The following criteria are to be met in order for a paper to be considered for publication in the Teológiai Fórum:

1. Credible and scientifically sound sources must be provided in order to support the conclusions drawn.
2. Relevance to the professional community of the discipline is a prerequisite.
3. Ideally, the paper should also be useful for researchers in other related disciplines.
4. Submitted articles must contain results or analyses that make a significant contribution to the development of the field of science.

Novelty: Published research should offer novel insights that were previously unknown to the scientific community.

Impact: The results should be of a nature that can have a significant impact on research in the field, generate debate or provide a framework for reflection. For example, they may introduce new theoretical approaches or answer fundamental questions.

Supporting evolving understanding: Research can provide insights that can help deepen understanding of a particular aspect of a discipline or offer a more comprehensive solution to an existing problem.

Group collaborations

The Teológia Fórum operates under the assumption that, at the very least, each member of a given collaborative endeavour has, with full awareness of their peers, assumed responsibility for their contribution to the collective manuscript.

Authorship

It is incumbent upon authors to accept collective responsibility for the work that they submit and publish. The following criterias are generally accepted as the prerequisites for authorship of a manuscript:

The individual has made significant contributions to the concept and design of the research, or to the acquisition of data, or to the analysis and interpretation of data.

The individual has either drafted or critically revised the manuscript.

The individual has approved the final version for publication in terms of intellectual content.

The mere act of obtaining funding, collecting data, or generally supervising the research team does not confer authorship.

In the event of a multi-authored publication being largely derived from a student's thesis or dissertation, it is preferable for the student to be listed as the main author. Similarly, the subject supervisor of such a student should be involved as a co-author, unless they explicitly decline to do so. In this case, their role should be indicated in the "acknowledgements" section, and they should be informed of this fact to avoid misunderstandings.

Contributions that do not meet the authorship criteria should be noted in the "Acknowledgements" section of the manuscript, including the involvement of the professional author. In the event of requests for changes to the list of authors or authorship relationships in a manuscript after the original submission or after publication, all authors originally listed must agree in writing to such changes.

Appeal

Authors are entitled to appeal against editorial decisions. The editors of scientific journals and books have established mechanisms for authors to appeal peer review decisions.

The editor plays a pivotal role in the peer review process, serving as a mediator between authors and peer reviewers. This entails moderating all discussions prior to publication. In instances where consensus cannot be achieved, editors may seek the input of additional peer reviewers if they deem it necessary. Following an appeal, the editor's decision is final.

Peer reviewers' suggestions

It is recommended that authors suggest suitable independent referees when submitting their manuscript; however, these suggested referees may not be used to referee the manuscript submitted by the person making the suggestion to the Teológiai Fórum.

Authors must declare themselves

Any source of funding for the research, including direct or indirect financial support, supply of equipment or materials, or other forms of conflict of interest that may have prevented the researchers from conducting and publishing the research in an unbiased manner; the role of the research funder(s) or sponsor (The role of the research funder(s) or sponsor(s) (if any) in the design, conduct, analysis, interpretation and reporting of the research must be considered. In addition, any other relevant financial and non-financial interests and relationships that are likely to affect the interpretation of the results must be disclosed. Editors, reviewers and readers must be able to see any relationship with the book/journal (for example, if the editors wish to publish their own research in their own work).

Amendments to articles

The Teológia Fórum is committed to maintaining the historical accuracy of all its publications. No published work should be altered or removed from the Teológia Fórum's print or electronic platform after publication, unless there is good reason to do so.

The Teológia Fórum considers published articles, manuscripts and works, in print and online, to be the final and complete version. While it is possible that this version could be improved, the principle is that this should not be done except in very special circumstances. The decision to correct a published work rests with the editors. Authors of published works are obliged to notify the Teológiai Fórum immediately if they become aware that the work requires correction. It is imperative to note that all corrections require the agreement of all co-authors; therefore, it is expedient to submit requests for corrections accompanied by a signed agreement from all authors. Should one or a few authors express disagreement with a proposed correction, the coordinating author is required to provide correspondence from the author(s) who object.

