South Bohemia Mathematical Letters

Publication Ethics and Publication Malpractice Statement

South Bohemia Mathematical Letters (SBML) follows the high-standard Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) guidelines. Specifically, this journal follows the COPE Code of Conduct and Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors and the Code of Conduct for Journal Publishers. We oblige our editors and peer reviewers to get acquainted with the COPE and other guidelines and act accordingly. The integrity of our academic content and publishing process is paramount, preponderant, and supreme. This document concerns both authors, peer reviewers, editors, societies, and possible future partners and funders.

In addition, it is expected of authors, reviewers, and editors that they follow the best-practice guidelines on ethical behaviour.

This journal does not publish preprints on any platform.

The Publishing Ethics statement is divided into four parts, which are dedicated to the duties of the editor, reviewers, authors, and publishers.

Anyone who finds violations of the guidelines provided in this document is asked to report it immediately to the Editor-in-Chief at hasek@pf.jcu.cz. In case of an appeal, one may contactThe Ethics Committee of the Faculty of Education of the South Bohemia University at etickakomise@pf.jcu.cz (see also guidelines at https://www.pf.jcu.cz/education/eticka_komise/). The Ethics Committee sets rules for best practice in publishing and research ethics at the Faculty. The Ethics Committee is an advisory body to the Dean of the Faculty. In particular, it assesses research involving human participants and thus monitors the observance of ethical principles and ensures the protection of the dignity, freedoms, health, quality of life, and safety of those participating in the research. The mission of the Ethics Committee is to ensure the protection of dignity, freedoms, health, quality of life, and safety of all persons (entities) participating in these activities.

Duties of Editors

Fair play and editorial independence

Our editorial process is committed to independence and unbiasedness. Editors evaluate submitted manuscripts exclusively on the basis of their academic merit (importance, originality, study’s validity, clarity) and its relevance to the journal’s scope, without regard to the authors’ disabilities, race, gender identity, sexual orientation, ethnic origin, citizenship, religious belief, political philosophy, institutional affiliation, or another background. We welcome and embed diversity and promote equity at every stage of the publishing process. Decisions to edit and publish are not determined by the policies of governments or any other agencies outside of the journal itself. The Editor-in-Chief has full authority over the entire editorial content of the journal and the timing of publication of that content. We do not discriminate against editors based on their personal characteristics or identity. The editors oversee the peer review process and are trained to recognize signs of fraudulent, mischievous or manipulated peer reviews and asked to report it to both the Editor-in-Chief, and the Ethics Committee. The editors also will resolve co-authors and contributors disputes according to COPE guidelines. Editors may make minute changes to the accepted manuscripts not exceeding a procedure of proofreading.

Confidentiality

Editors and editorial staff will not disclose any information about a submitted manuscript to anyone other than the corresponding author, reviewers, potential reviewers, other editorial advisers, and the publisher, as appropriate.

Disclosure and conflicts of interest

Editors and editorial board members will not use unpublished information disclosed in a submitted manuscript for their own research purposes without the authors’ explicit written consent. Privileged information or ideas obtained by editors as a result of handling the manuscript will be kept confidential and not used for their personal advantage. Editors must be independent and so will recuse themselves from considering manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships/connections with any of the authors, business or financial companies, or institutions including political ones connected to the papers; instead, they will ask another member of the editorial board to handle the manuscript.

Publication decisions

The editors ensure that all submitted manuscripts being considered for publication undergo peer-review by at least one reviewer who is an expert in the field. The Editor-in-Chief is responsible for deciding which of the manuscripts submitted to the journal will be published, based on the validation of the work in question, its importance to researchers and readers, the reviewers’ comments, and such legal requirements as are currently in force regarding libel, defamation, copyright infringement, and plagiarism. The Editor-in-Chief may confer with other editors or reviewers in making this decision. Please note that we stay committed to freedom of expression, but this may not threaten to violate legal requirements valid either nationally, or internationally. An appeal to this decision should be filed to the Editor-in-Chief at hasek@pf.jcu.cz. A second appeal to this decision, especially when the publications ethics or other guidelines have been infringed by either the peer reviewer or an editor, should be filed to The Ethics Committee at etickakomise@pf.jcu.cz. If an already published article is found to violate legal obligations, especially in cases of libel, defamation, violations of rights to privacy or confidentiality, serious health risk, or court decision, the article will be retracted with a special notice explaining the reasons for its removal.

