Up to standard? A critique of IPSO's editors' Code of Practice and IMPRESS' Standards Code (Parts 1 and 2)
- Submitting institution
-
Cardiff University / Prifysgol Caerdydd
- Unit of assessment
- 34 - Communication, Cultural and Media Studies, Library and Information Management
- Output identifier
- 126536899
- Type
- T - Other
- DOI
-
-
- Location
- http://orca.cf.ac.uk/105913/ http://orca.cf.ac.uk/109120/
- Brief description of type
- Tottel Publishing
- Open access status
- -
- Month
- -
- Year
- 2018
- URL
-
-
- Supplementary information
-
-
- Request cross-referral to
- -
- Output has been delayed by COVID-19
- No
- COVID-19 affected output statement
- -
- Forensic science
- No
- Criminology
- No
- Interdisciplinary
- Yes
- Number of additional authors
-
-
- Research group(s)
-
-
- Proposed double-weighted
- No
- Reserve for an output with double weighting
- No
- Additional information
- We are submitting the following two parts of Carney's article together as they form a single coherent work with one introduction (in Part 1), leading to the conclusion (in Part 2) and all parts between sequentially numbered (Part 1 introduces results 1 to 5; Part 2 picks up starting with findings numbered 6 onwards)
This article was published as:
“Up to standard? A critique of IPSO's Editors' Code of Practice and IMPRESS' Standards Code (Part 1)”
“Up to standard? A critique of IPSO's Editors' Code of Practice and IMPRESS' Standards Code (Part 2)”
This article presents a content analysis of the two major print industry codes of ethics (that of IPSO and IMPRESS), to determine whether they were fit for purpose. Part 1 provides an introduction and comparison of the basic structures with reference to other European codes and then addressed the first 5 key parts of content analysis . Part 2 picks up from the 6th section of analysis and rounds off with a conclusion based on the analysis presented in both parts 1 & 2.
- Author contribution statement
- -
- Non-English
- No
- English abstract
- -
