Ethical guidelines

Šolsko polje is bound by the highest ethical, academic and publishing standards. At every stage everyone involved – authors, editors, editorial board, peer reviewers and publishers – actively strives to ensure that their work complies with the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) best practice guidelines for journal editors.

In order to ensure compliance with the highest academic and publishing standards, the following responsibilities apply:


Authors


Authors are responsible for submitting original work for possible publication in the journal. Simultaneous submission of the same article to multiple journals is considered unethical and is not acceptable. Under certain circumstances, some types of non-original texts (such as translations) may be accepted. In such cases, authors must obtain the consent of the editorial board of the first publisher of the original work, and the editor of Šolsko polje must also consent to the republication and ensure that all applicable legal requirements and restrictions are observed.

Only authors who have made a significant contribution to the creation of the article can be acknowledged as authors. If others have contributed significantly to the research project, the authors must acknowledge them and/or cite them as co-contributors to the article. The author submitting the article for publication must ensure that all participating authors are cited in the article and that all co-authors have seen and approved the final version of it and have given their consent for its publication.

Authors are responsible for upholding ethical standards in all aspects of the research study they wish to have published in the journal. All authors shall disclose any potential conflicts of interest, whether financial or of any other nature, that could influence the results or interpretation contained in the article. All sources of funding for the project should be clearly stated.

Work by other authors must be properly cited and quoted. Before the publication of the article, the author must sign a declaration of originality, stating that the article is all their own original work and does not plagiarise the work of others, whether published or unpublished. The author must also ensure that all sources referenced or relied on in the creation of the article have been properly cited. Information obtained by the author in the course of performing confidential work, such as reviewing manuscripts or any other unpublished work by other authors, must not be used without the explicit written consent of the author(s) of the work concerned.

The data on which articles are based must be accurate. The article should contain sufficient details and references to allow it to be cited by other authors. Erroneous or intentionally inexact statements are unethical and unacceptable.

Plagiarism – the passing off of another person’s work as one’s own; copying or paraphrasing of long extracts from other authors’ work without proper referencing; appropriation of research results obtained by others, etc. – is unethical and unacceptable.

The author is required to participate constructively in the review procedure and give due consideration to reviewers’ and/or editors’ suggested amendments to the text. Suggested amendments should not be rejected without good reason.

If after submitting their work the author discovers a major error or inaccuracy in it, they must immediately notify the journal’s editor and co-operate with them in the withdrawal or revision of the article. If the editor discovers a major error in the published work, the author will be required to withdraw or revise the article or provide evidence confirming its accuracy.

The author can withdraw the article at any stage before the conclusion of the review procedure. After this the author can request its withdrawal if they discover that it contains a major error that significantly impacts its scientific credibility; the editor will then liaise with the peer-reviewers to reach a decision about withdrawal.


Editors and editorial board


The editor-in-chief, thematic editors and the editorial board have a duty to do everything in their power to ensure the quality of published articles. They must ensure that all articles are subjected to double blind peer review by acknowledged experts in the field of education. The editor-in-chief and/or subject editors should ensure that only qualified independent peer reviewers are used. Based on the peer review reports and discussions with subject editors, the editor-in-chief proposes either the publication or rejection of submitted articles; the final decision is taken by the editorial board. The editorial board will accept articles for publication provided they have been properly revised in accordance with the recommendations of the peer reviewers and editors.

Articles will be accepted or rejected purely on the basis of their relevance, originality and transparency, and on their fit with the scientific field covered by the journal. Editors and the editorial board must not discriminate against authors on the basis of gender, sexual orientation, religion or ethnic or geographical origin.

The editor-in-chief, thematic editors and editorial board have a duty to protect the confidentiality of authors and their research. They must not disclose information about submitted articles to any party other than the author, the peer reviewers, potential peer reviewers and the publishers, without good reason.

The editors and editorial board shall protect the anonymity of peer reviewers and authors.

The editor-in-chief, thematic editors and editorial board shall strive to uphold freedom of expression and to preserve the integrity of scientific work. Editors should publish revisions, clarifications, revocations and apologies whenever necessary.

The journal will also publish well grounded critical reviews of the published articles, unless the editors or editorial board have good reasons not to do so. Authors whose papers have been subjected to criticism should be given the opportunity to respond to it.

The editor-in-chief should respond immediately to any complaints relating to the publication of an article. In the event of suspected authorship problems the editor shall follow the guidelines set out by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). If the author is dissatisfied with the editor’s decision, they can appeal to the editorial board.

The editor-in-chief and editorial board must ensure that commercial interests do not compromise the intellectual and ethical standards of the journal. They must ensure that revenue from advertising and other commercial activities does not influence their editorial decisions.


Peer reviewers


Peer reviewers are not paid for their work.

In the event of a conflict of interest, peer reviewers must immediately inform the editor and must not accept the article for review. If a peer reviewer has been selected but does not feel sufficiently qualified to review the article or knows they will not be able to complete the review within the allotted time (normally one month), they should inform the editor accordingly and recuse themself from the review.

Reviewers should treat every manuscript received for review in the strictest confidence. They must not discuss it or show it to others.

Article reviews must be objective. Personal criticism of authors is inappropriate. Reviewers should express their views in a clear and substantiated way.

Reviewers should identify any relevant published works that have not been cited by the authors. They should also advise the editor of any significant resemblance or overlapping of the contents of the article with any other work they are acquainted with.

Reviewers must ensure the confidentiality of any protected information or idea they encounter during the review process and must not use it for personal gain or in their own research without the explicit consent of the author.