Publishing ethics guidelines
The Editorial Board of RPEiS attaches particular importance to scientific integrity and adherence to the principles of academic ethics. RPEiS follows the recommendations of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) concerning the best practice on publication ethics: https://doi.org/10.24318/cope.2019.2.26, as well as COPE Guidelines on Authorship and AI tools. The journal also follows European Commission guidelines on Ethics in Social Science and Humanities. In order to ensure the originality of academic publications, the editors make use of the Crossref Similarity Check anti-plagiarism system. (Detailed description of the Similarity Check System can be found at: www.crossref.org/services/similarity-check/)
All persons participating in the process of publishing the journal are obliged to observe the ethical principles adopted by RPEiS.
The Responsibilities of Authors
Authors should present their research results in a reliable, credible, and honest way.
1. Authors shall submit only original texts that have not been published before, either in part or in whole, and which have not been submitted to another journal. In a special Declaration they confirm that: the text has not been published before, has not been submitted to another editorial office, and is free of legal defects (e.g. it has been prepared without copyright infringement).
2. Authors should disclose any potential conflicts of interest.
3. Authors are obliged to disclose all the sources of funding of the research that resulted in the submitted article.
4. In the case of papers prepared by two or more authors, individual contributions to the publication must be indicated.
5. Authors must provide all the relevant information about affiliation and institutional relationships to enable the journal editors to appoint an impartial reviewer.
6. Authors are required to comply with European Commission guidelines on Ethics in Social Science and Humanities, as well as on COPE guidelines on publication ethics (https://doi.org/10.24318/cope.2019.2.26), including the guidelines on Authorship and AI tools.
Responsibilities of the Editors, the Editorial Committee, and the International Advisory Committee
1.The editors only accept original articles (and other texts) that are in line with the profile, scope and purpose of the journal.
1.1 The evaluation of texts is not influenced by the nationality, ethnicity, race, gender, sexual orientation, or religious and political beliefs of the authors.
2. The editors only accept texts that are free of legal defects. Since plagiarism, self-plagiarism, ghostwriting, and guest authorship are examples of scientific dishonesty, the editors are obliged to expose all the cases that are detected, including notification of the relevant bodies (institutions employing the authors, scientific societies, associations of scientific editors, etc.).
3. Guided by the content of the texts, the editors appoint two reviewers affiliated with different institutions than those to which the authors are affiliated. In the case of interdisciplinary texts, they may appoint more than two reviewers. Reviews are double-blind. Due to the broad subject matter of the articles submitted to the journal, in the absence of a suitable reviewer, the editors may entrust a member of the Editorial Committee or the International Advisory Committee with the task of preparing the review.
4. If a reviewer does not prepare a review within the deadline, or for ethical reasons cannot prepare a review of a particular text, the editors will appoint a new reviewer.
5. The editors accept only reliable and substantive reviews prepared in accordance with good manners.
6. In the event of a conflicting assessment of a text by two reviewers, the editors may appoint a third reviewer.
7. The members of the Editorial Board will only accept texts for publication that have received two unequivocally positive reviews, before submitting them to the Editorial Committee for approval.
8. The editors guarantee the confidentiality of the review process and the personal data of authors and reviewers, and ensure their security. (More information can be found here: Personal data protection policy.)
Reviewers’ duties
The reviewer’s primary duty is to evaluate the text objectively. Criticism for personal reasons is unacceptable. All comments, assessments and suggestions should be clearly indicated and supported with arguments.
1. Reviewers shall prepare reviews that are fair and substantive, and provide an unambiguous conclusion. Reviews should be good-mannered.
2. Reviewers shall observe the journal’s review procedure:
2.1. preparing anonymous reviews;
2.2. preparing reviews in accordance with the criteria of the review sheet (RPEiS Review Sheet).
3. Reviewers shall prepare the review within the stipulated deadline, i.e. one month.
4. If they are unable to prepare a review, they should inform the Editor within one week of receiving a request to prepare a review.
5. Reviewers are obliged to inform the Editor if there is a possible conflict of interest.
6. Reviewers should inform the Editorial Board if they detect any signs of the author’s scientific dishonesty (plagiarism, self-plagiarism, ghostwriting, guest authorship).
7. Reviewers must not use any data or results of the reviewed research contained in the article for other purposes than the preparation of the review.
8. Reviewers prepare reviews free of charge, in accordance with the previously accepted custom.
Proceedings in the event of violations of the journal’s ethical principles
1. Plagiarism, self-plagiarism, ghostwriting, and guest authorship are examples of scientific dishonesty and constitute unethical scientific practice. The editors will document all examples of scientific dishonesty, especially violations and breaches of academic ethical principles.
2. In order to ensure the originality of the scientific publications, the editors use the Crossref Similarity Check anti-plagiarism system. All the results of the anti-plagiarism check are analysed by the editors. If plagiarism or self-plagiarism is detected, the submitted text is rejected, and the author is informed in writing of the grounds for rejection.
3. If reviewers report suspected plagiarism or self-plagiarism to the editors, they will check the validity of the suspicion and inform the reviewers, the author, and the Editorial Committee of the results of the check. If the suspicion is confirmed to be justified, the submitted text will be rejected, and the author will be informed of the grounds for rejection of the text.
4. If readers of the journal report suspected plagiarism or self-plagiarism to the editors, the editors will check the validity of the suspicion and report the results of the check to the reviewers, the author, and the Editorial Committee. If the validity of the suspicion is confirmed, the published text will be withdrawn from all online platforms where the journal is available. Information about the basis for the removal of the text shall be provided on the electronic platforms and in the print version of the journal.
5. In all cases of detected plagiarism, the editors will inform the relevant bodies (institutions employing the authors, scientific societies, associations of scientific editors, etc.)
6. In the case of ghostwriting and guest authorship, the text will be rejected. The editors will inform the author(s) of the decision and the grounds for it, as well as the relevant institutions employing the author(s) or scientific societies with which the author(s) is/are affiliated.
