Publication ethics

Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement of the Neograeca Bohemica are based on the Code of Conduct and Best-Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors as approved by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) Council on 7th March 2011. All reviewers are recommended to adhere to the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers. Authors are also encouraged to refer to the Committee on Publication Ethics’ International Standards for Authors. All parties involved in the act of publishing – the author, the journal editors, the peer reviewers and the editorial board – are obliged to agree upon highest standards of expected ethical behavior.

Editors' and editorial board members' responsibilities

1. Roles of the editor in chief, managing editor and editorial board members

Editor in chief of Neograeca Bohemica assures that its content follows the basic scope of the journal, and is responsible for the scientific quality of the published papers. Editor in chief leads the peer review process and reserves the right to make the final decision on whether to publish or reject the article submitted to the journal. Making this decision, the editor may confer with the managing editor, the editorial board or the reviewers.

Editor in chief and managing editor ensure the submitted manuscript is treated with objectivity, regardless the race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy of the author. They guarantee that the main criteria of paper selection being used are the scientific level of the paper as well as the conformity of its topic with the focus of the journal. They also ensure the paper accepted for publication meets the publication standard criteria of journal including plagiarism, conflict of interest, and the writing guidelines.

Editorial board members keep and promote publication ethics of the journal and guarantee their observation. They also supervise the professional and formal quality of the journal, seeking constantly for their improvement. They are informed about the submitted manuscripts, the outcome of the peer review process and, in disputable cases, involved in the discussion about the publication of the reviewed manuscript.

2. Confidentiality

The editors and editorial board members are obliged to treat every received manuscript as confidential. They must not share information about the submitted manuscript – i.e. its status in the review process, criticism by reviewers, and whether it will finally be published or not – to anyone other than the author and the reviewers.

The editors and editorial board members are obliged to protect reviewers’ identities within the peer review process. The review process is fully anonymous. The reviewers do not know the name of the author and vice versa. The first part of the peer review form is confidential, the second part of the evaluation will be provided (anonymously) to the author so that he/she could make the possible improvements.

3. Disclosure and conflict of interest

Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript or privileged ideas obtained through peer review must not be used in editors’ own research or for their personal advantage without explicit (written) consent of the author.

The editors should avoid the conflict of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with the author. If it exists, they should assign the manuscript to other member of the editorial board in order to lead a fair and appropriate peer review process.

Authors' duties

1. Formatting of the manuscript

The author should follow the submission guidelines and instructions for authors, regarding the format of the manuscript and references. Editors reserve the right to adjust the formatting style to conform to the standards of the journal.

2. Participation in the peer review process

The author is obliged to participate in the peer review process, responding timely and politely to the comments of the reviewers. If the author agrees to make changes or modifications based on these comments, he/she should provide the corrections in a timely manner. If the author does not agree with reviewers’ recommendations or other remarks, relevant objections with a detailed explanation should be provided to the editors of the journal or, the manuscript should be retracted.

3. Reporting principles

The author should report results of his/her research work concisely and in the context of prior studies in the field, in a way that does not allow for ambiguity and inaccuracy.

A paper should contain sufficient detail and references to permit others to replicate the work. Dishonest or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behavior, they are unacceptable and will lead to rejection of paper.

4. Originality, plagiarism and acknowledgement of sources

Plagiarism in all its forms is unacceptable. By submitting the paper to Neograeca Bohemica the author declares that his/her work is entirely original, and that any works or results of others are appropriately cited or quoted. All papers that do not meet these standards will be rejected or retracted.

5. Multiple, redundant or concurrent publication

The author should not submit a manuscript that has already been published in another journal. Submission of a manuscript concurrently to more than one journal is unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable. The publication of some kinds of articles (such as translations) in more than one journal or publication is sometimes justifiable, provided that certain conditions are met. These cases will be assessed individually.

Prior publication in the form of conference abstracts or presentations, databases, or PhD theses usually do not present cause for concerns about duplicate or redundant publication.

6. Authorship

The authorship of the paper has to be accurately stated at the time of manuscript submission. The list of authors should include all those who can legitimately claim authorship as recommended by the ICMJE, 2018, i.e. (a) they have made a substantial contribution to the conception or design of the work; or acquisition, analysis or interpretation of data; (b) they drafted the article or revised it critically for important intellectual content, (c) they approved the version to be published; (d) each author should have participated sufficiently in the work to take public responsibility for appropriate portions of the content.

All persons who made substantial contributions to the work reported in the manuscript (such as commenting earlier version of the paper, general support) but who do not meet the criteria for authorship must not be listed as an author, but should be acknowledged in the "Acknowledgements" section.

7. Disclosure of financial support and conflicts of interest

The author has to disclose any potential financial or other conflicts of interest that might appear to affect the results or interpretation of his/her work. All financial sources that supported the presented work must be stated.

8. Fundamental errors in published works

The author cannot make any change on the published manuscript. Therefore, the author is obliged to be very careful reviewing and correcting any errors on proofreading.

When an author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in his/her own published work, it is the author's obligation to promptly notify the journal editors in order to publish an appropriate correction statement or erratum.

Reviewers' responsibilities

1. Contribution to editorial decisions

Submitted manuscripts are evaluated by two independent reviewers selected by the journal editors. The reviews assist the editors in deciding whether the manuscript is suitable for publication (unconditionally or after minor/major corrections). Through the editorial communications with the author it may also assist the author in improving his/her manuscript and to provide him/her a useful feedback.

2. Promptness

Any selected reviewer who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should notify the editor and excuse himself/herself from the review process.

3. Confidentiality

Reviewers are obligated to maintain the confidentiality of the review process and must not disclose any data or information regarding submitted papers. If a reviewer knows the identity of the author, he/she should excuse himself from the review process.

4. Standards of objectivity

The review of submitted papers should be conducted objectively, in terms of quality, originality, importance and relevance to the scope of the journal. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate. The reviewers shall express their views clearly, supported by factual arguments.

5. Disclosure and conflicts of interest

Reviewers must not consider manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest with respect to the research (e.g. they have already provided the author with comments on the manuscript or its earlier version), author, research funders and/or institutions connected to the manuscript.

The journal editors or members of the editorial board may submit their own manuscripts for possible publication in the journal. In these cases, the peer review process will be managed by alternative members of the editorial board and the submitting editor/board member will have no involvement in the decision-making process.

6. Acknowledgement of sources

Reviewers should point out relevant published work which has not been cited by the author. Any similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published paper should be reported to the editor in chief.