Publication Ethics

The journal’s scholarly credibility rests on the accuracy of the research record, author accountability and independent editorial decision-making. Its publication ethics policies therefore apply to authors, reviewers, editors, editorial board members and the publisher, including in relation to special issue contributions. In implementing these policies and addressing suspected misconduct, the editorial team draws on the Core Principles and guidance of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), as well as the Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing jointly issued by COPE, DOAJ, OASPA and WAME.

Originality and Concurrent Submission

Authors must submit only original work that is not under consideration by another journal. Ideas, wording, data and visual materials derived from other sources must be clearly identified and attributed to genuine sources. Plagiarism, data fabrication or falsification, fabricated references, misleading manipulation of visual materials and any manipulation of peer review are prohibited.

Authors must disclose substantial overlap with their own publications and any prior dissemination as a preprint, conference abstract, thesis or dissertation, or other version of the text. The editorial team will assess the work’s originality, the extent of overlap and the rights to publish it. An undisclosed translation of a previously published article must not be presented as original work. Any legitimate secondary publication requires prior agreement between the editorial teams concerned, appropriate permission, and clear identification of both the original source and the nature of the new publication.

Authorship and Accountability

Authorship must reflect a substantial scholarly contribution to the work. This requires involvement in its scholarly development or critical revision, approval of the final version, and acceptance of responsibility for the author’s own contribution and for cooperating in the resolution of questions concerning the integrity of the work as a whole. Administrative assistance, seniority within an organisation or the provision of funding alone does not confer authorship.

All individuals who qualify as authors must be listed; honorary and ghost authorship are prohibited. For co-authored work, the contributions of individual authors must be described. Other contributors may be named in the acknowledgements with their consent. The corresponding author is responsible for communication with the editorial team and for documenting the co-authors’ consent, but this role does not replace each co-author’s own approval.

Changes to the author list or the order of authors require a justification and documented agreement from all individuals concerned. In the event of an authorship dispute, the editorial team may suspend the process and seek assistance from the relevant institutions. Any change to authorship after publication must be made through a transparent correction.

Limit on Articles per Issue

No author may have more than one article published in a single issue, including as a co-author. This rule applies to every member of the author team, including members of the editorial team and editorial board. Changes to the order of authors or the composition of the author team do not create an exception. An additional accepted article involving the same individual may be assigned to another issue, but the rule must not be circumvented by omitting an individual who qualifies as an author.

Conflicts of Interest and Funding

Authors must disclose financial, professional, institutional and personal relationships that could influence the work or its interpretation. Every scholarly article must include declarations of conflicts of interest and funding. Where applicable and factually accurate, these must state that no conflicts of interest have been declared or that the work received no specific funding. For funded research, any role of the funder in study design, data collection and analysis, interpretation of results or the decision to publish must also be described.

Reviewers, editors and others involved in decision-making must also disclose potential conflicts of interest. Any person with a conflict must take no part in the assessment or decision. If a conflict is identified subsequently, the editorial team will investigate it and, depending on its implications, arrange an updated declaration, an independent reassessment or another appropriate measure.

Editorial Independence and Equal Treatment

Editorial decisions are based on the work’s contribution and quality, its alignment with the journal’s scope and its compliance with ethical principles. They must not be influenced by the authors’ nationality, ethnicity, beliefs, professional status, personal relationships or financial circumstances, nor by the interests of the publisher or supporters. Scholarly disagreement is permissible within the process; personal attacks and discriminatory treatment are not.

The publisher provides the conditions necessary for independent editorial work and does not interfere in decisions on individual manuscripts. Financial support, collaboration with an institution or an editorial role does not confer an entitlement to publication. Submissions by members of the editorial team and contributions to special issues are subject to the safeguards for independence described in the Peer Review Process section.

Protection of Research Participants

Research must respect participants’ dignity, rights, privacy and safety. Authors must therefore describe how voluntary participation, the provision of information to participants and the obtaining of their consent were ensured. Particular attention must be paid to children, vulnerable individuals and situations in which educational, employment, therapeutic or other relationships of dependency may constrain freedom of choice.

Where the applicable requirements called for research ethics committee approval, the committee’s name and any available approval reference number must be reported. Where approval or consent was not required, authors must provide a specific justification. Ethics approval, consent or an exemption must neither be fabricated nor represented as having been granted when it was not.

Case reports, photographs, verbatim accounts and other materials that could identify an individual require appropriate permission for publication. Consent to participate in research does not automatically constitute consent to the publication of identifiable information. The adequacy of anonymisation must also be assessed in light of the possibility of indirectly identifying an individual or a small group within a particular setting.

Data, Methods and Transparency

Methods, analytical procedures and sources must be described in sufficient detail to permit scholarly assessment of how the results and conclusions were obtained. Authors must report relevant study limitations, deviations from prespecified procedures and any study registration. Exploratory analyses must not be presented as prespecified confirmatory tests.

Empirical articles must state the availability of data and, where applicable, analytical code and other supporting materials. Restrictions on access must be explained with reference to privacy, participant consent, confidentiality and other legitimate obligations. Where this requirement does not apply to the type of work submitted, the author must state this. Openness must not result in the disclosure of information that could put participants at risk.

The editorial team may request appropriate supporting materials to assess the trustworthiness of the work. Their provision must respect participant protection and the rights of third parties. Authors must retain research records in accordance with the nature of the work and applicable institutional requirements. Unexplained unavailability of essential materials may affect the ability to assess the work or uphold its scholarly validity.

Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence

An artificial intelligence tool cannot be listed as an author or co-author, as human authors bear sole responsibility for the text, sources, analyses, visual materials and conclusions. The use of generative tools in preparing or translating a manuscript, creating images or analysing data must be disclosed, including the tool’s name, available version information, and the purpose and extent of its use.

The use of generative tools in the research itself must be described in the methods section, whereas assistance with manuscript preparation must be disclosed in a separate statement. Routine spelling and typographical checks do not require such a statement, provided they do not generate new content. Authors must verify all outputs. Generated content must not be presented as evidence of research that was not conducted, as actual observations or as genuine sources. The rules governing the use of artificial intelligence by reviewers and editors are set out in the Peer Review Process section.

Authors retain copyright and grant the publisher a non-exclusive right to first publication of the accepted work in a journal and to its dissemination. All authors’ approval of the final version and the publication terms must be documented before publication. Submission of a manuscript does not, in itself, grant the public a licence to use it.

Published articles are available without a paywall, mandatory registration or embargo under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International licence (CC BY 4.0). The licence permits sharing and adaptation, including commercial use, subject to compliance with its terms, particularly appropriate attribution of authorship and source, a link to the licence, and an indication of any changes made. Authorship and licensing information is displayed on the article’s webpage and in the full text. The full legal code is available at https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode.cs.

Third-party materials not covered by the licence must be individually identified, together with their terms of use. Authors are responsible for obtaining all necessary permissions; the article’s licence does not override privacy protections or other rights. Authors may deposit the published version in repositories without an embargo, provided that attribution and licensing information are retained.

No author fees are charged for submission, peer review, editorial processing or publication. This includes article processing charges (APCs), page charges and charges for supplementary materials. Acceptance is not conditional on a subscription, membership, donation or the purchase of another service.

Reviewer Responsibilities and Citation Integrity

Reviewers must accept only manuscripts within their areas of expertise, maintain confidentiality, meet agreed deadlines and disclose conflicts of interest. They must not misuse unpublished findings, delay a report for personal advantage, or involve others in the assessment without the editor’s prior approval.

Citations must be selected on the basis of scholarly relevance. Authors, reviewers and editors must not coerce citations or enter into agreements intended to artificially inflate the citation metrics of an individual, journal or institution. Publication must not be made conditional on citing this journal. Fictitious reviewer identities, falsified review reports and any other interference with the independence of the process are also prohibited.

Concerns, Complaints and Appeals

Concerns about possible misconduct, complaints about editorial procedures and appeals against decisions may be submitted using the editorial contact details published on the journal’s website. A submission should identify the work or decision concerned, explain the grounds for the concern, complaint or appeal, and provide any available supporting evidence. The editorial team also considers anonymous concerns where they are sufficiently specific and verifiable, and protects the identity of the person raising a concern to the extent compatible with a proper investigation.

Submissions are handled by a person with no conflict of interest. If a submission concerns the handling editor, another independent editor or an authorised person takes responsibility, so that no one adjudicates a complaint about their own conduct. The editorial team acknowledges receipt, examines the documentation and gives the individuals concerned an opportunity to respond. The outcome and its rationale are communicated to the person who made the submission to the extent compatible with the protection of confidential information. If resolution requires additional time, that person is kept informed of progress.

An appeal must identify a specific scholarly or procedural issue. On this basis, the editorial team determines whether further assessment, an independent review or a change to the decision is warranted. Submitting an appeal does not confer an entitlement to acceptance. Ethical concerns may also be raised after an article has been published.

Investigation of Suspected Misconduct

Suspicion of misconduct does not establish that misconduct has occurred. The editorial team therefore first gathers available evidence and requests explanations from the individuals concerned. Depending on the circumstances, it may suspend the process or contact the relevant institution. Any action taken must be proportionate to the seriousness of the issue and the strength of the evidence. Guilt must not be presumed solely on the basis of an automated detection tool’s output or an unsubstantiated allegation.

The editorial team is responsible for the integrity of the scholarly record and the publication process, while investigation of institutional or employment-related misconduct may fall within the remit of an employer or another competent institution. The editorial team documents its procedures and decisions and does not defer a necessary correction to the published record solely because an author disagrees or an institutional investigation remains ongoing.

Scholarly Debate, Corrections and Retractions

The journal welcomes evidence-based comments and scholarly critiques of published articles through its editorial contact. Depending on the nature of the submission, the editorial team arranges editorial or expert assessment, gives the authors an opportunity to respond, and links any published discussion to the original work. Scholarly disagreement is not, in itself, grounds for retracting an article.

Authors who identify a significant error in their published article must notify the editorial team without delay. Limited deficiencies that do not undermine the reliability of the work as a whole are addressed through a public correction. Where serious concerns remain unresolved, an expression of concern may be issued. If the findings are fundamentally unreliable or a serious breach of publication ethics is substantiated, the editorial team will retract the article, thereby formally withdrawing it as a valid contribution to the scholarly record. A serious unintentional error may also warrant retraction.

Corrections, expressions of concern and retraction notices must clearly identify the article concerned, state the reason for and date of the action, be freely accessible, and be reciprocally linked to the affected article. Published content must therefore never be substantively altered without transparent documentation. A retracted article normally remains in the archive, clearly marked as retracted. Complete removal of content is reserved for exceptional, justified cases, particularly where necessary to protect individuals’ rights or safety. Even in such cases, the bibliographic record and an explanation of the action remain publicly available.