Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement - PegasJournal

Go to content

Main menu:

Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement

Agreement upon standards of expected ethical behavior for all parties involved in the act of publishing: the author, the Journal’s editor-in-chief, editorial board members, the peer reviewers, and the publisher. (The following Ethics and Malpractice statement is based on COPE’s Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors).

Publication decisions
The Slavonic Pedagogical Studies Journal is a double-blind peer-reviewed journal that publishes research papers from the area of education and pedagogy. The editor-in-chief is responsible for deciding which of the articles submitted to the Journal should be published. The editor-in-chief will abide by the policies adopted by the Journal’s editorial board and will be constrained by such legal requirements as shall then be in force regarding libel, copyright infringement and plagiarism. The editor-in-chief confers with other editors and the designated reviewers in making this decision. Manuscripts are evaluated based on their intellectual content without regard to race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy of the authors. In addition, the reviewers take into account the general scientific level of authors, which is assessed using the provided author’s questionnaire. The editorial staff must not disclose any information about a submitted manuscript to anyone other than the corresponding author, reviewers, other editorial advisers, and the publisher, as appropriate. Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in an editor’s own research.

Duties of Editors and Reviewers
Double-blind peer review assists the editor in making editorial decisions and through the editorial communications with the experts from the scientific board. It may also assist the author in improving the paper. If an editorial referee or reviewer feels unqualified to review the designated research manuscript, he/she will notify the editor-in-chief and excuse himself/herself from the review process.
Manuscripts received for review are treated as confidential documents and are reviewed by anonymous editorial staff. They will not be shown to or discussed with others except with the editor-in-chief´s authorization. Reviews will be conducted objectively: editorial referees and independent reviewers express their views clearly with supporting arguments. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review is to be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage. The reviewers’ task will be to identify relevant published works that have not been cited by the authors. Any statement, observation, derivation, or argument that is used in the manuscript should be accompanied by a relevant bibliographic reference. Reviewers should also call to the editor’s attention any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published paper of which they have personal knowledge.
After the Call for papers deadline, the editor responsible for drafting the journal issue will invite two reviewers (experts in the research area) to review the submitted manuscripts.
Papers submitted with the topic that does not reflect the scope of the Journal will be rejected without being sent to reviewers.

Reviewers’ work-frame:
Following his/her invitation to review a document, the reviewer should self-critically assess whether s/he is an expert in the research area that pertains to the topic of the manuscript and whether there isn’t a possible conflict of interest. The reviewer may accept to review the submitted document only if there is no conflict of interest and if the reviewer feels confident in the given research area. If s/he agrees to review, the reviewer provides a quality review using the designated evaluation sheet provided by the editor-in-chief.
If the reviewer is not willing to review the document, s/he declines the invitation as soon as possible. S/he might provide suggestions for alternative reviewers.
·         Manuscripts received for review are treated as confidential documents; reviewers must not share the document or the review or information about the review with anyone without the agreement of the editors and authors involved. This is applied during and also after the publication process.
·         Reviewers receive documents without authors’ names and affiliations. The country of origin of the author(s) is also omitted from the document.
The review process is managed via e-mail communication between the reviewer and the editor-in-chief and/or the designated editor of the issue. The Journal does not currently use an online submission system.
Checking for plagiarism is of utmost importance. If plagiarism is suspected, the reviewer contacts the editor immediately before starting the evaluation process.
During the evaluation of the document, the reviewers check the methodology first. Attention is drawn to the type of research evidenced in the manuscript (qualitative or quantitative research), a possible triangulation of methods, the suitability of research methods, research data, sufficiency in the description of research elements, clear data tables (in the text as jpg), sufficient data points, relevant quotes from interviewers (for qualitative research), sufficient author´s narrative, novelty, research sample, conclusions, and the foreseable impact of the article within the given research area. GDPR rules must be upheld and anonymous data of personal interviews should be used.
Reviewers check for potential logical or factual contradictions to the statistical or qualitative evidence or points that might be key for further citation.
Reviewers carefully review the methodology, statistical errors, results, conclusion/discussion, and references.
Reviewers also check the formal side of the document (abstracts, key words, number of characters, citation style, jpg quality, etc.) as well as the academic language.
Reviewers must not discriminate the manuscripts if they contain alternative viewpoints or theories that do not match their own opinions on a given topic. They are aware of the possibility of bias in their review. When reviewing, they maintain an open perspective and support other theories if they are in concordance with the presented research. They do not make rambling comments but keep their comments courteous, constructive, and strictly factual.
·         When the reviewers provide insight regarding any deficiencies, they explain and support their judgment so that the editor and the author are able to understand the reasons and comments. They clearly support comments by relevant data and evidence.
·         Considering the reviewers’ comments and recommendations, the editor-in-chief decides whether or not to publish the article. The reviews also help the author to improve the manuscript. Reviewers fill in the questionnaire about the article by marking the appropriate answers or offering comments on selected points in the questionnaire. They present their overall opinion, remarks, and final suggestion.
·         When the reviewer makes his/her final recommendation, s/he chooses from the following categories as:
Accept without changes
Accept with minor changes – s/he describes specifically what needs to be revised/modified
Do not accept – s/he describes the particular reason(s) why the paper cannot be published.
·         The editor ultimately decides whether to accept or reject the article. The editor will weigh all views and may call for another opinion or ask the author for a revised paper before making a decision. The submission system provides reviewers with a notification of the final decision if the Journal has opted for this function.
·         After making anonymous assessments, the editor sends information on the acceptance or non-acceptance of the study to the corresponding author (usually the first author who sent the study). The author responds to the comments and sends back a revised study in the timeframe determined by the editor. The editor-in-chief, along with the designated editor for the issue, complete the essentials and finalize the Journal issue.
·         The reviewer, even after finalizing the review, treats the reviewed document and all linked files or data with confidentiality. Editors who abuse their position in the Journal in order to publish their work  without a due review process or publish several of their articles in consecutive issues, or those not abiding by the Journal’s malpractice statement will be excluded from the editorial board.
Our editorial house thanks all reviewers for the time they take to give valuable remarks to the submitted articles. The editorial house SVO s.r.o. provides certificates to reviewers as a sign of recognition of their work. The certificate is given on demand.