Involvement and cooperation in investigations

Editors (in conjunction with the publisher and/or society) will take responsive measures when ethical concerns are raised with regard to a submitted manuscript or published paper. Every reported act of unethical publishing behaviour will be looked into, even if it is discovered years after publication. SBML editors follow the COPE Flowcharts when dealing with cases of suspected misconduct. If on an investigation, the ethical concern is well-founded, a correction, retraction, expression of concern, or other notes as may be relevant, will be published in the journal.

Duties of Reviewers

Contribution to editorial decisions

Peer review assists editors in making editorial decisions and, through editorial communications with authors, may assist authors in improving their manuscripts. Peer review is an essential component of formal scholarly communication, lies at the heart of the scientific endeavour, and keeps the scientific standard of the journal. SBML shares the view of many that all scholars who wish to contribute to the scientific process have an obligation to do a fair share of reviewing. We do not discriminate against reviewers based on their personal characteristics or identity. Editorial decisions on manuscripts submitted to our journal are made by external academic editors and based on independent, sovereign review reports.

Promptness

Any invited referee who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should immediately notify the editors and decline the invitation to review so that alternative reviewers can be contacted.

Confidentiality

Any manuscripts received for review are confidential documents and must be treated as such; they must not be shown to or discussed with others except if authorized by the Editor-in-Chief (who would only do so under exceptional and specific circumstances). This applies also to invited reviewers who decline the review invitation. Anonymity is an important part of the peer review process.

Standards of objectivity

Reviews should be conducted objectively, and observations formulated clearly with supporting arguments so that authors can use them for improving the manuscript. Personal criticism of the authors is inappropriate.

Acknowledgement of sources

Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors. Any statement that is an observation, derivation or argument that has been reported in previous publications should be accompanied by the relevant citation. A reviewer should also notify the editors of any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other manuscript (published or unpublished) of which they have personal knowledge.

Disclosure and conflicts of interest

Any invited referee who has conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the manuscript and the work described therein should immediately notify the editors to declare their conflicts of interest and decline the invitation to review so that alternative reviewers can be contacted.

Unpublished material disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in a reviewer’s own research without the express written consent of the authors. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for the reviewer’s personal advantage. This applies also to invited reviewers who decline the review invitation.

We do not approve any co-reviewing.

Use of abusive language

Any peer reviewer should avoid using inappropriate language in his/her review.  Not respecting this provision can lead to excluding the reviewer from further peer-reviewing for our journal.

Duties of Authors

Research integrity

Any author of a journal paper submitted to our journal should be honest in all aspects of research, take scrupulous care in research practice, be thorough, be transparent and open to communication, take care of all subjects/participants of research, be accountable for one’s own and that of others research integrity.

Reporting standards

Authors of original research should present an accurate account of the work performed and the results, followed by an objective discussion of the significance of the work. The manuscript should contain sufficient detail and references to permit others to replicate the work. Review articles should be accurate, objective, and comprehensive, while editorial `opinion’ or perspective pieces should be clearly identified as such. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behaviour and are unacceptable. So are changes to the original images that can easily lead to misrepresentation of the information delivered by them.

Data and supporting evidence access

We support openness with respect to underlying evidence of research, data in particular. Authors may be asked to provide the raw data and other supporting evidence of their study together with the manuscript for editorial review and should be prepared to make them publicly available if practicable. In any event, authors should ensure accessibility of such data to other competent professionals for at least 10 years after publication (preferably via an institutional or subject-based data repository or other data centre), provided that the confidentiality of the participants can be protected and legal rights concerning proprietary data do not preclude their release so that they may verify and fully comprehend results of their research. The authors should state the location of data and supporting evidence in the manuscript in a Data Availability Statement. Supplementary materials for the convenience of the reader are not peer-reviewed.

