Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement
Authorities of the journal Acta Universitatis Agriculturae et Silviculturae Mendelianae Brunensis adhere to the highest standard of scholarly research work publications ethics. Publication ethics and malpractice statements are in accordance with the COPE standards, in particular Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors and Code of Conduct.
Duties of Editors
Publication Decision
The Editors of Acta Universitatis Agriculturae et Silviculturae Mendelianae Brunensis are responsible for deciding which of the articles submitted to the journal should be reviewed or published in their respective areas of expertise. Editors are assigned to the new submissions by the Technical Editor based on their area of expertise.
Review of Contribution
Two reviews are typically requested for each contribution. As a general rule, only manuscripts with two positive reviews can be published. One negative review can be grounds for rejection. The final decision lies with Editors. If the decision about a manuscript can not be made based upon two required reports, additional opinion can be requested from another reviewer. Authors will be informed about the decision on their manuscript as promptly as possible.
Fair Review
The Editor shall at all times evaluate manuscripts for their intellectual content without regard to religious belief, ethnic origin, race, gender, sexual orientation, political views etc. of the Authors.
Confidentiality
Editors bear responsibilities for the preservation of anonymity of all Reviewers in the review process. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage. The Editors and any editorial staff of Acta Universitatis Agriculturae et Silviculturae Mendelianae Brunensis must not disclose any information about submitted manuscript to anyone other than the Authors, Reviewers, other editorial advisers and the Publisher, as appropriate.
Disclosure and Conflict of Interest
Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in the Editor's own research.
Duties of Authors
Authorship of the Paper
Authorship should be limited to but must include all those, who have made a significant contribution to the conception, design, execution, or interpretation of the reported study. The Corresponding Author ensures that the submission for publication of the manuscript in question has been approved by all of the Authors and by the institution where the work was carried out.
Originality and Plagiarism
The Authors should ensure that they have written entirely original works, and if the Authors have used the work and/or words of others, that this has been appropriately cited or quoted.
Multiple, Redundant or Concurrent Publication
The Authors must ensure that no paper submitted to Acta Universitatis Agriculturae et Silviculturae Mendelianae Brunensis has been published or is under consideration for publication in other journals (except as an abstract, a part of a: lecture, review or academic thesis).
Acknowledgement of Sources
Proper acknowledgment of the work of others must always be given. The citations must include all sources that have been used to determine the nature of the reported work. No extra sources, which have not been used, may be cited.
Reporting Standards
Authors of reports or original research should present an accurate account of the work performed as well as an objective discussion of its significance. Any fraudulent or deliberately inaccurate statements constitute unethical behaviour and are unacceptable.
Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest
All submissions must include disclosure of all relationships that could be viewed as presenting a potential conflict of interest. All sources of financial support used to achieve the results must be disclosed.
Statement of Compliance for Research Involving Humans and Animals
If work involves humans, there is necessary to confirm that all procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards and that informed consent was obtained from all individual participants involved in the study.
If work includes animals, it is necessary to include a statement of compliance with standards of research involving animals. Authors should ensure that all procedures were performed in compliance with relevant laws and institutional guidelines and that the appropriate institutional committee(s) has approved them.
Fundamental Errors in Published Works
If an Author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in their own published work, it is the Author's obligation to promptly notify the journal Editor or Publisher and cooperate with the Editor to retract or correct the paper by means of Corrigendum or Erratum.
Duties of Reviewers
Contribution Quality
Peer review assists the Editor in making editorial decisions and through the editorial communication with the Author may also assist the Author in improving the paper.
Standards of Objectivity
Reviewers should conduct their reviews objectively, avoiding personal criticism and subjectivity. Criticism of the Author’s personality or the topic is unprofessional and inappropriate. Reviewers should explain their recommendations clearly and explicitly and provide rational support and justification.
Confidentiality and Conflicts of Interest
Reviewers should refuse the review of manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest emerging from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships and connections with any of the Authors, companies, or institutions connected to the manuscripts. Reviewer obliges to keep all received manuscripts in strict confidentiality and must not use them for personal advantage.
Identification of Relevant Sources
Reviewers should identify relevant published content that has not been cited by the Author(s) and bring it to the attention of the Author(s) by notifying the Editor.
Promptness
Reviewers who believe that they are not qualified to review a received manuscript, or would not have the time to do so within the designated deadline, should inform the Editor promptly and decline the review request.
Dealing with Unethical Behaviour
Anyone may at any time inform the Editor-in-Chief, any member Editorial Board, or the Editorial Office about suspected unethical behavior or any type of misconduct by giving the necessary credible information or evidence to start an investigation.
All allegations of ethical misconduct are taken seriously, and a full investigation will take place. All suspected ethical misconduct will be solved according to the COPE Core Practices and COPE flowcharts recommendation.
Minor misconducts
Minor misconduct will be dealt directly with Authors and Reviewers without involving any other parties. Possible outcomes might be:
- Publishing Corrigendum when an honest mistake was made by Authors.
- Publishing an Erratum if the error was made by editorial staff.
Major Misconduct
The Editor-in-Chief shall consult the Editorial Board and Editorial Office and, when necessary, additional experts. They shall make a decision about the further course of action based on the available evidence. Possible outcomes might be:
Publication of a formal announcement or editorial describing the misconduct.
Informing the Author’s or Reviewer’s head of department or employer of any misconduct by means of a formal letter.
The formal retraction of publications from the journal.
A ban from submissions in Acta Universitatis Agriculturae et Silviculturae Mendelianae Brunensis for a predefined period.
Referring a case to a professional organization or legal authority for further investigation and action.