RELIK 2023
Reproduction of Human Capital - mutual links and connections
November 23-24, 2023

Publication ethics

Publication ethics, responsibilities, and malpractice statement

RELIK’s publication ethics, responsibilities and malpractice statement are largely based on the guidelines of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). We expect all participating parties involved to comply with these standards. We do not tolerate unethical behaviour. The manuscript that does not meet the standards, will be rejected or removed.

Author responsibilities and malpractice statement comes from „Responsible research publication: international standards for authors“ by Elizabeth Wager & Sabine Kleinert: 

  • The research being reported should have been conducted in an ethical and responsible manner and should comply with all relevant legislation.
  • Researchers should present their results clearly, honestly, and without fabrication, falsification or inappropriate data manipulation.
  • Researchers should strive to describe their methods clearly and unambiguously so that their findings can be confirmed by others.
  • Researchers should adhere to publication requirements that the submitted work is original, is not plagiarized, and has not been published elsewhere.
  • Authors should take the collective responsibility for the submitted and published work.
  • The authorship of research publications should accurately reflect individuals’ contributions to the work and its reporting.
  • Funding sources and relevant conflicts of interest should be disclosed.

And moreover:

  • Authors must report any errors they discover in their manuscript.
  • Authors must send the manuscript that is not currently being considered for publication elsewhere.
  • Authors confirm that they obtained written permission required to include any copyrighted material in the manuscript.
  • Authors confirm that they agree and they have permission of their employer to publish under the Creative Commons licence in RELIK Proceedings series.

Reviewer responsibilities and malpractice statement comes from „COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers“ by COPE:

  • Reviewer should respect the confidentiality of peer review and not reveal any details of the manuscript or its review, during or after the peer-review process, beyond those that are released by the proceedings edition.
  • Reviewer should not use information obtained during the peer-review process for their own or any other person’s or organization’s advantage, or to disadvantage or discredit others.
  • Reviewer should declare all potential conflicting interests, seeking advice from the proceedings edition if they are unsure whether something constitutes a relevant interest.
  • Reviewer should not allow their reviews to be influenced by the origins of the manuscript, by the nationality, religious or political beliefs, gender or other characteristics of the authors, or by commercial considerations.
  • Reviewer should be objective and constructive in their reviews, refraining from being hostile or inflammatory and from making libellous or derogatory personal comments.
  • Reviewer should acknowledge that peer review is largely a reciprocal endeavour and undertake to carry out their fair share of reviewing and in a timely manner.
  • Reviewer should provide editor with personal and professional information that is accurate and a true representation of their expertise.
  • Reviewer should recognize that impersonation of another individual during the review process is considered serious misconduct.

Editor responsibilities and malpractice statement are based on „Responsible research publication: international standards for editors“ by Elizabeth Wager & Sabine Kleinert:

  • Editor should take the responsibility for everything they publish.
  • Editor must disclose any conflicts of interest to the heads of all arranging departments.
  • Editor should make fair and unbiased decisions independent from commercial consideration and ensure a fair and appropriate peer review process.
  • Editor should pursue reviewer and editorial misconduct.
  • Peer reviewers and authors should be told what is expected of them in timely manner.