Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement
Composed using the Publishing ethics resource kit of Ministry of Sciences and Higher Education and in compliance with Elsevier policies and COPEís Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors))

The authors of a given publication are all those individuals who made significant intellectual contributions to it. Their specific contributions to a work and relative weighting of their contributions is declared by the corresponding Author before publication in the publishing agreement. Individuals who did not make significant intellectual contributions should not be listed as Authors. Contributors whose contribution is not significant enough for authorship (e.g., data collection, provision of research apparatus) can be acknowledged in an Author’s Note, mentioning the role they played in the research project. Listing individuals who have not made significant intellectual contributions is not acceptable. The Authors list should accurately reflect who contributed to the research being described.All authors are accountable for all contents of the published work, unless contribution break-down is specified in an Author’s Note.Disputes regarding authorship (a contribution not acknowledged, or contribution indicated where none existed) can be investigated by the Editorial Board of Psychological Studies.

Submitted manuscripts should represent original materials that have not been published before. Submitting a manuscript simultaneously runs the risk of duplicate publication, which would violate this assumption of originality and misrepresent the reliability of the findings. Moreover, it takes up the resources (time, effort) of two editorial teams whose work is likely to overlap. Submitters should wait for feedback from one publisher before submitting the same work to another (if necessary).

An author should not in general publish manuscripts describing essentially the same research in more than one journal or primary publication. Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal concurrently constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable.

Authors should make efforts to
1) ensure that they have written entirely original works, and if the authors have used the work and/or words of others, that this has been appropriately cited or quoted. Plagiarism occurs when one Author uses another Author’s work (words, phrases, data, or ideas) without due acknowledgement. Specific instructions regarding formatting for referencing ideas, data, or specific words, are given in the APA Publication Manual. All words, data, and ideas not formatted as a reference, using appropriate formatting, are assumed to be the submitting Author’s.
2) exactly describe methods, apparatus, materials, sampling, and analyses to eliminate the possibility of presenting a false representation of the research as conducted.

(These guidelines are based on existing Elsevier policies and COPEís Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors)
Editorial Board of Psychological Studies seeks to provide submitters with high quality, thoughtful, constructive feedback on their work. Any selected referee who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should notify the editor and excuse himself from the review process. Reviews should be substantive and accurate. Reviewers should communicate their honest scholarly judgement of the submission based on its merits and contribution to the extant scientific literature.• Reviews should be objective. Reviews should contain specific, documentable information about the strengths and the weaknesses of the submission. Reviews should be constructive. Reviews should provide suggestions for improving the submission. These suggestions should be structured in a way that will allow the Author to refer to them when re- submitting (e.g., as a numbered list). In reviewing a re-submission, Reviewers should check whether and how all of these points were addressed by the Author. Reviews should be timely. If a review cannot be made within the timeline given, the Reviewer shouldcontact the Editor as soon as possible to allow for alternative arrangements.

(These guidelines are based on existing Elsevier policies and COPEís Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors)
Editors make final decisions regarding submissions to Psychological Studies. As such, they are ultimately responsible for the quality of these decisions and how these decisions are communicated. In addition, Editors must assess reviews for adherence to the aforementioned guidelines. Each decision should be communicated clearly and respectfully, integrating Reviewer comments and indicating a re-submission deadline (if applicable). Editors should take particular care to not disclose information about submitted manuscripts to third parties or to make use of information from unpublished manuscripts without the express written consent of the Authors.