Publication ethics

Publication Ethics and Publication Malpractice

The ethics statement of the journal Studia historica Brunensia is based on the Code of Conduct guidelines of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), available at www.publicationethics.org.

Editor Responsibilities

The Review Process
After delivery to the editorial board each paper is sent to two reviewers. The review process is anonymous on both sides and consists of two parts; one assessment is sent to the editorial board (regarding the originality of the contribution and its quality) and anonymous notes are sent to the author of the contribution (there is an assessment of the paper’s argumentative construction, its language, the cogency of the resume and the key words, the bibliography, etc.). Based on the comments, the author of the contribution is then asked to edit the manuscript, and if it is rejected, the paper is eliminated from further consideration.

Peer-Review Policy Statement 
All research articles in this journal have undergone rigorous peer review, based on initial editor screening and anonymous refereeing by at least two anonymous referees, normally from two different countries in keeping with the journal's international status.

Publication decisions
The editor of the Studia historica Brunensia is responsible for deciding which of the articles submitted to the journal should be published. The editor may be guided by the policies of the journal's editorial board and constrained by such legal requirements as are in force regarding libel, copyright infringement and plagiarism. The editor may confer with other competent experts in making this decision.

Fair play
The editor at all time evaluates manuscripts for their intellectual content without regard to race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or the political philosophy of the authors.

Confidentiality
The editor and any editorial staff must not disclose any information about a submitted manuscript to anyone other than the corresponding author, reviewers, potential reviewers, other editorial advisers, and the publisher, as appropriate.

Disclosure, conflicts of interest, and other issues
The editor will be guided by COPE’s Guidelines for Retracting Articles when considering retracting, issuing expressions of concern about, and issuing corrections pertaining to articles that have been published in Studia historica Brunensia. Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in an editor’s own research without the explicit written consent of the author(s). Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage. The editor is committed to ensuring that advertising, reprint, or other commercial revenue has no impact or influence on editorial decisions.

The editor should seek to ensure a fair and appropriate peer-review process. The editor should excuse himself/herself from receiving manuscripts (i.e. should ask other members of the editorial board instead to review and consider) in which there are conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or (possibly) institutions connected to the papers. The editor should require all contributors to disclose relevant competing interests and publish corrections if competing interests are revealed after publication. If needed, other appropriate action should be taken, such as the publication of a retraction or expression of concern.

Reviewer Responsibilities

Contribution to Editorial Decisions
Peer review assists the editor in making editorial decisions and the editorial communication with the author may also assist the author in improving the manuscript.

Promptness
Any invited referee who feels unqualified to review the research in a manuscript, or knows that the review deadline will be impossible, should immediately notify the editor so that alternative reviewers can be contacted.

Confidentiality
Any manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. They must not be shown to or discussed with others except as authorized by the editor.

Standards of Objectivity
Reviews should be conducted objectively. Personal criticism of the author(s) is inappropriate. Referees should express their views clearly with supporting arguments.

Acknowledgement of Sources
Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the author(s). Any statement that an observation, derivation, or argument had been previously reported should be accompanied by the relevant citation. Reviewers should also call to the editor’s attention any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published data of which they have personal knowledge.

Disclosure and conflict of interest
Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage. Reviewers should not consider evaluating manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the submission.

Author’s Responsibilities

Reporting standards
Authors reporting original research should present an accurate account of the work undertaken as well as an objective discussion of its significance. Underlying data should be represented accurately in the paper. The paper should contain sufficient detail and references to permit others to replicate the work. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behaviour and are unacceptable.

Originality and Plagiarism
The authors should ensure that they have written entirely original works, and if the authors have used the work and/or words of others, that this has been appropriately cited or quoted.

Multiple, Redundant or Concurrent Publications
An author should not publish manuscripts describing essentially the same research in more than one journal or primary publication. Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal concurrently constitutes unethical publishing behaviour and is unacceptable.

Acknowledgement of Sources
Proper acknowledgment of the work of others must always be given. Authors should cite publications that have been influential in determining the nature of the reported work.

Authorship of the Manuscript
Authorship should be limited to those who have made a significant contribution to the conception, design, execution, or interpretation of the reported study. All those who have made significant contributions should be listed as co-authors. Where there are others who have participated in certain substantive aspects of the research project, they should be named in the acknowledgement section. The corresponding author should ensure that all appropriate co-authors (according to the above definition) and no inappropriate co-authors are included in the author list of the manuscript, and that all co-authors have seen and approved the final version of the paper and have agreed to its submission for publication. All co-authors must be clearly indicated at the time of manuscript submission. Requests to add co-authors after a manuscript has been accepted will require the approval of the editor.

Disclosure and conflicts of interest
All authors should disclose in their manuscript any financial or other substantive conflict of interest that might be construed as influencing the results or their interpretation in the manuscript. All sources of financial support for the project should be disclosed.

Fundamental errors in published works
When an author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in his/her own published work, it is the author’s obligation to promptly notify the journal’s editor or publisher and cooperate with them to either retract the paper or to publish an appropriate correction statement or erratum.

Publisher’s Responsibilities

Editorial autonomy
Studia historica Brunensia is committed to working with editors to define clearly the respective roles of publishers and editors to ensure the autonomy of editorial decisions, without influence from advertisers or other commercial partners.

Intellectual property and copyright
We protect the intellectual property and copyright of Studia historica Brunensia, its imprints, authors and publishing partners by promoting and maintaining each article’s published version of record. Studia historica Brunensia ensures the integrity and transparency of each published article with respect to: conflicts of interest, publication and research funding, publication and research ethics, cases of publication and research misconduct, confidentiality, authorship, article corrections, clarifications and retractions, and the timing of the publication content.

Academic misconduct
In cases of alleged or proven academic misconduct, fraudulent publication, or plagiarism, the publisher, in close collaboration with the editors, will take all appropriate measures to clarify the situation and to amend the article in question. This includes the prompt publication of a statement of correction or erratum or, in the most severe cases, the retraction of the affected work.