The Ethical Code of the AUCI (Charles University Law Review)
1.1 The AUCI journal accepts original articles, excellence of which is ensured by a double-blinded peer review. The peer review is to be thorough, objective and equitable.
1.2 This Ethical Code describes the principles that apply to authors, editors and reviewers.
2.1 Any manuscript submitted to a peer review in the AUCI journal has to be an original paper. It must not be published or accepted for publication in another journal or publishing house. As a matter of exception, this does not apply to: 1) conference papers published only at the conference web site; 2) unpublished master, dissertation or habilitation theses. Any manuscript that is subject to review by another journal shall not be submitted to the AUCI.
2.2 A manuscript must not include plagiarism, fakes, or serious misrepresentations. The authors have to refer to works of other authors if they quote verbatim or paraphrase their ideas.
2.3 If the author draws from their own work, which was published elsewhere, they have to refer to that work.
2.4 The authors may publish results of their research in several publications, provided that they are distinguishable.
2.5 The authors make sure that their manuscripts do not infringe any copyright. In case that they use works of other authors (graphics, tables, etc.), they have to obtain necessary consents of the authors or holders of the copyright.
3.1 Editors (members of the Editorial board) are to keep their impartiality. They may not abuse their position and they evaluate manuscripts only on the basis of the quality, free of any bias and personal preferences. However, they may expect manuscripts to be excellent, of informative value and accessible to readers.
3.2 As usual, manuscripts are subject to a peer review by two independent reviewers having knowledge in the field of the reviewed contribution. They are appointed by the executive editors’ office, having regard to their previous publications in the given field, their academic reputation and attitude to the review commitments to the AUCI.
3.3 Authors may ask the editors not to send the manuscript to certain reviewers. However, the final decision rests with the editors.
3.4 The editorial office informs authors and reviewers about the outcome of the peer review that may lead to acceptance, refusal or recommendation to amend the contribution.
4.1 Since elaboration of a review for the journal is of benefits to authors, the journal and a broader academic community, the editors appreciate the time and energy that reviewers devote to it. The reviewers may decline a review in case of a conflict of interest. If they have any doubts, they immediately inform the Editorial office.
4.2 The reviewers evaluate manuscripts in an impartial, objective, fair and professional manner. They submit their review in time, according to the agreed schedule. They should provide authors with comments and recommendations, as appropriate.