Code of Ethics
Statement on Publication Malpractice
I. General Provisions
1. The Code of Ethics and the Statement on Publication Malpractice (hereinafter – the Code of Ethics) is binding upon all parties involved in the publication of an article – the author, the editor-in-chief (hereinafter – the editor), the deputy editor-in-chief (hereafter – the deputy editor), members of the editorial board, reviewers and the publisher. The deputy editor fulfils the duties of the editor in his or her absence or if the editor might encounter a situation of conflict of interests relating to the adoption of a decision.
2. The Code of Ethics has been drawn up in compliance with COPE’s (Committee on Publication Ethics) Best Practice Guidelines and based on Elsevier recommendation.
II. Publication Decision
3. The decision on publishing an article is taken by the editor or the deputy editor, liaising with the members of the editorial board, on the basis of the written review/ opinion submitted by reviewers on the scholarly quality of the article, i.e., admissibility for publication. Articles that unfoundedly discredit other persons, infringe copyright or contain plagiarism shall not be published.
4. All articles are anonymously reviewed by at least two independent experts.
5. The manuscripts submitted by the authors are assessed as to their scientific content, without regard to the race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, nationality or political philosophy/ opinion of the author.
6. Neither the editor, nor the deputy editor, nor a member of the editorial board, nor an employee of the magazine may disclose information on the submitted manuscript prior to the publication of the article to anyone else but to the respective author and reviewers.
7. Any use of an unpublished article without a written permission by the author is inadmissible.
V. Disclosure of Information
8. The editor or the deputy editor must take reasonable measures of response if information has been received on a violation of ethical norms in connection with a submitted article, reviewing thereof or a published article.
9. The author must disclose in the manuscript any possible significant conflict of interest (inter alia, the financial source of the research), which might be considered as being such that influenced the results of the research or the interpretation of the sources used.
VI. Duties of Reviewers
10. The reviewer must be an expert in the relevant field and hold a doctoral degree. If any of the chosen reviewers does not consider himself or herself as being sufficiently qualified to review the research presented in the manuscript or if he or she is aware that will not be able to prepare the review in due time, he or she must inform the editor or the deputy editor about it and excuse himself or herself from the obligation to review.
11. All manuscripts received for reviewing must be treated as confidential documents. Without editor’s or the deputy editor’s authorisation, these may not be shown to other persons or discussed with other persons; the manuscript received for reviewing may not be used for gaining personal advantages/ benefits.
12. Reviewing should be conducted objectively; objections must be worded clearly, indicating substantiated objections, which the author may use to improve his or her article. The editor or the deputy editor mediate in the communication between the authors and the anonymous reviewers.
13. The reviewers may not review such manuscripts with regard to which they have a conflict of interest.
14. In the review, reviewers should point to the relevant published work that the author has not cited. Any statement that a finding or an argument has been previously published must be accompanied by the relevant citation.
15. The reviewer should also call to editor’s or the deputy editor’s attention any substantial similarity (or overlap) between the manuscript under review and any other published article that he or she has personal knowledge of.
VII. Duties of the Author
16. The author must objectively present the significance of the research. Moreover, the publications and other sources that have influenced the elaboration of the submitted publication must be referred to in references/sources. The amount of references/sources should be sufficient to allow other persons to ascertain objectivity of the research. Moreover, authors must comply with the formatting guidelines. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behaviour and are unacceptable. Likewise, the opinion presented in the review must be objective, comprehensive and accurate assessment of the publication/ research.
17. The author must ensure that he or she has written original work. Plagiarism in all its manifestations is considered as being unethical behaviour in publishing and is unacceptable.
18. Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal concurrently is unethical behaviour in publishing and is unacceptable. An author should not in general submit an article that, essentially, describes the same research, to more than one journal.
19. The author must ensure that all co-authors have approved of the final version of the article for publication and have agreed to accept it for publication.
20. All those, who have significantly contributed to the elaboration of the conception of the research described in publication, its design, implementation or interpretation must be acknowledged as the authors of the article. All those, who have made substantial contribution, must be acknowledged as co-authors. If there are others, who have participated in the elaboration of a scientific aspect of the research project, they must be acknowledged or listed as contributors.
21. If the author discovers in his/ her own published work a significant error or inaccuracy, it is the author’s obligation to promptly notify the editor or the deputy editor of the magazine about it. The author, in cooperation with the editor or the deputy editor and the publisher, ensures that the publication is retracted or corrected.