Corrections

A correction is a modification made by the authors of a work to address significant errors that have been identified. The relevance of these corrections to the intended audience and their importance to the published article are the primary considerations in the evaluation process. Corrections are disseminated subsequent to deliberations among editors, frequently with the assistance of peer reviewers. In instances where certain co-authors decline to endorse the correction or retraction, the Teológiai Fórum, in consultation with the editors, retains the prerogative to publish it, contingent on the author(s) voting in opposition. The Teológiai Fórum may publish a correction if there is an error in the list of published authors, but not in the case of ignored acknowledgements.

Appendix

An appendix is a notification of an addition to a work based on peer review (e.g. in response to a reader's request for clarification). The information contained within an appendix should not contradict the original publication; however, if the author has inadvertently omitted important information available at the time, this material may be published as an appendix after discussion between the peer reviewers and the editors.

It is noteworthy that supplements are published with great infrequency; this is only the case when the editors determine that the supplement is indispensable for readers to comprehend a substantial portion of the published contribution.

Withdrawals

A retraction may be issued in the event of the conclusions of a paper being subject to serious scrutiny on the basis of a calculation, editing error or mistake. Withdrawal may also be applied as a sanction for scientific misconduct, such as a significant breach of publication ethics or a violation of copyright guarantees, which may include infringement of third-party copyright. Violations of publication ethics may include the multiple utilisation of studies, false claims of authorship, plagiarism and the misuse of data.

All co-authors are invited to contribute to the withdrawal, and in cases where some co-authors refuse to sign the retraction, the Teológiai Fórum, in consultation with the editors, reserves the right to publish the retraction, citing disagreement between the authors. Works that are withdrawn are clearly marked, with a "withdrawn" sign everywhere. In rare cases, however, it may be necessary to remove the work completely from the online site. This will only be done if the published work infringes the legal rights of others, is clearly defamatory, or if it is (or could be) the subject of an employment tribunal order. In such cases, some metadata will remain online, but the text will be replaced by a notice that the content has been removed for good cause. For more information on copyright guidelines, please visit the dedicated journal or book platform.

General guidelines

The Teológiai Fórum supports the practice of peer review, whereby research is evaluated and reviewed by independent experts working within the same scientific field as the authors. This process is intended to enhance the quality of manuscripts and enable editors to determine the suitability of submissions for publication. The following categories of contributions to the Teológiai Fórum are subject to double-blind peer review: original research, review articles, and case studies.

At the discretion of the editors, other interdisciplinary works published outside the above categories, especially if they contain technical information, may also be peer-reviewed.

The review process

The following statement details the protocol for the peer review process for scientific journals. Initially, the manuscript is reviewed by the editorial staff. Should it be deemed suitable, the Editor-in-Chief will then send it to two independent peer reviewers for formal review, either directly or by a Section Editor.

It should be noted that the guidelines for each journal issue and thematic journal issue may vary slightly. Readers are therefore encouraged to visit the journal collection, where they will find a list of our journal issues, to help them find the applicable guidelines.

In order to minimise the time taken both for authors and reviewers, manuscripts are only sent for formal review if they are deemed to be most likely to meet the journal's editorial criteria.

Manuscripts that are judged by the editors to be unsuitable for the Teológiai Fórum will be rejected immediately without external review. These decisions may also be based on advice from experts in the field.

Manuscripts that are deemed to be of interest to our potential readership by the editorial team are then sent for formal peer review, typically to two or three reviewers, though occasionally to more if specific advice is required. The editors then make a decision based on the advice of the reviewers, choosing from a range of options:

The submission is accepted, with or without editorial revision. The author is invited to revise, addressing specific concerns before a final decision is taken.

In the event of rejection, the author is informed that further professional or research work may be submitted for consideration at a later date.

The most common reason for rejection is typically a lack of technical interest, originality, or significant technical and/or interpretation problems.

Reviewers are expected to recommend a particular course of action, but must take into account that other reviewers of a manuscript may have different expertise and/or views, and editors may have to make decisions based on conflicting advice. It is therefore the duty of the most accomplished reports to provide editors with the information on which to base their decision and the arguments for and against publication.

