Ethical principles

The Ethical Principles of the Journal of Public Administration and Social Policy regulate the activities of the Editorial Board, the assessment of proposed articles, the requirements for reviewers, the review process, the requirements for authors, and how to address errors and shortcomings.

Public Administration and Social Policy is based on the ethical principles of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) as described in the Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing. Procedures made in the peer review process are carried out according to defined standards.

Editorial Board

The Editorial Board is largely composed of external representatives from academia, public administration and representatives of the publisher. In publishing the journal, the Editorial Board monitors compliance with publication ethics, ensures that established intellectual and ethical standards are maintained, that the principles of fairness, objectivity, impartiality and consistency are upheld in all processes, and that the quality of accepted articles is maintained. It shall also take care to avoid publishing incorrect data or plagiarism and shall be prepared to publish corrections, apologies, explanations and, where necessary, the Board shall be entitled to withdraw articles. All articles offered must be relevant to the content of the journal, be of a professional nature and be unpublished papers.

Assessment of the articles offered

The Editorial Board plays an active role in the evaluation of articles offered and has the right to accept or reject articles offered. Articles offered for inclusion in the peer-reviewed section must meet the requirements for peer-reviewed articles (see Information for Authors for more information). In the first stage, they are assessed by the members of the Editorial Board in terms of factual correctness, content consistency with the journal's focus, expertise and compliance with the requirements for peer-reviewed articles. In their assessment, they follow the principles of fairness, objectivity, impartiality and consistency of approach. The Editorial Board will send the positively assessed articles to reviewers selected from the proposals of the members of the Editorial Board. The Editorial Board may also recommend to the authors that the articles be refined in a particular direction and resubmitted for consideration, or recommend the possibility of inclusion in the non-peer-reviewed section of the journal.

Reviewers

Reviewers are be experts in the subject matter and must not have a conflict of interest in relation to the research, the authors' employer or those who funded the research. Reviewers should adhere to the ethical principles for peer review, observe the principles of fairness, objectivity, impartiality and consistency in their review, treat peer-reviewed articles as confidential, and be willing to supplement relevant published work if not cited by the authors.

Review procedure

The review process is conducted anonymously by both parties in two rounds.

In the first round, the articles offered are evaluated by at least 2 reviewers according to uniformly defined criteria, compiled in a table (see below), with the possibility to comment verbally. The reviewers choose from four options, namely, recommend to publish in the peer-reviewed section, recommend to publish in the peer-reviewed section after incorporating comments, recommend to publish in the non-peer-reviewed section, and do not recommend to publish at all.

In case of different opinions of the reviewers, a third review might be required.

The authors are informed by the editors of the results of the reviewers' evaluation and are invited to address their comments.

In the second round of peer review, the reviewers assess how the authors' comments have been incorporated. In case of their positive opinion, the review procedure is terminated with a positive result.

The Editorial Board uses the results of the peer review process to decide whether to include the article in the peer-reviewed part of the journal.

Articles offered or commissioned for the section "From the theses of our students" and the non-reviewed section are assessed by the Editor-in-Chief in terms of factual correctness, content consistency with the focus of the journal and expertise. In his/her assessment he/she observes the principles of fairness, objectivity, impartiality and uniformity. If necessary, he/she shall consult the article with the members of the Editorial Board.

The content of each issue is approved by the Editorial Board.

Authors

Authors must comply with the ethical principles for the publication of information and the applicable standards. They must provide truthful, authentic data, follow the rules for citing the results of work, and publications by other authors protect personal data obtained during research, indicate the sources of financial support and not distort the findings in any way. All named co-authors should make a significant contribution to the research.

Authors have an obligation to participate in the peer review process and to cooperate in correcting or correcting errors and deficiencies if they are found.

Brief information for authors (see below) is included in each issue of the journal.

Identified errors and misconduct

If errors and shortcomings are found during the review of the article, the author is invited by the editors to remove them; if they are discovered after the publication of the article, the author is invited to correct or apologize, which the editors will ensure publication in the next possible issue of the journal.

In the situation that the editorial office receives a legitimate criticism of a published article, the author is informed of it and invited to provide comment on it. If serious errors requiring publication are found, the editorial board will ensure that the criticism and the author's response are corrected by publishing the criticism or, if the author has not responded to the criticism despite being invited to do so, publishing the editorial board's position.

Complaints from authors about the editorial board's actions are handled in the first stage by the editor-in-chief; if the author is not satisfied with the handling, they are dealt with in the next stage by the editorial board.