Code of conduct
reporting on arts, design, and performing arts, with a particular emphasis on practitioner methodologies and the educational impact of artistic research.
The HUB Journal is committed to peer-review integrity and acknowledges the debate around the peer-review process in artistic research. All articles, scholarly or project-based, are peer-reviewed (except for issue#0).
HUB uses a double-blind peer-review methodology process (the authors do not know who reviews their submissions, neither the reviewers know who authored the submissions they are reviewing). Concerning project-based submissions or published Research Catalogue (RC) expositions of original artwork, a double-blind review process may not be feasible since artwork or visual media may often be directly identified with their authors. In these cases, HUB will employ a single-blind peer-review process (the authors do not know who reviews their papers).
We believe that this procedure is more than a standard for the validation of new knowledge in artistic research. Through the engagement of practitioners, researchers, and reviewers with each other’s work, a community of art researchers is built and expanded across institutional frames.
We are committed to the institutional and geographic diversity of our reviewers’ board. Once the paper is assessed for suitability by the editorial team, it will then be peer-reviewed by independent, anonymous expert referees within the research fields of the submission. Our peer review also provides substantial and constructive feedback to support the development of the individual author’s research potential.
Authorship & Plagiarism
Authors must ensure that the content of their work is original and the work of others is properly credited. Plagiarism in any form constitutes unacceptable ethical behavior.
Author(s) must obtain explicit written permission to reuse third-party material in your submission. Failure to comply with appropriate behavior may render the authorization for publication unfeasible.
HUB only accepts submissions received through the RC. Please refer to the HUB Submission Guidelines for more information.
Submissions should present their results clearly, honestly, and without fabrication, falsification, or inappropriate data manipulation, describing their methods clearly and unambiguously so that their findings are properly supported and can be confirmed by others. Authors should retain any necessary data to support their claims throughout the review, revision, and publication process.
Peer Review Process
Submissions are initially assessed by the journal editors. Submissions may be rejected or returned to the author before the peer review process if the scope, structure, or content lacks quality or deviates from the journal's scope or guidelines.
If suitable, submissions undergo a double-blind peer review process (o single-blind in cases where anonymizing the author or the submission is impossible, e.g., author-based artistic work or exhibitions). All submissions and peer reviews are conducted through the RC.
Each submission is reviewed by two or three independent peer-reviewers, one of which may be chosen from a list of names supplied by the author. Peer reviewers are selected and approached by the HUB or thematic issue editors on the basis of their knowledge and experience.
Reviewers are asked to use the review form provided by the editors in their assessment. The form consists in a survey assessing the overall quality of the submissions.
The editors will generate a review report that will be communicated to the corresponding author within 3 to 6 months, depending on the availability of reviewers and the time it takes to arrive at a conclusion. This report includes compiling the peer review forms, the review outcome, and the editorial team's final assessment. This report should be used as a guide for any edits or revisions required.
A favorable opinion of the reviewers does not imply the automatic publication of the submission.
Revision and Publication Process
Submissions may be accepted with or without revisions during or after the peer-review process. Revisions may be required more than once to make it acceptable and ready for publication. The revised submissions will be returned to the editors or to the original reviewers for re-evaluation in the necessary rounds of review according to the minor or major nature of revisions needed. All authors should note and try to respond to all the comments and corrections suggested by the editors and reviewers.
Submissions may be accepted for publication in a different issue other than the call it is being submitted (e.g. if the submission is relevant for the journal but is better suited for the “Varia” open call instead of the specific theme issue). This may imply different publication schedules at the discretion of the editors and respective author information and compliance. If the article is not published within the previewed schedule or provided information about any alteration to this process, the author may submit it to other publications.
Publication fees and costs
The publication is fully open access, and no fees or costs are applied either to readers, authors, reviewers, and editors at any time.
This section summarizes the guidelines of COPE Ethical guidelines for peer reviewers followed by the HUB journal.
Reviewers should only agree to review submissions for which they have enough expertise in the area to provide a proper assessment of the complete submission or part of the submission, and by adequately communicating it to the editor directly or in the review form.
Reviewers are asked to use the review form provided by the editors in their assessment.
Conflicts of interest
Reviewers must declare all potential conflicts of interest, bias, or involvement with all or any part of the work in the submission. In the case of a double-blind review, if reviewers suspect the identity of the author(s), reviewers must notify the journal editor if this knowledge raises any potential conflict of interest.
