Publication Ethics

Publication Ethics and Publication Malpractice Statement

Ethical guidelines for journal publication

Czech Journal of Political Science/Politologický časopis is committed to ensuring ethics in publication and quality of articles. All parties involved (authors, editors, reviewers, and the publisher) are expected to conform to standards of ethical behaviour.

Authors: Authors should present an objective discussion of the significance of the research work as well as sufficient detail and references to permit others to replicate the experiments. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behaviour and are unacceptable. The authors should ensure that their work is entirely original, and if the work and/or words of others have been used, they must be appropriately acknowledged or referenced. Plagiarism in all its forms constitutes unethical publishing behaviour and is unacceptable. Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal concurrently constitutes unethical publishing behaviour and is unacceptable. The corresponding author (if there is more than one author) should ensure that there is a full consensus of all co-authors in approving the final version of the paper and its submission for publication.

Editors: Editors should evaluate manuscripts exclusively on the basis of their academic merit. An editor must not use unpublished information in the editor's own research without the express written consent of the author. Editors should take responsive measures when ethical complaints have been presented concerning a submitted manuscript or published paper. Editors are obliged to make sure that every document sent to reviewers for peer review is anonymized and that an unbiased review process is assured.

Reviewers: Any manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage. Reviews should be conducted objectively, and observations should be formulated clearly with supporting arguments, so that authors can use to improve the paper. Any selected referee who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should notify the editor and excuse himself from the review process. Reviewers should not consider manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors connected to the papers.

These guidelines are based upon COPE Code of Conduct.