Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement

The journal Cultural History adheres to the highest standards of publishing ethics and employs all available methods to detect practices that abuse scholarly publication. Any form of unethical behaviour is unacceptable, and Cultural History does not tolerate plagiarism in any form. Authors submitting contributions to Cultural History declare that the content of their manuscripts is original. Furthermore, they provide assurance that their contribution, or any part thereof, has not been previously published in any language, nor is it currently under review in another periodical. By submitting a contribution, authors also consent to the processing of personal data necessary for inclusion in the article according to the author’s manual.

The following obligations enumerated for authors, editors, reviewers, and the publisher are binding and must comply with the principles of the journal Cultural History.

I. OBLIGATIONS OF AUTHORS

1. Reporting Standards

Authors should present appropriate results of their original research, as well as an objective analysis of its significance. Dishonest and deliberately inaccurate data, constituting unethical behaviour, are unacceptable. Authors must accurately cite their data sources and must agree to possible discussion about the significance of their work.

2. Originality and Plagiarism

Authors must submit only original works, and when using the works or words of other authors, they must cite them appropriately and adequately in accordance with the author guidelines. Each accepted manuscript is checked for plagiarism. No part of the manuscript may contain plagiarised content. Upon discovery of plagiarism, the following measures may be taken based on the severity of the ethical violation:

• Immediate rejection of the manuscript
• Prohibition of submission of any further contributions to the journal for the author(s) of the article
• Contacting the author’s institution to take necessary measures
• In case plagiarism or unethical behaviour is discovered after publication of the contribution, the author’s contribution will be immediately withdrawn, and the author’s institution will be promptly contacted, as well as scientific communities of which the author is a member. This information will also be published in the next issue and on the journal’s website.

3. Multiple Publications

An author must not publish research in more than one journal or book. If an author elaborates or expands upon their previous research (work), the precise citation of the work being built upon must be provided in the introduction of the manuscript. Simultaneously submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal constitutes unethical publishing behaviour and is unacceptable.

4. Acknowledgement of Sources

Authors should be familiar with the sources of the data used in the research and cite publications that are relevantly related to the research work. Authors must always properly cite the work of other authors. It is recommended to also cite publications that have had a substantial influence on the content of the manuscript.

5. Authorship of the Study (Article)

Authorship applies only to those who have made a substantial contribution to the creation, content, processing, or interpretation of the study (article) in question. All those who have substantially contributed to the work should be listed as co-authors. The main author is responsible for the list of co-authors, which may include only actual contributors.

6. Disclosure of Financial Support and Conflicts of Interest

All authors should disclose in their manuscript any financial or other substantial conflicts of interest that might influence the results or interpretation of their manuscript. The origin of financial support for the project must be stated in the first unnumbered footnote.

7. Project Information

If the author’s text is an output from a project, it is necessary to provide the names of project co-investigators to avoid conflicts of interest in the peer review process, and the project name must be stated in the first unnumbered footnote.

8. Fundamental Deficiencies in Published Works

If an author discovers any substantial content deficiencies or inaccuracies after submitting the manuscript, they must promptly notify the editor-in-chief. Similarly, if an author discovers a substantial error or inaccuracy in an already published work, it is their duty to promptly notify the editor-in-chief and cooperate with the editor in withdrawing or correcting the article. In the case of an already published article, the following procedure applies:

1. Immediate contact with the editorial office at kulturnedejiny@ku.sk with a precise specification of the error that needs to be corrected.
2. Publication of the corrected information in the given online issue along with a mention of the correction on the website. In the next issue of the print version, a mention of the correction will be included on the introductory pages.

9. Regarding Further Information

The editorial board reserves the right to reject an article that does not have formal adjustments according to the author’s manual; see also the Author’s Manual.

II. OBLIGATIONS OF EDITORS

1. Publication Decision

The chief editor(s) of Cultural History may accept, reject, or request modifications to contributions offered to the journal for publication. The editor-in-chief is responsible for deciding which of the submitted articles should be published. The editor-in-chief follows the principles of the editorial board for compliance with legal requirements regarding defamatory statements, copyright infringement, and plagiarism. The editor-in-chief may consult with other editors or reviewers when finalising the decision.