Reviewers must not identify the absence nor suggest the inclusion of citations to the reviewer’s (or their associates’) work merely to increase citation count or to enhance the visibility of their work.
Reviewers unable to comply with the journal’s review policies or peer-review model must decline and remove themselves or be removed from the issue or journal review process and their respective board.
Review schedule and responsibilities
Reviewers should only agree to review submissions they can assess in accordance with the call or issue calendar in a timely manner. Impersonating or assigning reviews to other individuals is considered serious misconduct.
Reviewers must respect the confidentiality of the submissions during and after the peer-review process and are not allowed to use information obtained during the review process for their advantage or to disadvantage or discredit others.
Review and Feedback
Reviewers must be objective and constructive in their reviews. Provide specific feedback that will help the authors to improve their submissions with evidence and appropriate references, as well as to uphold and improve on the standards of the artistic research community as a whole. Refrain from hostile, inflammatory, or derogatory comments or unfounded accusations either of personal or professional nature.
Reviewers should also be aware of language issues due to authors writing in a language that is not theirs and phrase the feedback appropriately and respectfully.
Reviewers must notify the journal editor immediately if they encounter any irregularities, ethical aspects, or substantial similarity between concurrent submissions or published material or suspect any misconduct in the submission. Or if anything relevant comes to light after the review or publication of the submission.
If the reviewer is one of the journal issue editors handling the submission and decides to provide a review of that manuscript, do this transparently and not under the guise of an anonymous review. Submissions handled by another editor at the journal unrelated to the call or issue can be treated as any other review.
Reviewers are not granted any fees or payment for their peer-reviewing services.
Editors are not granted any fees or payment for their editorial services.
Authors retain the copyright of the content and grant the HUB journal the rights to publish their submissions in the journal’s platform and index in international networks.
Works published in the HUB journal are licensed under Creative Commons. Authors can choose different licenses for their submissions and specific media in use. Licensing allows a range of options, from all rights reserved to sharing and creating derivatives from the original work. Read more about the licensing options on the research catalogue.
Authors may re-publish, or re-distribute their HUB journal contributions to alternative publishing platforms or media, provided they acknowledge the original publication credits to the HUB journal.
The content of the submissions — texts and the opinions expressed therein, reference to figures, graphics, or any other media —, are the sole responsibility of the authors.
Copyrights to any external source (e.g. photographs or artworks) published in the journal remain with their current copyright holders. Author(s) must obtain permission to reuse third-party material in your submission. If you wish to include any material in your paper for which you do not hold copyright and which is not covered by this informal agreement, you must obtain written permission from the copyright owner before submission. It is the author's responsibility to obtain permission to quote from copyright sources.
Any fees required to obtain illustrations or to secure copyright permissions are the responsibility of the authors.
The HUB Journal is managed by the i2ADS Research Unit, hosted at the Faculty of Fine Arts of the University of Porto, Portugal.
The HUB editors guarantee an ethical and confidential use of any personal data supplied by the authors to the journal, and will not be made available by the editors to any third parties.
Authors are responsible to inform, obtain explicit consent or permission, and provide the accorded confidentiality of personal data of any participating subjects in the research or submission.
HUB Journal is committed to upholding the integrity of international academic standards by adhering to the principles set by COPE Core practices.
Allegations of misconduct must be communicated to the journal’s editors during pre-publication and post-publication. The editors will evaluate the claims and deploy any action necessary with the authors or the publications identified that may include but are not limited to correcting, revising, or retracting articles during and after publication. Claims must be made by verifiable humans and, if necessary, will be handled by a blind peer reviewer.
Ethical oversight of the journal communication and publication process will be done in three tiers. First, all the journal’s communication will be supervised by the chief editor. The chief editor is also responsible for approving and assigning the review process and the consent to publication. Second, the executive editors are responsible for reviewing and managing the peer-review process with the reviewers. In case of any conflict of interest, executive editors will defer to the journal’s editor or editor-in-chief. Thirdly, the reviewers are instructed to provide a blind review according to Guidelines for Peer Reviewers and check the authors’ adherence to the Author's Information.
Submissions must have been conducted in an ethical and responsible manner and should comply with all relevant legislation. We do not exclude nor provide differentiated treatment to authors or submissions based on population traits, races, creeds, or cultures other than the academic quality of the submissions.
Complaints and appeals should be addressed to the journal’s editors via email. The editors will address all complaints submitted accordingly.