Publication ethics and publication malpractice statement
The Editorial Board together with International Advisory Board provide to ensure the quality and ethical standards of the Slovak Journal of Public Policy and Public Administration (SJPPPA). Editors are responsible for implementing the process of publishing articles, specifically for their acceptance, for the peer review process and, of course, the content of each issue of the journal. Publishers, reviewers, and authors are committed to follow the ethical principles:
Editor’s and Editorial Board responsibilities
- Provides confirmation of receipt of the manuscript and subsequent fair and objective assessment through double-blind peer review process
- Approval or rejection of the article for publication takes into account the quality of content and language, originality, compliance with the SJPPPA focus and the results of the double-blind peer review process
- Ensures the confidentiality of submitted manuscripts until they are officially published in SJPPPA
- Ensures that the Editor responsible for the review process is not involved in the process of its final publication
- Provides synergy when it is necessary to make adjustments in the submitted manuscripts and, if necessary, publishes a patch
- Ensures adequate journal performance associated in compliance with its publishing periodicity
- Creates space for eventual consideration of authors complaints in case of manuscript rejection
- Participates in ensuring quality, objectivity and fairness in the double-blind peer review process
- Commits confidentiality in reviewing manuscripts and does not hand entire manuscripts or parts of them to third parties
- Obligates not to publish or otherwise present the data and information from the manuscripts under his / her name
- Warns of any suspicion of the article’s incoherence or any content similarity with other sources / documents
- Indicates the possible existence of a conflict of interest
- Complies with citation standards, lists exact sources of downloaded information with the ability to retrieve them and references all downloaded data based on the instructions given in the submission section
- Confirms the accuracy of the data given in the manuscript
- Confirms the originality of the manuscript and, at the same time, that it has not been submitted elsewhere
- If parts of the manuscript match the contents of an already published or submitted article, the author also sends the documents concerned
- Confirms that the author has all the necessary permissions (if necessary) associated with publishing the content of the manuscript
- Confirms that manuscripts working with data involving human or animal subjects are in compliance with national and local laws, have human consent for disclosure, and respect their privacy
- Confirms the agreement to publish an article in SJPPPA
- Draws attention to potential conflicts of interest related to article publishing, its assessment, and its contents
- Immediately contacts the editorial board in case of identifying significant errors in the manuscript and cooperates in the eventual correction issue
SJPPPA Publication Ethics and Publication Malpractice Statement
Publication malpractice is an unfortunate occurrence within scholarly literature. The prevention of publication malpractice is the responsibility of every author, editor, reviewer, associated with SJPPPA. Furthermore, SJPPPA as a publisher and FSV and UCM as institutional bodies are committed to the strict adherence to ethics and publication practices. Any type of unethical and/or publication malpractice is not permitted or tolerated.
SJPPPA has a clear and publicly available statement of its publication ethics and publication malpractice. See for statement SJPPPA Publication Ethics and Publication Malpractice Statement. SJPPPA, as publisher accepts responsibility and accountability for the performance and compliance with these policies.
SJPPPA accepts the responsibilities associated with vetting and reviewing of articles submitted by authors. SJPPPA is a peer-reviewed journal and publicly declares such type of journal is an essential building block in the development of a coherent and respected network of knowledge. Therefore, the following standards are practiced.
Duties of Publisher
The main duty of the publisher is recognising the huge efforts made by SJPPPA journal editors and peer reviewers that maintain the integrity of the scholarly record. A duty of the publisher is supporting, investing and nurturing role in the scholarly communication process. This includes the issue of plagiarism and malpractice.
Plagiarism is defined as:
when one author uses another work (typically the work of another author) without permission, credit, or acknowledgment. This includes the literal copying to paraphrasing the work of another.
Malpractice is defined as:
improper, illegal, or negligent professional behaviour.
SJPPPA accepts responsibility for ensuring best practices are followed.
Duties of Editors
The duty of editors of the SJPPPA journal is being responsible for deciding which articles to publish and ensuring validation of the submitted work. To this end, the editors are guided by the policies of the SJPPPA editorial board and are constrained by legal requirements on issues such as libel, copyright infringement and plagiarism. The editors shall safeguard the integrity of the published record. The editors will do this by reviewing and assessing reported or suspected misconduct. Any convincing evidence of misconduct will result in a prompt publication of a correction or retraction or other relevant action to the record.
Additionally, the editors will make appropriate effort to detect any misconduct, such as plagiarism. SJPPPA follows the full and detailed definition, corrective action, and suitable punishments outlined on the Elsevier webpage on plagiarism and malpractice: https://www.elsevier.com/editors/perk/legal-guide-for-editors
Editors will refuse to publish when the conditions apply:
- submitted article or any fragment is plagiarism (Plagiarism is citing somebody's else words or thoughts without recognition and the relevant bibliographic notes.);
- the text of submitted article is not original, or it has been already published. This includes in another periodical or collective work regardless of same or changed title known as autoplagiarism. What shall not be considered plagiarism is if author(s) use paraphrased fragments of one's own earlier work, primarily data and/or information contained therein;
- the article will not be accepted if it has been proven that the article was written with the use of so-called ghostwriting (Ghostwriting is when another individual contributes significantly to the publication but is not identified as one of the authors or is not mentioned in the publication acknowledgements) or guest authorship (Guest authorship also known as honorary authorship is when an author's contribution is marginal or non-existent, yet he or she is recognized as the author/co-author of the publication);
- finally, the submitted article will be declined if two negative reviews and a recommendation to reject it is offered.
Unethical behaviour procedures
It is important to clearly identify unethical behaviour and the procedures that occur to deal with it. SJPPPA states that all allegations will be taken seriously and treated accordingly, until a successful decision. Individuals informing the SJPPPA editor or publisher of unethical conduct should provide sufficient information and evidence in order for an investigation to be initiated. Such identification can be brought to the SJPPPA editor and publisher at any time and by any individual. SJPPPA will state an investigation to determine what, if any, unethical behaviour has occurred. The following is the process:
- An initial decision should be taken by the editor, who shall consult with and/or seek advice from the publisher.
- Evidence is gathered, with sincere effort made to avoid spreading allegations beyond the concerned individual(s).
- In the case of unethical behaviour deemed as minor misconduct, the author shall be given the opportunity to respond to any allegations, and if necessary further consultation with a limited number of experts. The formal and official outcome to all minor breaches shall be from the editor upon receipt of the response from the author. The outcomes are listed below in increasing order of severity and may be applied separately or in conjunction.
- Serious misconduct may require the notification of the employers of the accused. Additionally, the editor, in consultation with the publisher will make the decision whether or not to involve the employer(s). This shall be done either by examining the available evidence themselves or by further consultation with a limited number of experts.
Outcomes (listed in increasing order of severity and may be applied separately or in conjunction)
- Informing or educating the author or reviewer where there appears to be a misunderstanding or misuse of acceptable standards.
- A more strongly worded letter to the author or reviewer covering the misconduct. This shall be considered as a warning to future behaviour.
- Publication of a formal notice that details the misconduct.
- Publication of an editorial detailing the misconduct.
- A formal letter written and sent to the head of the author's or reviewer's department.
- A formal retraction and/or withdrawal of a publication from SJPPPA, in conjunction with informing the head of the author or reviewer's department, including the Abstracting & Indexing services and the readership of the publication.
- Placing a formal and official ban on contributions from an individual for a defined period (The time period shall be defined by the editor. The most common decision is an official prohibition of the offending author’s submitted work for up to one full publishing cycle).
- If necessary, reporting the case of unethical behaviour and outcome to a higher authority or professional organization for further investigative action.
Document to download: