Copyright

Unless otherwise specified, the copyright to works published by Délvidéki Szemle belongs to the author(s).

 

Protection of Intellectual Property

The author(s) are solely responsible for acknowledging the copyrights of third parties. The owner of Délvidéki Szemle assumes no responsibility for statements made or opinions expressed in works published in the Délvidéki Szemle journal, and therefore cannot be held liable for any infringement of third-party copyrights.

 

Publication License

The authors of works published by Délvidéki Szemle are required to grant Délvidéki Szemle an unrestricted right to publish the final work in any format, language, and medium for any lawful purpose.

 

For Authors

Publication Requirements

To be published in Délvidéki Szemle, a manuscript must generally meet the following four criteria:

• It must provide credible and scientifically sound sources to support its conclusions.
• It must be of significance to the professional community in the relevant field.
• Ideally, it should also be useful to researchers in other related disciplines.
• Submitted articles must contain findings or analyses that contribute significantly to the advancement of the relevant field of study:

1. Novelty: Published research must present new findings that were previously unknown to the scientific community.
2. Impact: The results must be of such a nature that they can substantially influence ongoing research in the field, generate debate, or provide a framework for thinking. For example, they may introduce new theoretical approaches or answer fundamental questions.
3. Supporting evolving understanding: The research may provide insights that help deepen understanding of a specific aspect of the field or offer a more comprehensive solution to an existing problem.

 

Authorship

Authors must take collective responsibility for the work submitted and published. It is generally accepted that individuals are entitled to authorship of a manuscript if they meet the following criteria:

They have contributed significantly to the conception and design, or to the acquisition of data, or to the analysis and interpretation of data.

They have drafted the manuscript or critically revised it. They have approved the final version intended for publication in terms of intellectual content.

Securing funding, collecting data, or general supervision of the research team alone does not qualify for authorship.

Contributions that do not meet the criteria for authorship should be acknowledged in the “Acknowledgments” section of the manuscript. This includes the involvement of a professional author.

In the event of requests to modify the list of authors in the manuscript or the authorship relationships after the manuscript’s initial submission or after publication, all authors originally listed must consent in writing to such changes.

 

Appeal

Authors have the right to appeal editorial decisions; in such cases, the editors may also seek the input of additional expert reviewers if they feel this would be helpful. However, following such an appeal, the editors’ decision is final.

 

Correcting Articles

Délvidéki Szemle is committed to maintaining the historical accuracy of all its publications. Without a valid reason, no published work may be altered or removed from Délvidéki Szemle’s print or electronic platforms after publication.

Délvidéki Szemle considers the printed and online versions of published articles/manuscripts/works to be the final and complete versions. Even if it is possible to correct this version, the basic principle is that this should not be done, except under very special circumstances. The editors make the final decision on whether to correct a published work.

Authors of published works must immediately notify Délvidéki Szemle if they become aware that the work requires correction. All corrections require the consent of all co-authors; therefore, it saves time if correction requests are accompanied by a consent form signed by all authors. In the event that one or more authors do not agree with the correction statement, the coordinating author must provide the correspondence from the author(s) expressing the dissenting opinion.

 

Corrections

A correction is a correction of a significant error made by the author of the work. Corrections are evaluated based on their relevance to readers and their importance to the published article. Corrections are published following discussion among the editors, often with the assistance of peer reviewers.

In cases where some co-authors refuse to sign the correction or retraction, Délvidéki Szemle, in consultation with the editors, reserves the right to publish it with the names of the author(s) who voted against it. Délvidéki Szemle may publish a correction if there is an error in the list of published authors, but not in the case of omitted acknowledgments.

 

Appendix

The appendix is a notice regarding additions to the work based on expert evaluation (for example, in response to a reader’s request for clarification). The information in the appendix must not contradict the original publication, but if the author inadvertently omitted important information available at the time, this material may be published as an appendix following peer review and discussion among the editors.

Addenda are published only rarely and only when the editors decide that the addendum is crucial for readers to understand a significant part of the published contribution.

 

Retractions

A retraction may occur if the conclusions of a work are seriously called into question due to a computational or editorial error or a mistake.

Retraction may also occur as a sanction for scientific misconduct, such as a serious violation of publication ethics or a breach of author guarantees, which may include infringement of third-party copyrights. Violations of publication ethics may include reused studies, false claims regarding authorship, plagiarism, and the misuse of data.

All co-authors are asked to consent to the retraction. In cases where some co-authors refuse to sign the retraction, Délvidéki Szemle reserves the right, in consultation with the editors, to publish the retraction citing a disagreement among the authors.

Withdrawn works are clearly marked, and the word “withdrawn” is displayed on them throughout. In rare cases, however, it may be necessary to remove the work entirely from the online platform. This will only occur if the published work infringes on the legal rights of others, is clearly defamatory, or is (or may be) the subject of a labor court order. In such circumstances, some of the metadata will remain on the internet, but the text will be replaced by a notice stating that the content was removed for valid reasons.

 

 

Professional evaluation

 

General Guidelines

Délvidéki Szemle supports peer review/professional review/double-blind review, as this allows research to be evaluated and reviewed by independent experts working in the same academic field as the authors. This also helps improve manuscripts and enables the editor to assess the work’s suitability for publication.

The following types of submissions intended for Délvidéki Szemle undergo double-blind peer review: original research, review articles, and case studies.

At the editors’ discretion, other interdisciplinary works published outside the above categories may also be subject to expert evaluation, particularly if they contain technical information.

 

The Review Process

The operating principle of peer review for academic journals is as follows: manuscripts are first reviewed by the editorial staff, and if selected, the editor-in-chief sends them to two independent peer reviewers for formal review, either directly or through a section editor.

The guidelines for individual issues and thematic issues may vary slightly; therefore, we encourage our readers to visit the journal archive, where they can find a list of our issues to help them locate the applicable guidelines.

To save time for authors and reviewers, we only submit works for formal review that are most likely to meet our editorial criteria. Manuscripts that the editors deem unsuitable for Délvidéki Szemle are rejected immediately without external review. These decisions may also be based on the advice of experts in the field.

Manuscripts that the editorial board deems to be of interest to our potential readership are sent for formal review, typically to two or three reviewers, but sometimes to more if specialized advice is needed. The editors then make a decision based on the reviewers’ advice, choosing from several options:

Accept the submission—with or without editorial revisions.

Request that the author revise the manuscript—to address specific concerns before a final decision is made.

Reject it—but inform the authors that further professional or research work may justify resubmission.

Complete rejection—typically due to a lack of professional interest, lack of novelty, or significant technical and/or interpretive problems.

Reviewers should recommend a specific course of action, but they must take into account that other reviewers of the same manuscript may have different expertise and/or views, and editors may have to make a decision based on conflicting advice. The most useful reports therefore provide editors with the information on which to base their decision, including arguments both for and against publication.

Reviewers should recommend a specific course of action, but they must take into account that other reviewers of the same manuscript may have different expertise and/or views, and editors may have to make a decision based on conflicting advice. The most useful reports therefore provide editors with the information on which to base their decision, including arguments both for and against publication.

Editorial decisions are not based on counting votes or numerical rankings, and we do not always follow the majority recommendation. We attempt to evaluate the strength of the arguments raised by individual reviewers and authors, and we may also consider other information that is not available to either party. Our primary responsibility is to our readers and the scientific community as a whole: in deciding how best to serve them, we must weigh the claims of each manuscript against those of the many other manuscripts we are also reviewing.

The editorial board may consult the reviewers for further advice, particularly in cases where they disagree with one another or when the authors believe they have been misunderstood on matters of fact. We therefore ask that reviewers provide further advice at the editorial board’s request. We are aware, however, that reviewers are generally reluctant to engage in lengthy debates, so we strive to limit consultation to what we deem absolutely necessary to ensure that authors have a fair opportunity for consultation.

When reviewers agree to evaluate a manuscript, we consider this a commitment to review subsequent revisions. However, the editors will not return the resubmitted manuscript to the reviewers if it appears that the authors have not made a serious attempt to address the critiques.

We take reviewers’ critiques seriously and do not ignore them. In cases where only one reviewer opposes publication, we may consult with the other reviewers to determine whether the dissenting reviewer is applying an unreasonably high standard of criticism. Occasionally, we may involve additional reviewers to resolve disputes, but we prefer to avoid this unless there is a specific issue—such as a specialized technical question—where we feel it is necessary to seek further advice.

 

Selection of Expert Reviewers

The selection of reviewers is critical to the publication process. We base our selection on numerous factors, including expertise, professional reputation, specific recommendations, and our own past experience with reviewers’ characteristics. For example, we avoid using individuals who are slow, inattentive, or fail to justify their opinions, whether they are strict or lenient.

We screen potential reviewers before sending them manuscripts for review. Reviewers must keep in mind that these messages contain confidential information, which they must handle accordingly, in compliance with legal requirements.

Délvidéki Szemle operates on the basis that its editors:

• create and maintain a database of reviewers who are suitably qualified for the journal;
• monitor the performance of expert reviewers and editors, recording the quality and timeliness of reviews;
• disregard rude or derogatory reviews. Reviewers who repeatedly produce poor-quality, late, offensive, or non-constructive reviews should not be re-engaged;
• encourage expert reviewers to identify any conflicts of interest regarding the material they have been asked to review. In such situations, expert reviewers must decline requests for peer review if any circumstances prevent them from providing an impartial professional evaluation.

 

Writing a Review

The primary purpose of a review is to provide editors with the information necessary to make a decision regarding publication. The review should also include information on how the authors can revise their manuscript to make it acceptable. As far as possible, a negative review should explain the manuscript’s weaknesses to the authors so that rejected authors understand the basis for the decision and have a general idea of what they need to do to improve the manuscript to make it suitable for publication elsewhere. However, this is secondary to the other functions, and reviewers should not feel obligated to provide detailed, constructive advice to authors of manuscripts that do not meet the journal’s criteria (as the editor’s letter requesting the review may occasionally state). If a reviewer believes that a manuscript is not suitable for publication, the report to the author should be brief and clear enough for the author to understand the reason for the decision.

We welcome confidential comments addressed to the editor, but it is helpful if you include the main points in the comments to be forwarded to the authors. An ideal review should address at least one and no more than three of the following questions:

• Who will find this work useful, and why?
• What are the work’s main claims/conclusions, and how significant are they?
• How does the work stand out from others in its field?
• Are the claims novel, or do they support emerging knowledge in the field?
• Are the claims/conclusions convincing? If not, what additional evidence is needed?
• Are there other experiments or works that would further strengthen the manuscript?
• How much would revising the work improve it, and how difficult would that be? Would it take a long time?
• Are the claims adequately discussed in the context of the existing literature?
• If the manuscript is not acceptable, is the study sufficiently promising to encourage the authors to resubmit?
• If the manuscript is unacceptable but promising, what specific work is needed to make it acceptable?
• We recognize that reviewers are busy, and we are very grateful if they can answer the questions in the section above. If the editors have the time, it is extremely helpful if reviewers can also offer advice on some of the following points:
• Is the manuscript written clearly?
• If not, how could it be made clearer or more understandable to non-specialists?
• Would a schematic representation of the main findings be useful for lay readers outside the field?
• Should the authors be asked to include supplementary methodological guidelines, additional resources, or data on the internet with the manuscript?
• Has the prior literature been treated fairly?
• Is the statistical analysis of the data sound, and does it comply with the journal’s guidelines?

 

Timing of Reviews

Délvidéki Szemle is committed to prompt editorial decisions and rapid publication. We believe that an efficient editorial process is a valuable service to both our authors and the academic community as a whole. Therefore, we ask reviewers to meet deadlines and respond to messages promptly to ensure smooth communication. If reviewers anticipate a longer delay than initially expected, please notify us so that we can inform the authors and find alternatives if necessary.

Editors should strive to ensure that manuscripts submitted to them receive peer review in a timely manner and are published promptly, particularly when—if foreseeable—the results may have significant implications or benefits. Authors should be aware that manuscripts which, in the judgment of the journal’s editorial board, may involve the communication of important results will be given priority for publication. The timing of publication may also be influenced by thematic issues or if the editors group together papers on similar topics; this inevitably prevents articles from appearing in the order in which they were accepted.

 

Anonymity

Délvidéki Szemle does not disclose the identities of reviewers to authors or other reviewers, unless the reviewers specifically request that their identities be revealed. It is the editorial board’s policy that reviewers remain anonymous throughout the review process and beyond. Before revealing their identities, reviewers should consider the possibility that they may be asked to comment on other reviewers’ critiques and further revisions to the manuscript. Identified reviewers may find it more difficult to remain objective under such circumstances.

We ask reviewers not to identify themselves or reveal their identities to the authors without the editor’s knowledge. If they wish to reveal their identity during the review process, this must be done through the editor; if this is not possible, we ask authors to inform the editor as soon as possible after the reviewer has revealed their identity to the author.

We reject any attempt by authors to confront reviewers or identify them. It is our policy not to confirm or deny speculation regarding the identity of reviewers, and we encourage reviewers to follow similar principles.

 

Editing Reviewers' Reports

Our policy is not to censor reviewers' reports; we forward all comments intended for the authors, regardless of our own views on their content. In some cases, we may edit a report to remove offensive language or comments that reveal confidential information related to other matters, or to make the report clearer. We ask reviewers to avoid statements that may be unnecessarily offensive. We strongly encourage reviewers to clearly articulate their opinions about the manuscript. Authors should understand that criticism is intended to support professionalism.

 

Ethics and Security Guidelines

The editors of Délvidéki Szemle may seek advice not only from technical reviewers regarding submitted manuscripts, but also regarding any aspect of a manuscript that raises concerns. These may include, for example, ethical issues or questions related to access to personal data or confidential materials.

Very rarely, concerns may also arise regarding the social consequences of publishing a manuscript, including threats to safety or legal protection. In such circumstances, editors typically seek advice concurrently with the technical peer review process. As with all publication decisions, the final decision on publication rests with the editor of the journal in question.

Journal editors or members of the publisher’s management never participate in editorial decisions regarding their own work.

Editors and other editorial staff (including peer reviewers) must recuse themselves from discussions regarding submissions if any circumstances might prevent them from making an unbiased editorial decision.

 

Editorial Independence

Editorial independence must be respected. The journal’s owner may not interfere with editorial decisions. The editors’ decisions regarding whether to publish individual articles submitted to Délvidéki Szemle may not be influenced by pressure from the editor’s employer, the journal’s owner, or the publisher.

 

Intellectual Property

Authors have the right to expect that peer reviewers or other individuals involved in the work of an author submitting to Délvidéki Szemle will not appropriate their research ideas or plagiarize their work.

Délvidéki Szemle’s guidelines for peer reviewers clearly define their roles and responsibilities. In particular, they must treat submitted materials as confidential until publication. Délvidéki Szemle also expects reviewers to destroy submitted manuscripts after the review process.

Editors must expect allegations of theft or plagiarism to be substantiated, but they must take such allegations seriously.

 

Publication Ethics

Délvidéki Szemle trusts its editors, who in turn trust the peer reviewers to provide fair evaluations; authors trust the editors to select appropriate peer reviewers; and readers trust the peer review process. Scholarly publishing takes place in an environment where intellectual, financial, and sometimes political interests may conflict or compete with one another. None of this can justify undermining the trust between authors, editors, and peer reviewers described above. The editors and reviewers of Délvidéki Szemle remain independent in all situations and regard the importance of scholarly judgment as their primary guiding principle.

 

Ideas and Expression

Our editors and readers rightly expect that the submitted work is the author’s own original work, that it is not plagiarized—that is, not taken from other authors without permission—and that copyright is not infringed, even in the case of reproducing figures or tables.

 

Ethical Obligations

Délvidéki Szemle expects authors to adhere to the highest ethical standards throughout the research and publication process. The following principles—without claiming to be exhaustive—must be applied:

 

1. a) Soundness and Reliability

The research reported must be conducted in an ethical and responsible manner and comply with all applicable laws; it must be well-founded and carefully executed; and appropriate methods of data analysis and presentation must be used.

Authors must carefully review manuscripts at every stage to ensure that methods and results are accurately presented; and carefully check calculations, data presentation, typescripts/submissions, and proofs.

 

1. b) Integrity

Researchers must strive to present their results without falsification or inappropriate manipulation of data, and must not alter them in a misleading manner. Compliance with relevant reporting guidelines; Describe their methods in sufficient detail, clearly and unambiguously, and with references to public sources, so that others can replicate the work and confirm the results. Data must always be reported accurately and never manipulated, and problematic data must be handled accordingly. Submission of reports on the complete research. Inconvenient, contradictory, or unexplained findings, or results that do not support the authors’ or sponsors’ hypothesis or interpretation, must not be omitted. They must immediately notify the editor if they discover an error in a submitted, accepted, or published work. Authors must cooperate with the editors, as necessary, in issuing corrections or retractions. You must accurately cite the work of others in your citations. Do not copy citations from other publications if you have not read the work being cited. You must identify the risks associated with conducting the research. Information obtained privately from personal sources must not be used without the express permission of the individuals from whom it was obtained, and you must obtain the appropriate letters confirming permission to include this information.

 

1. c) Originality

Researchers must adhere to accepted publication standards, which require that submitted works be original and not have been published elsewhere, in any language, without explicit citation and acknowledgment of previously published works. All applicable copyright laws and conventions must be observed and followed. Copyrighted material, such as tables, figures, or extensive quotations, may only be reproduced with proper permission and citation. Cite appropriately and refer to relevant prior works and publications, including both those of other researchers and the authors’ own work. Whenever possible, cite primary sources. Properly acknowledge data, texts, figures, or ideas from other researchers, and do not present them as if they were the authors’ own work. Original text taken directly from other researchers’ publications must be enclosed in quotation marks and accompanied by the appropriate citations. The editors must be informed if the results have been previously published, or if multiple reports or multiple analyses of a single dataset are currently under review elsewhere. Authors must provide copies of related publications or manuscripts submitted to other journals. They may not claim originality if others have already reported on similar work, in whole or in part. Always give credit to the work and findings of others, and acknowledge the scientifically sound works that led to your findings or influenced them in any way.

Délvidéki Szemle reserves the right not to publish any supported/sponsored publication that does not meet the professional requirements specified for the journal to which the manuscript or supplement was submitted.

 

1. d) Prohibition of Plagiarism and Fabrication

Plagiarism occurs when an author attempts to present someone else’s work as their own and possibly publish it. Duplicate publication, sometimes referred to as self-plagiarism, occurs when an author reuses significant portions of their own previously published work without providing appropriate citations. This can range from publishing the same manuscript in multiple books or journals to authors adding a small amount of new data to a previous manuscript.

We can clearly speak of plagiarism when large chunks of text have been cut out and pasted in. Délvidéki Szemle does not consider such manuscripts suitable for publication. However, minor instances of plagiarism without dishonest intent are relatively common, such as when an author reuses introductory sections from a previous manuscript. The editors of Délvidéki Szemle evaluate every case that comes to their attention (whether based on their own knowledge of the literature and readings or on the reviewers’ warnings) according to their own independent judgment.

If, after a manuscript has been published in the Délvidéki Szemle journal, allegations of plagiarism arise, the journal will conduct a retrospective investigation. If plagiarism is found, the journal will contact the author, the author’s institution, and the funding agencies. If a violation is confirmed, the journal Délvidéki Szemle will publish a correction related to the original publication, along with an explanation. Depending on the extent of the plagiarism, the manuscript may also be officially retracted.

 

The Role of the Publisher

The role of the institution publishing the journal is to maintain communication between editors, authors, and reviewers. It respects personal data and protects copyrights. It pays close attention to editorial independence, the ethics of theoretical and practical research, and other ethical requirements of historical disciplines. If an author experiences a violation of publication rights or has any other complaints or comments, please contact the editor-in-chief. All complaints and comments will be reviewed by independent members of the editorial board and the publisher, who will provide the complainant with an official statement regarding possible solutions. The institution responsible for publishing Délvidéki Szemle plans the journal’s strategy together with the editors. It regularly reviews and, if necessary, modifies it. The publisher is obligated to publish research results, corrections, and explanations by the specified deadlines.

 

Duties of the Deputy Editor-in-Chief

The Deputy Editor-in-Chief ensures that Délvidéki Szemle receives a sufficient number of high-quality manuscripts to meet the journal’s publication schedule. If the manuscripts submitted are unsuitable or insufficient in number, the Deputy Editor-in-Chief must discuss possible solutions.

Ensure that potential conflicts of interest are assessed. If the deputy editor-in-chief has recently co-authored a publication with the author(s) of the manuscript, it may appear that this relationship influences the publication’s acceptance. Similarly, if you have recently had a personal or professional relationship with the author(s), it may also appear inappropriate for you to handle their work. If you believe a conflict of interest exists, you must decline to handle the manuscript, and Délvidéki Szemle will designate another qualified editor to handle it.

Ensure that new studies are evaluated to determine whether they fall within the journal’s scope and meet the journal’s criteria for interest.

Ensures that manuscripts comply with the journal’s editorial guidelines, that the content is appropriate for the article type, and that the grammatical and stylistic quality of the manuscript is checked.

Ensures that the topics of the manuscripts reflect trends in the field and include newly emerging works (this may necessitate the editing or publication of thematic articles or special issues).

Ensure that your activities are conducted in accordance with generally accepted standards of integrity and objectivity, as well as the journal’s and publisher’s guidelines.