Editorial decisions are not based on vote counts or numerical rankings, and the majority recommendation is not always followed. The strength of the arguments put forward by each reviewer and author is assessed, and other information that is not available to either party may also be taken into account. The primary responsibility is to the scientific community as a whole and to the readers of the journal, and in deciding how best to serve these interests, the claims of each manuscript are weighed against the many other manuscripts also under review.

The editorial team may request further advice from reviewers, especially in cases of conflicting opinions or where the authors believe they have been misunderstood on factual issues. We therefore request that reviewers, upon request from the editors, provide additional input. We acknowledge the tendency of reviewers to be reluctant to engage in extensive discussions, and we strive to limit consultation to the minimum necessary to ensure that authors are given a fair opportunity for consultation.

When reviewers agree to assess a manuscript, they are expected to review subsequent revisions. However, editors will not return a resubmitted manuscript to reviewers if it appears that the authors have not made a serious attempt to address the criticisms. We take critics' feedback seriously and do not ignore it. In instances where a single reviewer opposes publication, we may consult the other reviewers to ensure that the dissenting opinion does not reflect an unduly high standard of criticism. On occasion, we may involve other reviewers in the resolution of disputes, though we seek to do so only in cases where there is a particular issue, such as a technical concern, that necessitates additional input.

Selection of peer reviewers

The selection of reviewers is of paramount importance to the publication process, and this is based on number of factors, including expertise, professional reputation, specific recommendations, and previous experience of reviewer characteristics. For example, people who are slow, inattentive, or fail to justify their opinions, whether they are harsh or lenient, are to be avoided.

Potential reviewers should be checked with before manuscripts are sent to them for review. It is imperative that reviewers recognise the confidentiality of these communications and adhere to the stipulated legal obligations. The Teológiai Fórum functions on the principle of editorial autonomy, encompassing the establishment and maintenance of a database of suitably qualified reviewers for its journal. The Teológiai Fórum also undertakes the responsibility of monitoring the performance of reviewers and editors, ensuring the quality and timeliness of reviews. Finally, the Teológiai Fórum is committed to the principle of professional courtesy, disregarding any form of unduly critical feedback. Individuals who persistently demonstrate a pattern of producing substandard, delayed, offensive, or unconstructive reviews should face exclusion from future employment. Peer reviewers are strongly encouraged to disclose any potential conflicts of interest related to the material they are requested to evaluate. In instances where fulfilling a peer review request would be unfeasible due to these circumstances, reviewers are advised to decline. Peer reviewers are advised to acknowledge the experts recommended by authors, while maintaining an open mind and not considering these suggestions as definitive.

The Editorial Office requests that peer reviewers who entrust peer review to their colleagues inform the Editor, as peer review is a confidential procedure.

Writing the review

The primary function of the review is to furnish editors with the information they require to reach a decision regarding publication. The review should also comprise data on how authors can enhance their manuscript to the point where it is deemed acceptable. To the greatest extent possible, the negative review should elucidate to authors the manuscript's deficiencies, so that rejected authors can comprehend the rationale for the decision and gain an understanding of the necessary improvements to make the manuscript adequate for publication elsewhere. However, this is secondary to the other functions of the review and reviewers should not feel obliged to give detailed, constructive advice to authors of manuscripts that do not meet the book/journal criteria (as sometimes included in the letter sent to the editor when asked to review). If the reviewer considers a manuscript unsuitable for publication, the report to the author should be brief and clear enough for the author to understand the reason for the decision.

While confidential comments directed towards the editor are welcomed, it is recommended that the primary aspects of the manuscript be encompassed in the comments to be conveyed to the authors. The ideal editorial review is expected to address the following questions:

Who stands to benefit from reading the work, and what is the rationale behind this?

What are the primary claims/conclusions of the work, and what is their relative significance?

How does the work distinguish itself from other works in its field?

Do the claims represent novel insights or do they build upon the emerging knowledge in the field?