Originality and plagiarism

Authors should ensure that they have written and submit only entirely original works, and if they have used the work and/or words of others, that this has been appropriately cited. Publications that have been influential in determining the nature of the work reported in the manuscript should also be cited. Plagiarism takes many forms, from “passing off” another’s paper as the author’s own, to copying or paraphrasing substantial parts (for instance data, words, ideas) of another’s paper (without attribution), to claiming results from research conducted by others. Plagiarism in all its forms (grey literature, presentations, lectures, manuscripts, websites, computer codes, mathematics, musical quotations, illustrations, texts, etc. as sources) constitutes unethical publishing behaviour and is unacceptable, hence leading to a manuscript rejection. We use special software to check for possible plagiarism. Co-authors’ and contributors’ disputes will be resolved according to COPE guidelines.

Multiple, duplicate, redundant, or concurrent submission/publication

Papers describing essentially the same research should not be published in more than one journal or primary publication. Hence, authors should not submit for consideration a manuscript that has already been published in another journal. Submission of a manuscript concurrently to more than one journal is unethical publishing behaviour and unacceptable.

The publication of some kinds of articles (such as clinical guidelines, translations) in more than one journal is sometimes justifiable, provided that certain conditions are met. The authors and editors of the journals concerned must agree to the secondary publication, which must reflect the same data and interpretation of the primary document. The primary reference must be cited in the secondary publication. Also, any overlap of two or more papers by the same author(s) must be properly justified. The justification should be stated in the manuscript and can be based on the strengthening of academic discourse. An exposition of the manuscript in a preprint series or similar is not considered to be a duplicate publication.

It is also acceptable to rewrite or reform an author’s thesis if properly cited. If the thesis was already published, its author may need a permit to reuse parts of it by its publisher. The author should state that his or her manuscript is based on his or her thesis in the cover letter of the submitted manuscript.

We do not accept several versions of the same manuscript; on the contrary, it should be submitted in its final form.

Authorship of the manuscript

Only persons who meet these authorship criteria should be listed as authors in the manuscript as they must be able to take public responsibility for the accuracy and integrity of all aspects of the work (criteria based on the principles of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors available at www.icmje.org/recommendations/browse/roles-and-responsibilities/defining-the-role-of-authors-and-contributors.html: (i) made significant, substantial contributions to the conception, design, execution, data acquisition, or analysis/interpretation of the study; and (ii) drafted the manuscript or revised it critically for important intellectual content; and/or (iii) have seen and approved the final version of the paper and agreed to its submission for publication. All persons who made substantial contributions to the work reported in the manuscript (such as technical help, writing and editing assistance, general support, research assistance) but who do not meet the criteria for authorship must not be listed as authors, but should be acknowledged as contributors in the “Acknowledgements” section after their written permission to be named has been obtained. The corresponding author should ensure that all appropriate co-authors (according to the above definition) and no inappropriate co-authors are included in the author list and verify that all co-authors have seen and approved the final version of the manuscript and agreed to its submission for publication after she or he corrected and proof-read the manuscript. The corresponding author is also responsible for answering all questions regarding sources, materials, data of the manuscript, rights to reuse its content and queries on publishing ethics after the manuscript has been published.

Disclosure, conflicts of interest, and funding

We seek to publish articles without misbecoming influence. Authors should—at the earliest stage possible (generally by submitting a disclosure form at the time of submission and including a statement in the manuscript)—disclose any conflicts of interest that might be construed to influence the results or their interpretation in the manuscript in the written form. Examples of potential conflicts of interest that should be disclosed include financial ones such as honoraria, educational grants or other funding, participation in speakers’ bureaus, membership, employment, consultancies, stock ownership, or other equity interest, and paid expert testimony or patent-licensing arrangements, as well as non-financial ones such as personal or professional relationships, affiliations, knowledge or beliefs in the subject matter or materials discussed in the manuscript. All sources of financial support for the work should be disclosed (including the grant number or other reference number if any) if applicable.