Ethical oversight and human subjects protection
The Journal takes seriously the issue of human-subjects protection and imposes the following guidelines related to ethical oversight and informed consent rules:
No investigator may involve a human being as a subject in research covered by these regulations unless the investigator has obtained the legally effective informed consent of the subject or the subject's legally authorized representative. An investigator shall seek such consent only under circumstances that provide the prospective subject or the representative sufficient opportunity to consider whether or not to participate and that minimize the possibility of coercion or undue influence. The information that is given to the subject or the representative shall be in language understandable to the subject or the representative. No informed consent, whether oral or written, may include any exculpatory language through which the subject or the representative is made to waive or appear to waive any of the subject's rights, or releases or appears to release the investigator, the sponsor, the institution, or its agents from liability for negligence.

In seeking informed consent, the following information shall be provided to each subject:
(1) A statement that the study involves research, an explanation of the purposes of the research and the expected duration of the subject's participation, a description of the procedures to be followed, and identification of any procedures which are experimental.
(2) A description of any reasonably foreseeable risks or discomforts to the subject.
(3) A description of any benefits to the subject or to others which may reasonably be expected from the research.
(4) A disclosure of appropriate alternative procedures or courses of treatment, if any, that might be advantageous to the subject.
(5) A statement describing the extent, if any, to which confidentiality of records identifying the subject will be maintained.

As a double-blind peer-reviewed journal, it comprises these types of studies:
Scientific studies
 with research results (template-page: 5-15 pages)
- actual themes and problematic fields from education
- title of the study, name of the author, full address of the institution the author works for, e-mail
- noticeable text paragraphing (titles, subtitles)
- translated citations coming from foreign authors´ work as well as citations from original works (in the text)
- if the contribution is a part of research, please indicate the full name and project registration number
- abstract in language you write the contribution as well as in English (max. 600 characters per each of them)
- key words in both languages (5-10)
- citations are part of the text (see below)
- notes (make point about basic pieces of information - e.g. citation from original work between quotes, short message and so on.)
Extensive empirical studies (only when there is a Call for extensive empirical studies)
 (standard-page length: 60 pages)
- actual themes and problematic fields and research from education
- title of the study, name of the author, full address of the institution the author works for, e-mail address
- noticeable text paragraphing (titles, subtitles)
- translated citations coming from foreign authors´ work as well as citations from original works (in the text)
- if the contribution is a part of research, please indicate the full name and project a registration number
- abstract has to be in English (max. 600 characters per each of them)
- key words in both languages (5-6)
- citations are part of the text (see below)
- notes (make point about basic pieces of information - e.g. citation from original work between quotes, short message and so on.)
Book reviews
- a full bibliographic reference about the book that is (being) reviewed: author, title, town, editor, year, number of pages, ISBN (as title of the book review)
- types of the book reviews: a) informative (max. 1 page), b) analytical (max. 5 pages)
- author of the book review, full name and address of the institution the author works for, e-mail.
APA style
Citation form - example:
- message in text: (Harmer, 1991: 12) or (Harmer, 1991) or Harmer (1991: 12) or Harmer (1991)
- full references in the list of bibliographic references

Bibliographic references
Book bibliographic reference - example:
Harmer, J. (1991). The Practice of English Language Teaching. London: Longman. ISBN 0582 04656 4
Birova, J., & Andrejcakova, M. (2010). Competence phonologique chez les etudiants en francais. OEP. ISBN 078 99 456 213  

Journal bibliographic reference - example:
Lah, M. (2009). Évolutions des manuels. Didactique du FLE dans les pays slaves 2(2), pp. 9-12. ISSN 1337-9283.
Mrkva, J., Mrkvova, A., & Kilmanova, F. (2021). Impact on learning French. Contemporary education 12(2). pp. 69-78. ISSN ... Doi code ...