Ensure that editors are selected in accordance with the publisher’s guidelines.

Keep the editors informed about the journal’s progress. Inform them and involve them in ideas for improving the editorial process. Editors should be involved either formally at an annual editorial board meeting or informally through ad hoc meetings and discussions.

Ensure the approval of special issues or special collections proposed and directed by a team of guest editors outside the editorial board.

Promote the journal among colleagues and the professional community.

The deputy editor-in-chief may publish articles written by themselves (as author or co-author), but the number of such articles generally may not exceed one per issue; in addition, they may publish no more than one review per issue. The deputy editor-in-chief may not participate in decisions regarding works that he or she has authored. Peer review of such articles must be conducted independently of the editor(s) involved and their research groups, and this must be clearly indicated for each such published article.

 

Editors

Editors are obligated to do everything in their power to ensure the quality of the journal and to continuously improve its standards. They must strive to uphold freedom of expression. Editors protect the confidentiality of communications between reviewers and authors. Unpublished material must not be incorporated into the editor’s own research or used in any other way. Editors have the right to accept or reject a manuscript based on the journal’s publication criteria. Editors must accept the author’s right to appeal their decision. The author may formally submit an appeal to the deputy editor-in-chief, where the editors and the publisher will review the appeal. After the appeal is reviewed, the author will receive a formal response regarding the decision. There must be no conflict of interest between the editors and the articles they accept or reject.

Editors must inform authors of the manuscript submission deadline, describe the peer review process, and inform authors of other relevant requirements.

New editors may not reverse previous decisions regarding the acceptance of manuscripts without a compelling reason and an editorial board resolution.

During the review process, editors are required to provide guidelines regarding the peer review process, ensure that any conflicts of interest among reviewers are resolved, and protect the privacy of reviewers.

Editors are required to inform new editors of their duties and the expectations placed upon them. Members must be informed of the journal’s current strategy and progress.

 

Responsibilities of Authors

All parties involved in the preparation and publication of manuscripts must be acknowledged as authors. All authors are required to contribute to the writing of the article. If the article has multiple authors, they must, upon the editor’s request, provide written confirmation of their responsibility regarding the authorship of the article at the time of submission.

All authors are required to actively participate in the relevant theoretical and empirical research, the peer review process, and to contribute to the further revision of the article based on the peer review. As part of this process, they are required to provide accurate and relevant data and to adhere to ethical principles during their theoretical and empirical research.

Authors and co-authors are requested to provide their names, academic degrees and titles, their positions at universities or research institutions, and their contact information, including their current email addresses. In addition, the authors’ affiliations must be listed based on the scientific or professional contributions of all authors involved, regardless of their academic status. This information must match the information provided in the manuscript.

Authors are required to disclose the source of funding for their research. Information regarding the funding of the manuscript must be included in a footnote next to the title of the article. If the research is funded by another institution or a private individual, authors are required to provide more detailed information about that institution or individual in this section.

 

Conflicts of Interest and Their Resolution

Issues regarding violations of the Code of Conduct may affect authors, editors, publishers, and reviewers alike. All parties must disclose conflicts of interest as soon as possible. Editors must formally disclose any conflicts of interest related to editorial work to the publisher in writing prior to their appointment, and must provide an updated disclosure in the event of a new conflict of interest. In the event of a new conflict of interest, editors may not make decisions regarding articles related to their professional or personal interests. Editors and publishers may not abuse their position to influence the journal’s scientific metrics in any way. Editors must not in any way manipulate colleagues or employees of the institution publishing the journal, nor may they manipulate authors for the purpose of increasing the journal’s metrics, advancing their own research interests, or increasing the number of citations. If an author decides to use citations from the journal’s editors or publishers in an article submitted for peer review, these citations must be used independently of the editors. Editors may not manipulate an author’s figures or tables. The publisher, editors, or reviewers must not have any conflicts of interest with any author—all authors have the opportunity to participate in the evaluation and publication process of the articles.

Before submitting an article, the author is required to inform the editors of any potential conflicts of interest. Regarding authorship, the author must be aware that they are required to list all authors who contributed in any way to the writing of the article. Failure to list multiple authors or co-authors is unacceptable. Reviewers evaluate manuscripts objectively and impartially. Evaluations are conducted without any overt or covert discriminatory tendencies toward the author. During the evaluation process, reviewers do not recommend their own works in order to increase their own citation counts.