Školní elektronické systémy

Ethical Guidelines

Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement

Publication ethics and publication malpractice statement of the International Scientific Conference COMPETITION is based, in large part, on the Best Practice Guidelines for Conference Proceedings Editors and the position statements developed by the Committee on Publication Ethics COPE.

In case of any questions about the review procedure, the rules stated in this code or the publication within the proceedings of the COMPETITION conference, please do not hesitate to contact the editors. All participants in the review process of the International Scientific Conference COMPETITION (authors, editors, reviewers) are obliged to observe the following ethical principles.

All manuscripts submitted to the COMPETITION Conference Proceedings are subject to double-blind peer review. We believe that using anonymous peer reviewers is the best way to get honest opinions on papers. The COMPETITION Scientific Committee requires peer reviewers not to contact authors directly.


Author Responsibilities

  • All papers submitted to the conference review process must be original and must not be published in any way before, during or after the conference. Authors should not submit similar papers (or papers describing the same subject) at multiple meetings or in other journals or conference proceedings.
  • Authors are obliged to cite all sources and other authors in the submitted papers properly.
  • Authors must not change, distort or otherwise modify the research data in the paper if this could significantly affect the conclusions resulting from the research results.
  • Authors must state only valid affiliations of all co-authors (name, institution, contacts). Proper acknowledgement of the work of others must always be given. Authors should cite publications that have influenced the nature of the reported work. The corresponding author should ensure that all appropriate and no inappropriate co-authors are included in the paper and that all co-authors have seen and approved the final version of the article and have agreed to its submission for publication.
  • The published paper will be withdrawn if a serious error results from a breach of the ethical principles of the International Scientific Conference COMPETITION. Authors may be excluded from future participation and publication of papers in the International Scientific Conference COMPETITION proceedings.
  • Authors of reports on original research should present an accurate account of the work performed as well as an objective discussion of its significance. Underlying data should be represented accurately in the paper. A paper should contain sufficient details and references to permit others to replicate the research. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behaviour and are unacceptable.
  • Authors are asked to provide the raw data in connection with the paper for editorial review. They should be prepared to provide public access to such data, and in any case, they should retain such data for a reasonable time after publication.
  • Authors should ensure that the submitted article is original and has not been published elsewhere in any language. If the authors used others' results and/or words, this was appropriately cited or quoted.
  • Applicable copyright laws and conventions should be followed. Copyright material (e.g. tables, figures or extensive quotations) should be reproduced only with appropriate permission and acknowledgement.
  • If requested by editors, authors should supply evidence that the reported research received the appropriate approval and was carried out ethically (e.g. copies of approvals, licenses, participant consent forms).
  • Researchers should not generally publish or share identifiable data collected during research without specific consent from the individual (or their representative).
  • The appropriate statistical analyses should be determined at the start of the study, and a data analysis plan for the pre-specified outcomes should be prepared and followed. Secondary analyses should be distinguished from primary analyses and those set out in the data analysis plan. Researchers should publish all meaningful research results that might contribute to a better understanding.
  • In their manuscript, all authors should disclose any financial or other substantive conflicts of interest that might be construed to influence the results or interpretation of their work. All sources of financial support for the project should be disclosed.
  • When an author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in his/her published work, the author must promptly notify the journal editor or publisher and cooperate with the editor to retract or correct the paper.


Editor Responsibilities

  • Editors are obliged to choose reviewers of papers solely so that reviewers are always only competent and qualified persons in the given topic.
  • Editors are obliged to act in the review procedure only so that the highest ethical standard of the International Scientific Conference COMPETITION is always maintained.
  • All papers submitted for publication can be checked with plagiarism detection software to verify their originality. Entries that do not meet the criteria of originality will be excluded from the review process without compensation.
  • Editors at any time evaluate manuscripts for their intellectual content without regard to the nature of the authors or the host institution, including race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy.

Reviewer Responsibilities

  • Any manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and must not be used for personal advantage. Reviews should be conducted objectively, and observations should be formulated clearly with supporting arguments so that authors can use them to improve the paper.
  • If reviewers do not feel qualified for an objective review of the paper, they must immediately inform editors. Reviewers must oppose articles objectively and constructively from the point of view of the content and formal aspects. Reviewers should not consider manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers.
  • Reviewers should immediately inform editors of any similarities between peer-reviewed manuscripts and any published papers or manuscripts concurrently submitted to other journals or conferences that may be known to reviewers.
  • If readers, authors, or editors point out genuine errors in published work, which do not render the work invalid, a correction (or erratum) will be published as soon as possible. If the error renders the work or a substantial part of it invalid, the paper should be retracted with an explanation of the reason for retraction (i.e., honest error).


Procedures for dealing with unethical behaviour

Dealing with possible misconduct:

  • The editorial office has to act if they suspect any misconduct or if someone reports it. This duty applies to both published and unpublished papers.
  • The editors should not simply reject an article that raises concerns about possible misconduct. Editors have an ethical obligation to look into allegations.
  • Whoever informs the editorial office of such conduct should provide sufficient information and evidence to launch an investigation.
  • The editors must take all allegations seriously and treat them in the same manner until a successful decision or conclusion is reached.
  • The editors should first ask for a response from those suspected of misconduct. If the editors are not satisfied with the answer, they should ask the relevant employers or institutions or other appropriate bodies to investigate.
  • The editors should make every effort to ensure that the alleged misconduct is adequately investigated. If this is not done, the editors should make every reasonable effort to resolve the issue.
  • Minor breaches:
  • Minor misconduct could be addressed without the need for wider consultation. In any case, the author should be allowed to respond to any allegations.

Serious breaches:

  • Serious misconduct may require the accused's employers to be informed. The editors should decide whether to involve the employers either by examining the available evidence themselves or after further consultation with a limited number of experts.

Retraction of an article if:

  • The editors have clear evidence that the findings are unreliable due to misconduct or an honest mistake.
  • The findings have been previously published elsewhere without proper reference, permission or justification (i.e. redundant publication). The journal that first published the article may issue a redundant publication notice but should not retract the article unless the findings are unreliable. All journals that subsequently publish a redundant article should retract it and give the reason for the retraction.
  • The article constitutes plagiarism and reports unethical research.
  • The article should be retracted as soon as possible after the editors are satisfied that it is seriously flawed and misleading.

Consequences of unethical behaviour (in increasing order of severity):

  • Informing or instructing the author or reviewer if there appears to be a misunderstanding or misapplication of acceptable standards.
  • A strongly worded letter to the author or reviewer that addresses misconduct and warns against future behaviour.
  • Publication of an official notice of misconduct on the conference website.
  • A formal letter to the author's or reviewer's department head or funding agency.
  • Retraction of publication from the conference proceedings, along with informing the author's department head or reviewer.
  • Imposing a formal embargo on an individual's contributions to a conference for a specified time.