are expected to cooperate fully with any investigations into potential errors or misconduct. The journal reserves the right to contact institutional affiliations when serious concerns arise.

 

---

AI Policy

For Authors
Generative AI and AI-assisted technologies (e.g., ChatGPT, DeepSeek) ​do not currently meet the criteria for authorship​ in Urbanie & Urbanus. Authorship entails intellectual, ethical, and professional responsibilities, such as ensuring the originality of ideas, verifying the accuracy of content, and upholding academic integrity, that can only be fulfilled by human contributors.

While authors are permitted to use generative AI and AI-assisted tools to support the writing process, such as improving language fluency, enhancing readability, or assisting with technical phrasing, they must exercise critical oversight. AI-generated content can be factually incorrect, misleading, or reflect embedded biases. Therefore, authors are required to ​carefully review, substantively edit, and validate​ any AI-assisted output before submission. Authors should take full responsibility for any inaccuracies or misleading material in their work.

If AI technologies are employed as part of the research methodology, such as for data analysis, computational modeling, or generating visualizations (e.g., maps, diagrams), this must be explicitly documented in the methods section. Authors should provide:

1. The ​name and version​ of the AI tool/model used.
2. A ​clear description​ of how the tool was applied.
3. Any ​limitations or potential biases​ associated with its use.

For manuscripts where AI has been used to ​create or modify images, diagrams, or other visual content, authors must submit:

1. The ​original, unprocessed version​ of the visual material.
2. The ​AI-generated or AI-modified version

This allows the editorial team to assess the extent of AI involvement and ensure transparency.

Authors must disclose any use of generative AI in a dedicated "Declaration of Generative AI and AI-assisted Technologies" section before the reference list. This declaration should specify the tool used and its purpose. For example: "During the preparation of this work, the authors used [Tool Name] to [specific purpose]. The authors reviewed and edited the content as needed and take full responsibility for the published work." The use of basic tools for grammar checking, reference management, or similar functions does not require disclosure.

For Reviewers
Reviewers must treat submitted manuscripts as confidential and should not upload manuscripts or any portion of the manuscripts into generative AI tools. This safeguards authors' intellectual property and prevents breaches of confidentiality.

Peer review relies on human expertise to evaluate the methodological validity and relevance of research. Generative AI should not be used to assess manuscripts or draft reviews, as it may produce biased or incomplete evaluations. Reviewers are accountable for their reports, which must reflect their own expert judgment rather than AI-generated conclusions.

If AI tools are used to improve the language or readability of review reports, reviewers must inform the editor. However, the substantive assessment must remain their own. The journal upholds peer review as a cornerstone of academic integrity, emphasizing the irreplaceable role of human judgment in evaluating the quality of research.

For Editors
Editors must maintain the confidentiality of submitted manuscripts and refrain from using generative AI tools to process or evaluate them. This includes not uploading manuscripts or any portion of the manuscripts into generative AI tools, as doing so may violate authors' rights and result in the leakage of sensitive information.

The editorial decision-making process requires human judgment and cannot be fully automated or delegated to AI tools. Editors are responsible for ensuring that manuscripts meet the journal's standards for originality, rigor, and relevance to the journal's scope. While AI may assist with administrative tasks, such as identifying potential reviewers or checking for plagiarism, it should not be used to make substantive decisions about manuscript acceptance or rejection.

Editors should verify that authors have properly disclosed any use of generative AI in their submissions. If undisclosed AI use is suspected, editors should investigate and may reject manuscripts that violate the journal's policies. The journal will continue to monitor developments in AI technology and update these policies as needed to maintain research integrity while embracing beneficial innovations.

This policy reflects our commitment to responsible AI use in research, striking a balance between technological potential and academic rigor, as well as ethical standards. We welcome feedback from authors, reviewers, and readers as we navigate this evolving landscape together.