2. Manuscript Assessment

Upon receipt of a contribution in Slovak, Czech, English, German, or Polish, the formal aspects of the contribution are assessed. The chief editor must ensure that each manuscript is initially evaluated by another editor (co-editor), who may use appropriate software to determine the originality of the manuscript’s content. After passing this test, the manuscript is sent to two reviewers for anonymous assessment, and each of them will provide a recommendation to publish the manuscript in its submitted form, or recommend its revision or rejection. The manuscript review period is up to 30 days.

3. Fair Play

Manuscripts will be assessed to determine if they meet all requirements in terms of their quality, regardless of the author’s race, gender, sexual orientation, religious beliefs, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political orientation.

4. Disclosure and Conflict of Interest

If both reviews are positive, the text is accepted for publication after approval by the editorial board. If both are negative, the text is rejected. If one review is positive and the other negative, the author is invited to revise their text. It will then be reassessed. Unpublished materials disclosed in the submitted manuscript must not be used by anyone who has access to the manuscript in their own research without the express written consent of the author. Members of the editorial board must not disclose the content of any unpublished materials from the submitted manuscript nor use them for their own research without the written consent of the authors.

5. Confidentiality

The chief editor must ensure that information regarding manuscripts submitted by authors is kept confidential. The relationship between the author and reviewers is mutually anonymous. Members of the editorial board must not disclose any information about the submitted article to anyone other than the corresponding author, reviewers, potential reviewers, and representatives of the publisher. The editorial board must guarantee an anonymous peer-review process in which both authors and reviewers are anonymous.

6. Development

Editors work together with authors and readers, continuously striving to improve the quality of the journal, enhance the quality of published contributions, and support freedom of speech.

III. OBLIGATIONS OF REVIEWERS

1. Promptness

Accepted texts will be forwarded to two reviewers who are experts in the given field and come from different workplaces than the author of the text. If a reviewer knows that they are unable to complete the review of the manuscript within the agreed timeframe, then this reviewer must communicate with the editor so that the manuscript can be sent to another reviewer. Reviewers contribute to the editorial decision-making regarding submitted manuscripts. Reviewers should help authors improve their manuscripts through editorial communication. If a reviewer does not feel sufficiently qualified to assess an article, they must promptly contact the editorial office to secure another reviewer.

2. Confidentiality

Information concerning authors’ manuscripts remains confidential and is treated as privileged information. Reviewers must consider any manuscript received for review as a confidential document. Reviewers must not expose or discuss the content of the manuscript with any other party unless permitted by the editor-in-chief and the authors.

3. Acknowledgement of Sources

Manuscript reviewers must be certain that authors are familiar with all sources used in the research. All types of similarity or collision between the reviewed manuscripts and other published works of which the reviewer has knowledge must be immediately reported to the editor. Reviewers should inform the editor-in-chief of any substantial similarity or overlap between the submitted manuscript and any other published work with which they are personally familiar. Reviewers are also expected to identify relevant published works that the authors have not cited.

4. Standards of Objectivity

Reviewers should proceed objectively. There should be no personal criticism (bias) towards the author. Reviewers should express their opinions clearly with explanatory arguments.

5. Conflicts of Interest

Reviewers should not review manuscripts in which there is an evident conflict of interest arising from work relationships, collaboration, or other contacts with the authors, companies, or institutions. Reviewers must maintain confidentiality and must not use for personal benefit any information or ideas obtained during the peer review of the submitted manuscript. Reviewers should decline to review manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest arising from competitive, collaborative, or other connections that they may have with any of the authors, companies, or institutions associated with the research work.

IV. OBLIGATIONS OF THE PUBLISHER

The publisher defines the relationship between the publisher, editors, and other contracting parties, respects confidentiality (for example, towards research participants, authors, expert evaluators), protects intellectual property and copyright, and also supports editorial independence. The publisher must not be involved in decisions made by the editorial board regarding the publication of individual articles. The publisher undertakes to ensure that advertising, reprints, or other commercial activity does not influence editorial decisions.

(The Statement on Publication Ethics and Publication Misconduct in the journal Cultural History was inspired by the standards of Elsevier and COPE/Committee on Publication Ethics)