When preparing and publishing The Journal of Culture, a peer-reviewed magazine, the principles of ethical practice are based on the COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics) documents, namely COPE’s Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors, COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers and How to Handle Authorship Disputes: A Guide for New Researchers.

Authors must declare that the texts sent to The Journal of Culture have not been published earlier and are not offered to another periodical for publishing. Authors confirm this fact in Declaration of originality sent to the editor-in-chief. Adhering to the principles of Publication Ethics is the responsibility of the editor-in-chief and is subject to inspection by the editorial board.

Review proceedings

The editorial board or the editor-in-chief of a single-subject issue of The Journal of Culture decides, on the grounds of assessing the field adequacy, whether texts will be accepted for review proceedings. Original studies are reviewed by two independent and anonymous reviewers who do not know the identity of the author of the text being reviewed (double-blind peer-review). Reviewers are qualified experts in the field that the text deals with. Attention is also paid to ensuring that reviewers are from a different workplace than the author’s. Reviewers fill in a standardized form, suggesting whether they recommend the text to be accepted, reworked or rejected. They give reasons for their decision in a review including recommendations on how the text should be adjusted. Reviews are expert expressions on the basis of which the editor-in-chief, members of the editorial board or the editor of a single-subject issue decide whether the text shall be published. Authors are immediately informed about the outcome of the review. In the case of rewritten articles, the editor-in-chief first decides whether it has been rewritten sufficiently. If this condition is not met, the editor-in-chief may return the text to the author for further rewriting. If the reviews are contradictory, the text shall be reviewed by a third reviewer. Whether a text is published depends on a joint decision made by the editor-in-chief, editorial board and in the case of a single-subject issue by its editor. Their decision may be conditioned by legal requirements concerning plagiarism, authorship and/or personal right infringement. No deadline is defined for the review proceedings. Typically, authors are informed about the outcome of the proceedings within six months after a confirmation of accepting a text for review proceedings. The editorial staff shall not be held liable for any delay caused by the reviewers. The editor-in-chief and members of the editorial board are obliged not to publish information about the submitted texts to a third person. Authors’ names remain anonymous until the review proceedings are terminated.

Rights and obligations of the editorial board

  • The board is responsible for the content, expert quality of the journal and protection of the Publishing Ethics.
  • The board has the right to refuse or accept an article for review proceedings and in case of its successful outcome decide about its publishing.
  • The board shall assess the texts submitted exclusively on the basis of their intellectual value regardless of ethnicity, sex, sexual orientation, age, religion, citizenship or political attitudes.
  • The board shall approve reviewers proposed by the editor-in-chief and/or it shall propose reviewers.
  • It shall treat all the information relating to the texts sent to the journal as confidential.
  • It shall propose, approve and refuse measures to be taken in favour of conceptual and formal development of the journal.

Rights and obligations of the editor-in-chief

  • The editor-in-chief ensures the continuity in journal publishing, communication with authors and reviewers and meetings of the editorial board.
  • The editor-in-chief has the responsibility and right to refuse submitting an article for review proceedings in case its field of study is not in line with the focus of the journal or in case it fails to meet basic requirements concerning an expert text.
  • The editor-in-chief ensures authors’ and reviewers’ anonymity.
  • The editor-in-chief provides support to authors and reviewers in case of technical trouble.

Rights and obligations of authors

  • Authors shall submit for review proceedings their original texts that have not been published before or submitted for review proceedings in another periodical.
  • Publishing secondary articles is acceptable in some cases, e.g. translations or figures/dates concerning an anniversary of an important personality from the field.
  • Authors confirm the originality of the text by signing a Declaration of originality.
  • Authors are liable for stating the authorship of all other participating co-authors who have contributed to the article.
  • Authors cite the sources used in accordance with authorship rights and ethical rules of a scientific work.
  • Authors may include funding sources of their research and names of other people participating in the research who are not authors of the text.
  • Authors shall participate actively in the review process and make final author’s proofreading before printing.

Rights and obligations of reviewers

  • Reviewers shall submit their reviews within an agreed deadline, in case of failing to do so they shall immediately inform the editor-in-chief and they shall withdraw from the review process.
  • Reviewers shall not assess an article when they might be in conflict of interests on the basis of competitive and/or other relations with the author of the text.
  • Reviewers are liable for objective and unbiased review of the submitted texts.
  • Reviewers assess the degree of originality, quality of the sources used, contribution of the text and precise formulation of their conclusions.
  • Reviewers shall point out any similarities or overlapping of the reviewed text with other published texts.
  • Reviewers shall point out any unfair practices, infringement of authorship rights or suspicion of plagiarism.
  • Reviewers shall respect the confidential nature of the review process.