Publication ethics

The authors, reviewers, and members of the editorial board involved in the publishing of papers in the journal Studia archaeologica Brunensia are obliged to observe following rules:

Editorial responsibilities

The editors are responsible for the content of the journal and the quality of articles published.

The editors maintain objectivity with respect to all articles submitted, where the main criteria of selection are: the professional level and relevance of the article as well as the conformity of its topic with the professional focus of the journal.

The editors are obliged to preserve the anonymity of reviewers within the peer review process.

The editors have complete responsibility and authority to reject/accept an article.

Authors’ responsibilities

The authors guarantee that all data in their articles are real and authentic and give a full list of sources and literature cited; that is, they do not commit plagiarism.

The authors guarantee that their article is original – the text must not be published in other journals. If the author has published or intends to publish the same or a similar text in a different language and in a foreign periodical (i.e. if the text is intended for a different circle of readers), he/she is obliged to inform the editorial office. These cases will be assessed individually.

The collective of authors should only comprise those members who have significantly contributed to the achievement of the research results presented. Other persons who contributed by providing, for example, advice or consultation are to be mentioned in the Acknowledgments section.

The author corresponding with the editorial office will ensure that all co-authors will receive and approve the final version of the paper to be published.

The authors must follow the instructions for authors and observe the citation rules laid down.

The authors are obliged to participate in the peer review process, respond to reviewers’ comments, and make modifications based on these comments. In disputable cases they can appeal to the editors of the journal with relevant objections or retract the paper entirely.

Reviewers’ responsibilities

The reviewers are neither members of the editorial board nor employees of the author’s parent institution. They should refuse to assess a paper for reasons of competing professional interests, above all:

• if they will receive some professional, financial or personal benefit from accepting/rejecting the paper under review;
• if they have engaged in cooperation with the author(s) on the given project in the past five years;
• if there is a fundamental difference in opinion between the reviewer and the author(s) on the main topic of the paper under review;
• if there is a close professional or personal relationship between the reviewer and the author or some member of the collective of authors.

Unless the reviewer refuses to make an assessment for the above reasons, the editorial office assumes that no conflict of interests exists.

The reviewer must be objective in his/her assessment. He/she should address all points on the review form, give thorough arguments, and point out relevant published work which is not yet cited by the author.

The reviewer must not misuse information stated in the article under review for personal or other gain. He/she should treat the text as confidential.

Responsibilities of editorial board

The editorial board constantly maintains and supervises the professional and formal quality of the journal, and issues instructions concerning the whole editorial process (instructions for authors, guidelines for peer review process etc.).

In compliance with generally accepted ethical principles, it is always willing to publish corrections, retractions, and apologies by prior arrangement.

The editorial board generates the above rules and guarantees their observation.