The credibility of the claims and conclusions must be assessed, and if they are found to be lacking, the necessary additional evidence must be identified. It is also important to consider whether there are other experiments or works that could be used to further strengthen the manuscript. The impact that such changes would have on the work must be assessed, as well as the difficulty and time required for implementation. Finally, it is essential to evaluate whether the claims are adequately discussed in the context of previous literature.

If the manuscript is unacceptable, is the study promising enough to encourage the authors to resubmit?

If the manuscript is unacceptable but promising, what specific work needs to be done to make it acceptable?

We understand that reviewers are busy and we would be very grateful if you could answer the questions in the above section. If the editors have the time, it would be very helpful if reviewers could advise on some of the following points

Is the manuscript well written?

If not, how can it be made clearer or more understandable to non-experts?

Would lay readers outside the field benefit from a summary of the main results for publication?

Should authors be asked to include additional methodological guidance, additional sources or data from the internet with the manuscript?

Has the previous literature been treated fairly?

Is the statistical analysis of the data sound and according to the guidelines of the book/journal?

Timing of reviews

Teológiai Fórum is committed to the expeditious administration of editorial decisions and the prompt publication of academic papers. The efficient editorial process is considered to be a valuable service to the scholarly community. In order to facilitate this, reviewers are requested to adhere to deadlines and respond promptly to ensure smooth communication. In the event that reviewers anticipate longer than expected delays, they are requested to notify the editors, so that the authors can be informed and alternative arrangements can be made if necessary.

Editors are expected to ensure that manuscripts under their consideration are subject to peer review and published in a timely manner, especially if the results are likely to have significant impact or consequences. Authors should be aware that priority for publication will be given to manuscripts which, in the opinion of the editors of the book or journal, may lead to the communication of important results. The timing of publication may also be affected by thematic publications or by editors grouping papers on similar topics, which will inevitably prevent articles from appearing in the order of inclusion.

Anonymity

The Teológiai Fórum adheres to a policy of maintaining the anonymity of reviewers throughout the review process and beyond, unless the reviewers themselves explicitly request disclosure of their identity. It is imperative for reviewers to exercise discretion and refrain from disclosing their identity to authors or other reviewers, except when specifically requested. Reviewers should be cognizant of the potential implications of their critiques and the possibility of being requested to provide feedback on the comments of other reviewers and on further revisions to the manuscript. It is acknowledged that maintaining objectivity in such circumstances may be challenging for identified reviewers.

Reviewers are therefore asked to refrain from disclosing the authors' identity to third parties without the editor's knowledge. In the event that reviewers wish to disclose their identity while the manuscript is under consideration, they are to do so through the editor. If this is not possible, authors are asked to inform the editor as soon as possible after the referee has disclosed their identity to the author. Any attempts by the authors to confront or identify the reviewers is to be rejected. The institution's policy is not to confirm or refute speculation about the identity of reviewers, and to encourage reviewers to follow similar principles.

Editing the reviewers' reports

It is our policy not to silence reviewers' reports; any comments intended for authors will be passed on, regardless of what we think of their content. Occasionally, we may edit a report to remove offensive language or comments that reveal confidential information about other matters, or to make the report more understandable. Reviewers are asked to avoid statements that may be unnecessarily offensive. We strongly encourage reviewers to clearly express their views on the manuscript. Authors should acknowledge that critiques promote professionalism.

Ethics and safety guidelines

The Teológiai Fórum editors are at liberty to seek counsel not only from technical reviewers on submitted manuscripts, but also on any aspect of the manuscript that gives rise to concerns. Such concerns may pertain to ethical issues, issues relating to access to personal data or confidential material, or the social consequences of the publication of a manuscript, including threats to security and legal protection. In such circumstances, editors are wont to seek advice concomitantly with the technical peer review process. As with all publication decisions, the ultimate responsibility for the decision to publish rests with the editor of the journal concerned.

If the discussions between the author, the editor and the peer reviewer are to remain confidential, this must be ensured unless all parties have given their express consent or in exceptional circumstances.

Journal editors or members of the editorial board are never involved in editorial decisions about their own work.

Editors, editorial board members and other editorial staff (including peer reviewers) are obliged to withdraw from discussions of submissions if any circumstances prevent them from making an unbiased editorial decision.

