Publication Ethics and Publication Malpractice Statement

The publication of an article in a double-blind peer-reviewed Annales Scientia Politica is a direct reflection of the quality of the work of the authors and the institutions that support them. Peer-reviewed articles support and embody the scientific method. It is therefore important to agree upon standards of expected ethical behaviour for all parties involved in the act of publishing: the author, the journal editor, the peer reviewer, the publisher and the society. Any complaints regarding any material published in the journal should be directly sent to the Editor-in-Chief.

The Publication Ethics and Publication Malpractice Statement of the journal Annales Scientia Politica is based, in large part, on the guidelines and standards developed by Elsevier and the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). The relevant duties and expectations of authors, reviewers, and editors of the journal are set out below.

The Publication Ethics and Publication Malpractice Statement of the journal Annales Scientia Politica has been prepared according to several official documents:

• Elsevier´s Publishing Ethics Resource Kit (PERK)

  1. Publishing Ethics Resource Kit for editors

  2. Authorship complaints

  3. Ethics in research and publication

• COPE´s Code of Conduct:

  1. Code of Conduct and Best Practice Guidelines of Journal Editors

  2. Guidelines

  3. Code of Conduct for Journal Publishers

 

Publication and authorship

1. All authors must have a significant contribution to the research. The occurrence of authors who contribute substantially but are not explicitly acknowledged, or, on the other hand, authors that are acknowledged but in fact are not involved in the research, is regarded as misconduct (for more information about authorship criteria look for example online here).

2. Authors have to declare the financial support of the research (if relevant) and their professional affiliation.

3. Published articles should have the relevant list of references according to

4. the journal´s citation standards (see: Instructions for authors)

5. All forms of plagiarism and use of fraudulent data are unacceptable.

6. It is forbidden to publish the same research in more than one journal.

 

Responsibilities of authors

1. Authors are obliged to publish only real and authentic data.

2. Authors are required to respect an ethical approach towards research subjects (it includes also informed consent for participation of human subjects in research and publishing of their personal data).

3. Authors should guarantee obtained permission for use of copyrighted materials.

4. Authors are obliged to participate in a peer-review process (see also section: Peer-review and guidelines for reviewers).

5. All authors have to cooperate in providing retractions or corrections of mistakes.

6. For further information concerning responsibilities of authors see also: Instructions for authors.

 

Peer-review process and responsibilities of reviewers

1. All reviewing judgments should be objective.

2. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate.

3. Reviewed articles should be treated confidentially.

4. Reviewers should have no conflict of interest with respect to reviewed articles.

5. Reviewers should point out relevant published work which is not yet cited.

6. Editors publishing in their own journal must not exploit their position (the process of peer-review must be handled independently of the author).

7. Reviewers should assess the manuscript in a timely manner.

8. For further information concerning responsibilities of reviewers see section: Peer-review and guidelines for reviewers.

 

Responsibilities of editors

1. Editors should strive to meet the needs of readers and authors; constantly improve the journal; ensure the quality of the material they publish; champion freedom of expression.

2. Editors have complete responsibility and authority to reject / accept an article on the basis of objective academic criteria (such as originality, importance, clarity etc.).

3. Editors have to accept the right of authors to appeal against their decisions.

4. Editors have no conflict of interest with respect to articles they reject / accept.

5. Editors have to publish submission and acceptance dates for articles, description of peer-review process, and to provide continually actualized guidance to authors on everything that is expected of them (including guidance about authorship criteria).

6. Editors should be reasonably certain of accepting articles.

7. Decisions of acceptance of the articles cannot be reversed by editors without serious reasons. New editors should not overturn decisions to publish submissions made by previous editors without serious reasons.

8. Editors promote publication of corrections or retractions of the text if there occur errors or inaccuracies.

9. In relation to reviewers and the peer- review process are editors obliged to provide peer-review guidance; require the disclosure of any reviewer´s conflict of interests; preserve anonymity of reviewers; to ensure that material submitted to Annales Scientia Politica remains confidential while under review; for further information concerning responsibilities of editors in relation to reviewers see section: Peer-review and guidelines for reviewers.

10. In relation to editorial board members: to provide new editorial board members with guidelines on everything that is expected of them and to keep existing members updated on new policies and developments.

11. Editors must maintain integrity of the academic record; editors are also willing to preclude business needs from compromising intellectual and ethical standards.

12. Editors are always prepared to monitor and safeguard all issues of publishing ethics and promptly communicate with authors / reviewers / readers in cases of possible errors in publishing of the texts; suspected misconducts (authorship complaints, plagiarism, fabrication of data, research standards violations, research result misappropriations, etc.). This communication will follow (and will be continually updated by) the rules on Elsevier´s and COPE´s websites (Publishing Ethics Resource Kits; Retraction Guidlines; Flowcharts).

13. Editors are always willing to publish corrections, clarifications, retractions and apologies when needed.