Review process

Basic principles for reviewing journal publications

1. At least two independent reviewers outside the unit shall be appointed to evaluate each publication.
2. The recommended solution is a model in which the author (s) and reviewers do not know their identities (the so-called “double-blind review process”).
3. In other solutions, the reviewer must sign a declaration of no conflict of interest; a conflict of interest is considered between the reviewer and the author:

(a) direct personal relationships (kinship, legal relationships, conflict),
(b) professional independence relations,
(c) direct scientific cooperation in the last two years preceding the preparation of the review.

4. The review must be written and conclude with an unequivocal conclusion as to allow the article to be published or rejected.
5. The eligibility or rejection rules and a possible review form are made public on the journal's website or in any issue of the journal.
6. The names of reviewers of individual publications/issues are not disclosed; once a year, the journal makes public a list of collaborating reviewers.

Open access policy

The journal provides immediate, open access to all of its content in accordance with the principle that freely available research enhances and accelerates global science development and knowledge exchange. The Editorial Board encourages authors to post articles published in the journal in open repositories (after a review or final version of the publisher) provided a link to the journal page and the DOI issue of the article.

For the procedure of receiving and publishing texts, the journal does not charge authors any fees.

Principles of ethics

Fairness in science provides one of its qualitative foundations. Readers should be sure that the authors of the publication transparently, fairly and honestly present the results of their work, whether they are direct authors of it or have benefited from a specialized entity (natural or legal person).

Evidence of the ethical attitude of the research worker and the highest editorial standards should be the transparency of information about contributing entities (substantive, factual, financial contributions etc.), which is a manifestation not only of good practice, but also social responsibility.

Opposing examples are “ghostwriting” and “guest authorship”.

We have to do with ghostwriting when someone has made a significant contribution to the creation of the publication, without disclosing his participation as one of the authors or without listing his role in the thanks posted in the publication.

With “guest authorship” (“honorary authorship”) we are confronted when the author's participation is negligible or has not taken place at all, and despite this he is the author/co-author of the publication.

To counter the cases of “ghostwriting”, “guest authorship” the Editorial Board of the journal should introduce appropriate procedures specific to the field or discipline of science represented, or implement the following:

1. The Editorial Board should require publication authors to disclose the contribution of individual authors to the emergence of the publication (giving their affiliations and contribution, i.e. information on the author of concepts, assumptions, methods, protocol etc. used in the preparation of the publication), with the main responsibility of the author submitting the manuscript.

2. The Editorial Board should clarify in the “Instructions to Authors” that “ghostwriting”, “guest authorship” are a manifestation of scientific unreliability, and any detected cases will be unmasked, including notification of relevant entities (institutions employing authors, scientific societies, associations of scientific editors, etc.).
3. The Editorial Board should obtain information about the sources of funding for publications, contributions of scientific and research institutions, associations and other entities (financial disclosure).
4. The Editorial Board should document any manifestation of scientific unreliability, especially the violation and violation of the ethics rules in science.