Editorial independence

Editorial independence is of paramount importance and must be upheld at all costs. The prerogative to make editorial decisions must be exclusively that of the editors, and interference from the owners of the journal (scientific societies and universities) must be strictly prohibited. The decision of the editors on whether to publish individual articles submitted to the Teológiai Fórum must be immune to any form of undue influence from the employer of the editor, the journal owner, or the publisher.

Intellectual property

It is incumbent upon authors to expect that peer reviewers or other persons privy to their work will not appropriate their research ideas or plagiarise their work. The Theological Forum's guidelines for peer reviewers explicitly delineate their roles and responsibilities, including the requirement to maintain the confidentiality of submissions until publication. Furthermore, the Theological Forum anticipates that reviewers will destroy submitted manuscripts following the review process.

Editors should be prepared for the possibility of allegations of theft or plagiarism and should treat such allegations with the requisite seriousness.

The Teológiai Fórum is an academic publication which depends on a number of parties to ensure its integrity. The editors must be trusted to select appropriate peer reviewers, the authors must trust the editors to select the right peer reviewers, and readers must trust the peer review process. The Teológiai Fórum's editors and reviewers adhere to independent standards in all situations, guided primarily by the principles of scholarly judgement.

Ideas and expression

The editors and readers of the Teológiai Fórum have the right to expect that the work submitted is the author's original creation, that it has not been plagiarised, i.e. taken from other authors without permission, and that copyright is not infringed, for example when reproducing figures or tables.

Ethical obligations

The Teológiai Fórum anticipates that authors will adhere to the highest ethical standards during the research and publication process. The following principles, although not exhaustive, should be applied:

Soundness and reliability

The research reported must be conducted in an ethical and responsible manner and in accordance with all relevant legislation. It must be sound and carefully conducted, and must utilise appropriate data analysis and presentation methods.

For authors:

Manuscripts should be meticulously reviewed at all stages to ensure that methods and results are accurately reported, and for calculations, data presentation, typed manuscripts/submissions and proofreading.          

Righteousness

Researchers are expected to adhere to the following principles:

Results should be presented with veracity and without any form of falsification or inappropriate data manipulation, ensuring that the findings are not misleadingly altered.

It is essential to adhere to relevant reporting guidelines and describe the methods in sufficient detail, clearly and unambiguously, with reference to public sources of information. This approach enables others to replicate the work and verify the results.

Data should always be reported accurately and never manipulated. Problematic data should be addressed accordingly.

The entire research should be submitted. The presentation of findings, including those that may be uncomfortable, contradictory, or unexplained, or that do not support the hypothesis or interpretation of the authors or sponsors, is to be done with transparency. In the event of an error being discovered in a submitted, accepted, or published work, the editor must be notified immediately. Authors are expected to collaborate with editors in the process of issuing corrections or retractions as necessary. The accurate attribution of the work of others in citations is also paramount. The practice of copying references from other publications without having read the cited work is to be avoided. Furthermore, researchers are obliged to identify the risks involved in conducting research.

Special comments:

Information obtained privately from a personal source should not be used without the express permission of the persons from whom it was obtained. Researchers are required to obtain appropriate letters confirming permission to include such information.

Originality

It is incumbent upon researchers to adhere to the accepted publication requirements that submitted work must be original and not published elsewhere in any language without explicit citation and acknowledgement of previously published work. Researchers must also comply with and follow all applicable copyright laws and treaties. Copyrighted material, such as tables, figures or extensive quotations, may be reproduced only with proper permission and citation. Researchers must also properly cite or refer to relevant previous work and publications, both by other researchers and the authors' own work. Where possible, reference should be made to primary literature, and appropriate citation should be given to data, texts, figures or ideas from other researchers, which should not be presented as if they were the authors' own work. Original texts directly taken from other researchers' publications should be quoted in quotation marks with appropriate citations. The editors should be informed if the results have been published previously or if several reports or analyses of a single dataset are in the process of being published elsewhere. Furthermore, authors are required to provide copies of related publications or papers submitted to other books/journals. It is important to note that authors should not claim originality if others have reported similar work in whole or in part. The work and achievements of others must always be acknowledged, and scientifically sound work that has led to or has been influenced in some way by their findings must be recognised.

