Publication ethics
PRINCIPLES OF PUBLICATION ETHICS AND COUNTERACTING UNFAIR PUBLICATION PRACTICES
THE REVIEW OF PSYCHOLOGY follows the ethical principles and procedures recommended by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE, https://publicationethics.org/) in its publication activities.
All articles submitted for publication in THE REVIEW OF PSYCHOLOGY are screened for compliance with COPE's ethical principles and for their reliability, value, and scientific usefulness.
The following are the main ethical principles of THE REVIEW OF PSYCHOLOGY based on COPE recommendations. For all other circumstances not listed in the following set of principles, COPE's recommendations apply.
These principles cover editorial board members as well as reviewers and authors of scientific publications.
Rules applicable to members of the editorial board
Editorial Board members:
- continually ensure that ethical principles and standards are adhered to;
- undertake actions related to verification, documentation, and also react to manifestations of scientific dishonesty and abuse in publication practice;
- do not use materials submitted to the editorial office in their own scientific activities;
- are guided by the principle of equal treatment of authors (regardless of their sex, race, nationality, origin);
- take steps to prevent conflicts of interest;
- take care of the selection of reviewers and supervision of the reviewing process;
- maintain the confidentiality and do not disclose to outsiders the entrusted materials obtained within the scope of the journal activities;
- take responsibility for the content that is published in the journal;
- are guided by the substantive judgment of independent reviewers in the review process (double blind review) with respect to the decision to publish an article;
- decide whether to accept or reject an article for publication based on the importance of the work, originality and clarity, and relevance of the research to the scope of the journal.
Rules applicable for reviewers
Reviewer:
- performs a review of a scientific article in the field of which he/she has appropriate scientific expertise, allowing for a fair review;
- in the event of a suspected conflict of interest (e.g., personal, financial, professional, intellectual, etc.), with respect to the article submitted for review, they are obliged to notify the Editor of this fact and refuse to review the article;
- shall meet the deadlines for review completion as envisaged by the Editor, and in the event of being unable to complete the review or to fulfil the obligation already assumed, shall inform the Editor of the situation that has occurred;
- is guided by the principle of confidentiality during the review process as well as after its completion, i.e., does not disclose the contents of the manuscript or the review itself;
- does not use the information obtained during the review process for the benefit of his or her own activity or that of another person or institution, nor can it be used by the reviewer to discredit others or to their detriment;
- performs the review in an objective and impartial way - the article is assessed without regard to nationality, religion, political beliefs, gender or other characteristics of the authors, the origin of the manuscript or commercial considerations;
- does not use personal criticism against the author/authors of the manuscript; the review should be a constructive assessment (including precise argumentation) that will allow the authors to improve their manuscript;
- performs the review based on the review form provided, in which it is necessary to indicate a clear decision related to the reviewed article;
- if he/she suspects an ethical violation by the authors of the publication, he/she notifies the Editor;
- does not contact the author(s) of the text without the express permission of the Editor.
Rules applicable for authors
Authors:
- submit a statement including information that the work was written independently and has not been published before (in part or in whole) and is not the subject of evaluation in another journal;
- submit, together with the article, a statement that the work does not violate the rights of third parties, and that the use of other people's work is in accordance with copyright law;
- in the case of multi-authored works, specify the contribution of each author to the work (to counteract the phenomenon of ghostwriting and guest authorship, which are treated as manifestations of scientific dishonesty);
- in the case of multi-authored articles, accept the final version of the work and agree to its submission for publication;
- list, in the acknowledgements, persons whose activities related to the creation of the article do not qualify them as co-authors;
- submit an original study for a review. Its results are described in a fair and comprehensible way and presented in a nonpartisan manner which allows (for) replication by other researchers.
- provide a full list of publication sources (bibliography) used to create an article;
- conduct the research in accordance with the principles of research ethics;
- disclose sources of research funding (stating the source(s) of financing, in case of lack of funding a declaration that the research was not funded);
- disclose information on the possible conflict of interest (in case of multi-authored articles, done by all co-authors);
- if they provide extraneous illustrative material (illustrations, tables, charts, etc.) for publication, they undertake to obtain the necessary permission to reproduce them and to submit them to the publisher;
- in the event of discovering errors or inaccuracies in the published work, they should immediately contact the Editor-in-Chief or the publisher and inform them of the situation, and then cooperate in withdrawing the article or correcting the errors.