Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement
Publication ethics of PHS specifies the duties of authors, editors and reviewers.
Právněhistorické studie journal (hereinafter referred to as the „PHS“) is a peer-reviewed journal. PHS publishes scientific articles whose high quality is assured by an anonymous peer-review process. The editors ensure that the review process and the assessment of manuscripts is thorough, objective and fair.
This Ethical Code describes the principles of ethical conduct for all participants in the review and assessment of manuscripts. Authors, editors, and reviewers are required to follow the rules outlined in this Ethical Code.
Each manuscript submitted for peer review by PHS has to be an original paper.
The manuscript must not have been previously published or accepted for publication in another journal or publishing house.
Exceptions to the “originality” rule apply to the following works: 1) conference papers published on the relevant conference website; 2) papers published in part as part of a master’s thesis, rigorous thesis, dissertation, or habilitation, which must be notified to the editors in advance by the author.
The author may not send a manuscript to PHS for review that is under review by another journal or send a manuscript to another journal that is currently under review by PHS.
The manuscript must not contain plagiarism, falsification, fabrication, or serious misrepresentations.
Authors are required to refer to the works of other authors when quoting them verbatim or paraphrasing their ideas. In case of plagiarism or self-plagiarism (duplicate publication of one’s own works), the manuscript will be rejected.
Self-plagiarism is in principle not allowed. If the manuscript draws on another author’s work that has already been published, is in press or is being considered for publication, the author must refer to that work.
The author shall ensure that his/her manuscript does not infringe copyright. If the manuscript is written in co-authorship, all authors shall be stated and all of them must agree with the publication of the manuscript. If the author uses other works whose use requires the permission of the author, he/she will ensure that the necessary permissions are obtained before submitting the manuscript.
Authors commit themselves to follow professional standards and methods of scientific work while preparing the manuscript.
Authors submit the article to double-blinded anonymous review process and other evaluations of the editor. Authors grant the publisher the right to publish the manuscript in printed or electronic form and include the article in databases in which PHS is contained.
The editors (members of the Editorial board of PHS) retain their independence.
The editors do not abuse their position and approach authors objectively, discreetly, constructively and impartially.
The editors judge manuscripts only on the basis of their professional qualities, relying on peer review. The editor evaluates the manuscript based on its intellectual content, regardless of the race, gender, sexual orientation, religious believes, ethnic background, citizenship and political inclinations of the author. While the editors strive for theoretical and methodological pluralism, they expect manuscripts to be of an appropriate professional standard and to be useful and accessible to the reader.
The editors do not provide input to anyone other than reviewers, authors, co-authors, or editorial board members, while always maintaining the anonymity of authors and reviewers.
Responsibility for accepting or rejecting manuscripts rests with the editors, who respect the reviewers’ recommendations. The editorial board informs the reviewers of the results of the review process and of the final decision to accept or reject the manuscript.
The editor must not use unpublished materials from submitted manuscripts for own research without explicit written approval of the author(s). Protected information and ideas received during the review process must be considered confidential and may not be used for personal benefit.
The editors (and publishers) shall take reasonable steps to identify and prevent the publication of papers where research misconduct has occurred.
In no case shall a journal or its editors encourage such misconduct, or knowingly allow such misconduct to take place.
In the event that the editors (or journal’s publisher) are made aware of any allegation of research misconduct the publisher or editor shall deal with allegations appropriately.
According to the Journal’s guidelines, the editors (and publisher) should always be willing to publish corrections, clarifications, retractions and apologies when needed.
Reviewers are usually renowned experts in the field, but not from the same department as the author of the paper under review.
Reviewers must decline to review a manuscript in which they believe they have an actual or potential conflict of interest. In case of doubt as to whether there is a conflict of interest, reviewers shall inform the editors of this fact.
Reviewers inform the editor in case he does not feel sufficiently qualified to professionally evaluate the manuscript or if he cannot elaborate the review for any other reasons on his side.
Reviewers shall evaluate manuscripts in an unbiased, objective, fair and professional manner. Reviewers are honest with the author if they have doubts about the quality of the manuscript. Reviewers are expected to adequately justify their recommendations to the editors and to provide the author with an appropriate amount of commentary and, where appropriate, recommendations. Reviewers will produce their review in a timely manner according to the agreed deadline, normally within 30 days. Reviewers ensure that information related to the manuscript and contained in it remains confidential.
Publication ethics of PHS is primarily based on the Ethical Code of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).