The Teológiai Fórum reserves the right to refuse publication of a sponsored/sponsored publication that does not meet the professional standards set for the journal to which the manuscript or supplement has been submitted.

Plagiarism and counterfeiting

Plagiarism is defined as the act of an author attempting to pass off another person's work as their own, and potentially publishing it under their name. Duplicate publication, otherwise known as self-plagiarism, occurs when an author reuses significant parts of their own previously published work without providing proper citations. This can range from the publication of the same manuscript in multiple books or journals, to authors adding minor amounts of new data to an earlier manuscript.

The Teológiai Fórum considers substantial plagiarism to be unpublishable, and thus such manuscripts are not considered suitable for publication by the Teológiai Fórum. However, minor cases of plagiarism without dishonest intent are relatively common, for example when an author reuses introductory passages from an earlier manuscript. The editors of the Teológiai Fórum journal evaluate each case that comes to their attention (either based on their own knowledge of the relevant literature and readings, or on the basis of a warning from the reviewers) on its own individual merits. In the event that a manuscript is suspected of plagiarism after publication in the Teológiai Fórum journal, the journal will carry out a post-publication investigation. In the event that plagiarism is identified, the journal will liaise with the author, the author's institute, and relevant funding agencies. Should a violation be established, the Teológiai Fórum journal will issue a correction to the original publication accompanied by an explanation. Depending on the extent of the plagiarism, the manuscript may be formally retracted.

The institution responsible for publishing the journal is tasked with maintaining communication between editors, authors and proof-readers, in addition to respecting personal data and protecting copyright. The institution places significant emphasis on upholding editorial independence, adhering to the ethical principles of theoretical and practical research, and adhering to other ethical requirements of theological disciplines. In the event of a publication violation is noticed or other concerns are raised, individuals are requested to direct their inquiries to the Editor-in-Chief. All such complaints or comments will be investigated by independent members of the editorial board, who will provide the complainant with a formal statement of possible solutions. The institution responsible for the publication of Teológiai Fórum will plan the strategy of the journal with the editors, and review it regularly and amend it as necessary. The publisher is obliged to publish research results, corrections, and explanations within the indicated deadlines.

The editor-in-chief's tasks

The Editor-in-Chief is responsible for ensuring that the Teológiai Fórum is supplied with high-quality manuscripts in sufficient quantity to meet the journal's publication schedule. In the event of inadequate or insufficient manuscripts being submitted, the Editor-in-Chief must discuss the available options. The Editor-in-Chief must also ensure that potential conflicts of interest are assessed. If the Editor-in-Chief has recently published a paper with the author(s) of the manuscript, it may appear that their relationship has influenced the publication of the paper. Similarly, if there has been a recent joint relationship or employment relationship with the author(s), it may also appear inappropriate to handle their work. If a conflict of interest is suspected, the editor should decline to handle the manuscript, and the Teológia Fórum will appoint another suitable editor to oversee the manuscript. New studies must be evaluated to ascertain whether they fall within the scope of the journal and meet its criteria of interest.

It is imperative to ensure that manuscripts adhere to the journal's editorial policy, that the article's content is appropriate, and that the grammatical and stylistic quality of the article is checked. The theme of the manuscripts should reflect the evolving direction of the field and include emerging work, which may necessitate the editing of thematic articles or the creation of special issues.

The journal's activities must be carried out in accordance with generally accepted standards of fairness and objectivity, as well as in accordance with the journal's and publisher's guidelines. The editorial board must be selected in line with the publisher's guidelines.

Keep the Editorial Board informed of the development of the journal. Inform and involve them in ideas for editorial improvements. Involve the editorial board formally through an annual editorial board meeting or informally through ad hoc meetings and discussions.

Ensure the approval of special issues or special collections proposed and managed by a team of guest editors outside the Editorial Board.

Ensure the promotion of the journal among colleagues and the professional community.

