Publication ethics & malpractice statement
1. Ethical responsibilities of Editor(s):
– The editor(s) undertakes to act in a balanced, objective and fair way while carrying out his/her expected duties, without discriminating against any gender, race, sexual orientation, religious or political beliefs, ethnic or geographical origin of the authors, or institutional affiliation.
– Editors and editorial staff will not disclose any information about a submitted manuscript to anyone other than the corresponding author, reviewers, potential reviewers, other editorial advisers, and the publisher, as appropriate.
– All types of submissions will be treated equally so that articles are considered and accepted based on their academic merit and without commercial influence.
– The editor(s) will adopt and follow reasonable procedures in case of complaints of an ethical or conflicting nature, in accordance with the publishing house policies and procedures.
– Authors will be given the opportunity to respond to any complaints. All complaints should be analysed, no matter when the original publication was approved. Documentation associated with any such complaints should be retained.
2. Ethical responsibilities of Reviewer(s):
– In all its publications, SlovakEdu follows the practice of the double-blind peer review process to uphold the quality and validity of publications.
– The reviewers are chosen based on their expertise and relevance to the international scientific community.
- The reviewers have an important contribution to the decision-making process, they help improve the quality of publications by reviewing the submissions objectively and in a timely manner.
– Any invited reviewer who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a proposal or knows that its prompt review will be impossible, should immediately notify the editors and decline the invitation to review so that alternative reviewers can be contacted.
– All works received must be treated as confidential papers, not to be shown or discussed with others: the review process should be conducted objectively and observations formulated clearly with supporting arguments so that authors can use them for improving the manuscript, not leaving room to personal views or criticism.
– The reviewers should warn the editor about any published or submitted content that is substantially similar to that under review, and of any potential conflicts of interest (financial, institutional, collaborative or other relationships between the reviewer and author), withdrawing their services for that proposal.
3. Ethical responsibilities of Author(s):
– All authors are asked to submit only original papers which have not been published previously somewhere else. Research and analysis within the paper must reflect the author’s original work: fraudulent or knowingly fallacious declarations are not accepted and constitute unethical behaviour;
– Significant contributions of co-authors and co-researchers must be properly listed, whereas the corresponding author should ensure all agree with the final version and submission for application.
– The framework of a prior and existing research/work must be guaranteed, ensuring that the work/words of others are appropriately quoted or cited: plagiarism in any form is unaccepted.
– Authors must supply or provide access to existing research/work, upon reasonable request.
– Procedures or equipment that may cause unusual hazards inherent in their use must be clarified: Human or animal subjects must have their privacy rights observed and human experimentation (institutional or private) must have informed consent, according to ethical standards.
– Authors should ensure that any studies involving human or animal subjects conform to national, local and institutional laws and requirements and confirm that approval has been sought and obtained where appropriate. Authors should obtain express permission from human subjects and respect their privacy.
– Any potential conflicts of interest (e.g. where the author has a competing interest that could be considered or viewed as exerting an undue influence on his or her duties at any stage during the publication process) must be declared.
– Authors must read carefully the Copyright Agreement. The submitted contribution may be published only upon the author´s confirmation of the Copyright Agreement.
– Notify promptly the editor or publisher if a significant error in their publication is identified, and cooperate with them to publish an erratum, addendum, corrigendum notice, or retract the paper, where this is deemed necessary.
– Authors are obliged to participate in the peer-review process and cooperate fully by responding promptly to editors’ requests for raw data, clarifications, proof of ethics approval, patient consent and copyright permissions. In the case of a first decision of “revisions necessary”, authors should respond to the reviewers’ comments systematically, point by point, and in a timely manner, revising and re-submitting their proposal within the timeframe given by the Editor and/or Publisher.