CODE OF CONDUCT FOR JOURNAL EDITORS❚
The Code of Conduct of the Beton TKS journal is based on recommendations of the Committee on Publication Ethics Code (COPE) Guidelines, accessible at www.publicationethics.org.
1 DUTIES OF THE EDITOR
1.1 Decisions on publishing and responsibility
· Editors are responsible for decisions on which article to be published.
· Editors should be accountable for everything published in their journal.
When deciding on publishing, editors should be guided by:
- Recommendations of the board members,
- Policy of the publisher,
- This document.
· During the decision on publishing process, editors can consult reviewers.
· Editors should maintain the integrity of the academic record.
· Editors should attempt to eliminate conflicts of business interests in articles.
1.2 Fair play
· Editors should evaluate the manuscript by its intellectual content; the decision to publish should not be affected by race, gender, sexual orientation, religion, ethnicity, citizenship or political view of the author/s.
· Neither the editors, nor any other employees of the publishing house are supposed to pass information on an offered manuscript to any other person than the author, peer reviewers or the publisher.
1.4 Reveal, conflict of interest, etc.
· Editors ensure open and suitable process of reviewing of the received articles.
· Editors should inform the author about possible re-reviewing of their manuscript or about the manuscript being entered directly into the pre-print preparation.
· Editors should follow the COPE recommendations in case they decide not to publish an article.
· Editors should not utilise rejected papers or their parts for their own research without previous written consent of the author.
· Editors should ensure that advertisements or any other promotional fulfilments do not influence or have impact on their decision process.
2 DUTIES OF THE REVIEWER
2.1 Guidance to the editor
· The reviewer provides guidance to the editors in the decisive process on publishing the individual articles.
· The reviewer communicates with the author through the editor and thus could help to improve the manuscript.
· The addressed reviewer should inform the editor immediately when not sufficiently qualified to assess the research presented in the manuscript or knows that this review is beyond his compass.
· Every manuscript will be dealt with confidentially. It will not be presented to or discussed with any other persons than those authorized by the editors.
2.4 Principles of objectivity
· The reviewer should be objective.
· Any other criticism than professional and sober is considered non-ethical.
· The reviewer should express his notes clearly and exactly.
2.5 Resources recognition
· The reviewer should identify significant published works of the same topic that were not quoted by the author.
· Any comment that an observation, derivation or reasoning has been published before should be referred to appropriately in the text.
2.6 Disclosure and conflict of interest
· Information or ideas gained through a review should be considered confidential and should not be used for personal profit.
· The reviewer should not consider reviewing a manuscript in case a conflict of interest may arise from competitive relations or from cooperation and other connections with any of the authors, companies or institutions connected to the respective article.
3 DUTIES OF AUTHORS
3.1 Research results - principles of presentation
· Results of the original research should contain exact descriptions of the work carried out, as well as pragmatic discussion on the respective work.
· Important data should be presented in an exact way.
· The article should include substantial details and references which enable the work to be repeated.
· Misleading or intentionally inaccurate information is considered non-ethical and as such unacceptable.
3.2 Originality and plagiarism
· Authors should publish utterly original works.
· If authors use texts or wordings of another author, it should be quoted appropriately or
· quotation marks should be used.
3.3 Repeated or simultaneous publishing
· Authors should not publish a manuscript describing the same or basically the same research in more than one journal or publication.
· Offering a manuscript of the same topic to more than one publisher is considered
3.4 Acknowledgment of sources
· Acknowledgment of participation of other authors should be expressed every time.
· Authors should quote publications that had impact on the character of the presented work.
3.5 Manuscript authorship
· Authorship should be limited to those persons who significantly contributed to the concept, proposal, realisation or evaluation of the described research.
· Everybody, who has significantly contributed to the research, should be indicated as co-authors.
· All the others should be mentioned in the Acknowledgments.
· The main author should ensure that all indicated co-authors have seen and approved the final draft of the article and agreed with publishing.
· All authors should be indicated at the time the manuscript is offered for publishing. Adding a co-author after the manuscript has been accepted requires the editors’ approval.
3.6 Conflict of interests
· Entire list of financial contributors to the project should be published.
3.7 Errors in the published work
· If the author reveals a significant error or inaccuracy in his published work, it is the author’s obligation to inform the editor or publisher without delay and cooperate in rectifying the situation.
4 DUTIES OF THE PUBLISHER
4.1 Type of the article
· The publisher always indicates a reviewed article as “The text was reviewed”
· The publisher always indicates a company presentation (PR article) as “Company presentation”
4.2 Intellectual property and copyrights
· The publisher protects the intellectual property and copyrights of the journal, its prints, authors and publishing partners by inside storing of all published versions of the articles.
· The publisher ensures within his compass integrity and transparency of every published article.
4.3 Scientific errors
· In cases of verified scientific errors, misleading publications or plagiarism, the publisher in close cooperation with the editor takes appropriate measures to clarify the situation.