The editors-in-chief may also publish their own papers (authored or co-authored), but the number of papers may not normally exceed two per issue. The editor-in-chief may not participate in decisions on papers that he or she has written. The peer review of such papers should be carried out independently of the editor(s) and their research teams concerned and this should be clearly indicated for each such published paper.

Editorial Committee

The editors are committed to upholding the highest standards of quality for the journal and to implementing continuous improvements to ensure its excellence. They are expected to promote freedom of expression and to maintain the confidentiality of communication between reviewers and authors. Unpublished material should not be included in the editor's own research or utilised for any other purpose. Editors reserve the right to accept or reject manuscripts based on the journal's publication criteria. They are also obliged to acknowledge the author's right to appeal their decision. An author may submit a formal appeal to the Editor-in-Chief, whereupon independent members of the Editorial Board and the publisher will review the appeal. Following the investigation of the appeal, the author will receive a formal response to the decision. The editors are required to ensure that there is no conflict of interest between themselves and the articles they accept or reject. Editors must inform authors of the deadline for submission of manuscripts, describe the proofreading process and inform authors of any other actions that apply to them.

New editors should not alter previous decisions on manuscript acceptance without serious justification and an editorial decision. During the review process, editors are required to provide standards related to the peer review process, as well as to require the removal of any potential conflict of interest for reviewers and to protect the privacy of reviewers. The editorial board must inform new board members of their responsibilities and the expectations they are expected to meet, and members should be informed about the current strategy and progress of the journal.

It is imperative that all parties involved in the preparation and publication of manuscripts are acknowledged as authors. The responsibility for contributing to the writing of the article lies with all authors In the event of there being more than one author of an article, they are obliged, upon request by the editor, to confirm in writing their authorship of the article when submitting the manuscript. All authors must participate in the relevant theoretical and empirical research, the peer review process and contribute to the further revision of the article based on the peer review. They are obliged to provide true and relevant data and to adhere to ethical principles in their theoretical and empirical research. Authors and co-authors are asked to provide their name, academic degree and title, academic or research institution, contact details including current email address. In addition, the identification (affiliation) of the author and co-authors should be indicated, based on the scientific or professional contributions of all authors concerned, irrespective of their academic status. This information must be consistent with that provided in the manuscript. Authors must indicate the source of funding for their research, paying particular attention to APVV, VEGA and KEGA projects in Slovakia, and international projects or similar funding. Information on the funding of the manuscript should be included in the appropriate footnote to the title of the article. If the research is funded by another institution or individual, authors should provide more detailed information about the institution or individual in this section.

The issue of breach of the code of conduct has the potential to impact authors, editors, publishers and reviewers. It is imperative that all parties declare any conflicts of interest in a timely manner. Editors are obliged to formally declare any conflict of interest in relation to editorial work to the publisher in writing prior to their appointment, and in an updated form in the case of a new conflict of interest. In the event of a new conflict of interest, editors are prohibited from making decisions on articles that relate to their professional and personal interests. Furthermore, editors and publishers are bound by a strict code of conduct, which stipulates that they must not abuse their position to influence the scientific indicators of the journal in any way. Editors are also prohibited from manipulating colleagues or staff of the institution publishing the journal, nor may they manipulate authors in order to increase the journal's indexes, their own research interests or the number of citations. In the event of an author electing to utilise quotations from the journal's editorial or publishing staff within an article intended for the peer review process, these quotations must be employed independently of the editors. Editors are prohibited from manipulating the author's illustrations or tables. Publishers, editors, or reviewers are forbidden from having conflicts of interest with any author, and all authors are permitted to engage in the article review and publication process.

Before submitting an article, the author must inform the editors of any potential conflict of interest. In the case of authorship, the author should be aware of the fact that he/she is obliged to list all authors who have contributed in any way to the writing of the article. Failure to list multiple authors or co-authors is considered unacceptable. Authors are required to identify the primary authorship, the relationship between authors, and other issues related to the authorship and publication of their article. Reviewers will evaluate manuscripts objectively and impartially. Reviews are conducted without overt or covert discriminatory bias towards the author. Within the reviews, reviewers will not recommend their own work in order to increase their own reference count.