Acknowledgement of sources

Authors should ensure that they have properly acknowledged the work of others and should also cite publications that have been influential in determining the nature of the reported work. Information obtained privately (from the conversation, correspondence, or discussion with third parties) must not be used or reported without explicit, written permission from the source. Authors should not use information obtained within the course of providing confidential services, such as refereeing manuscripts or grant applications unless they have obtained the explicit written permission of the author(s) of the work involved in these services.

Hazards and human or animal subjects

If the work involves chemicals, procedures or equipment that have any unusual hazards inherent in their use, the authors must clearly identify these in the manuscript. If the work involves the use of animals or human participants, the authors should ensure that all procedures were performed in compliance with relevant laws and institutional standards and guidelines and that the appropriate (ethics) institutional committee(s) has approved them; the manuscript should contain a statement to this effect. Authors should also include a statement in the manuscript that informed consent was obtained for experimentation with human participants. The privacy rights of human participants must always be observed.

Peer review

Authors are obliged to participate in the peer-review process and cooperate fully by responding promptly to editors’ requests for raw data, clarifications, and proof of ethics approval, patient consents, and copyright permissions. In the case of a first decision of “revisions necessary”, authors should respond to the reviewers’ comments systematically, point by point, and in a timely manner, revising and re-submitting their manuscript to the journal by the deadline given. We do not tolerate abusive behaviour towards the editors nor the peer reviewers. We reserve the right to protect them from abusive correspondence and similar unethical behaviour of the authors.

Fundamental errors in published works

When authors discover significant errors or inaccuracies in their own published work, it is their obligation to promptly notify the journal’s editors or publisher and cooperate with them to either correct the paper in the form of an erratum or to retract the paper. If the editors or publisher learns from a third party that a published work contains a significant error or inaccuracy, then it is the authors’ obligation to promptly correct or retract the paper or provide evidence to the journal editors of the correctness of the article. For guidelines on retracting or correcting articles, please click here: https://www.elsevier.com/about/company-information/policies/article-withdrawal. Retractions are usually reserved for seriously flawed articles and those with life-threatening consequences. Any corrections to the published articles will be clearly highlighted to the reader in the archive of the journal.

Affiliations

The authors must correctly state their affiliations. These can be institutions where the research was conducted and/or approved, or where the author works in case of non-research content.

Duties of the Publisher

Handling of unethical publishing behaviour

In cases of alleged or proven scientific misconduct, fraudulent publication, or plagiarism, the publisher, in close collaboration with the editors, will take all appropriate measures to clarify the situation and to amend the article in question. This includes the prompt publication of an erratum, clarification, or, in the most severe case (e. g. in cases of plagiarism, duplicate and redundant publications, conflicts of interest, some fraudulent research), the retraction of the affected work. The publisher, together with the editors, shall take reasonable steps to identify and prevent the publication of papers where research misconduct has occurred, and under no circumstances encourage such misconduct or knowingly allow such misconduct to take place. Anyone who suspects unethical publishing behaviour is encouraged to report it to the Editor-in-Chief at hasek@pf.jcu.cz.

Access to journal content

The publisher is committed to the permanent availability and preservation of scholarly research and ensures accessibility by partnering with organizations and maintaining our own digital archive. Access to the archive is and will remain free of charge. No Article Processing Charges are raised.

Competing interest

The Publisher is required to declare any potential competing interests of any kind possibly interfering with the integrity or objectivity of a given publication.

Transparency

The publisher observes COPE’s Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing.

Integrity of Record

The publisher currently does not record any metadata of the respective publications. Nor the publisher uses any information from the published content for marketing. This is subject to change in the future when an editorial system will be deployed.

Censorship

Censorship is not acceptable, and the publisher is committed to freedom of expression (yet, see above in section Publication decisions) and dissemination of knowledge. It observes COPE’s Statement on Censorship.

Marketing Communication

The publisher does not use social media marketing, nor sends unsolicited e-mails concerning the journal’s content.

Advertising

The publisher currently does not use advertising on the journal websites.

PR/Media

No medial releases of the published results are made without the knowledge and consent of the respective authors.

Metrics, Usage and Reporting

The publisher currently does not use any tools that would compute metrics for its web pages.