If there is a number of works cited from one author from the same year, please, use the following form: e.g. 1971a, 1971b... 
(no diacritic marks in the Bibliographic references, neither in brackets in the text)
Authors of research studies should present an accurate account of the work performed as objective discussion of its significance. Manuscripts in MS Word must be submitted using the elements listed below and must be written in one of the following languages (English, Slovak or Czech) following the rules of academic style where high-quality grammar and style are essential. 

Submissions must include:
the main text of the very final author´s version of the scientific article about education (without author´s identification) sent in attachment using the ARTICLE TEMPLATE format (title, introduction, main text, research results, conclusion, appendixes, bibliographic references, citations of relevant research mentioned in scientifically recognized monographs, databases - Scopus, WOS and scientifically recognized journals) 
- the personal questionnaire QUESTIONNAIRE format (sent as an attachement)
the following elements (to be sent in the e-mail): title, authors (maximally 5 authors), affiliations (academic institution address), contacts, academic e-mails, abstracts in English and in the language of the written text (English, Slovak or Czech), key words in English and in the language of the written text (English, Slovak or Czech), author´s agreement to receive a printed copy if the article is accepted, author´s note that the submitted article was not published elsewhere and is not under consideration by any other journal, link to your university or academic website in case you do not provide academic e-mail address.
Innovative contribution in the research field (education)
The impact of an article is defined as the number of authors that have been influenced by it. Thus, the measure aims at quantifying the paper´s reach, putting emphasis on scientists.

The paper should be formatted into Template pages, with the title in 10-point Times New Roman: main text, bibliographic references and professional signature, in single-spaced one-column format. Figures and tables must be sized as they are to appear in print (the best is to copy them into the text as a figure - print screen of the table). Figures should be placed exactly where they are to appear within the text. Other formats are not acceptable. Authors submit their papers electronically via e-mail to the Journal's Submission address:
The paper should be sent from the academic institution e-mail address. If you do not use or do not have your academic institution e-mail address, you are supposed to introduce yourself in a detailed way, otherwise your paper might not be accepted as we cannot know whether you are an academic professional in the field of education. 
The authors are asked to provide the raw data in connection with a paper for editorial review. If you need some corrections of your text in English language, please, use services. If your English is of sufficient level, the paper will be sent to review process. If editors decide that the paper requires large correction process, the author must have his article corrected elsewhere or he/ she might ask our editorial board and be charged some more fees. The authors should ensure they have written work of original contribution, the papers and/or works of other scholars have to be appropriately cited or quoted. Authors should not publish manuscripts describing essentially the same research in more than one journal or primary publication. Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal concurrently constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable. Proper acknowledgement of the work of others must always be given. Authors should cite publications that have been influential in determining the nature of the reported work. A paper should contain sufficient detail and references to permit others to replicate the work. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements are of unethical behavior and are unacceptable. 
Authorship should be limited to those who have made a significant contribution to the conception of a research study, or interpretation of the reported study. All those, who have made significant contributions, should be listed as co-authors (maximum 5 authors). They should be mentioned as those, who participated in certain substantive aspects of the research project so that they should be acknowledged or listed as contributors. The corresponding author should ensure that all appropriate co-authors and no inappropriate co-authors are included in the paper, and that all co-authors approved the final version of the paper and agreed to its submission. All authors should disclose in their manuscript any financial or other substantive conflict of interest that might influence the results or interpretation of their manuscript. All sources of financial support for the project should be disclosed. When an author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in his/her own published work, it is the author´s obligation to promptly notify the journal editor or publisher and cooperate with the editor to retract or correct the paper.

When sending a scientific paper, authors should note that papers are judged on a date-by-date basis.
All manuscripts will be subject to a well established, fair, unbiased peer review and refereeing procedure, and considered on the basis of their significance, novelty and usefulness to the journal´s readership. We highly recommend you to send papers containing research, innovation, analyses. The reviewers' identities remain anonymous to authors. The review process may take several weeks. Each paper will be provided with a paper ID for further reference and anonymous reviewers will be in contact with you via editors´ adress. 
Manuscripts which do not reflect the journal´s scope will be excluded.
The review output will be one of the following decisions: 
A, Accept; 
B, Accept with minor changes (several points regarding bibliographic references or other formal mistakes or lapsus in the text); 
C, Reject (the paper is rejected if it does not correspond to the scope of our journal or if the author is committing malpractice, or if the research results do not reflect the correct methodology procedure, or do not introduce an original/ innovative study, or if no research is done, or the study has no relevant citation, or the study with a poor level of scientific language, a study considered by reviewers with poor or nearly no scientific impact in the research field). 
If required, the authors are supposed to revise the paper according to the reviewer's commentaries. After publishing, the authors will receive a copy of the journal and/or may download the study from the journal´s website. They are supposed to write it in the mail.

The complete versions of the journal issues in PDF are published on the journal´s website on February and September. 

This is an open access journal which means that all content is freely available without charge to the user or his/her institution. Users are allowed to read, download, copy, distribute, print, search, or link to the full texts of the articles, or use them for any other lawful purpose, without asking prior permission from the publisher or the author. 

The submitted manuscript for the publication of the author (s) agrees to license it under Creative Commons Attribution licenses(CC BY NC 4.0);

Slavonic Pedagogical Studies Journal (Pegas journal) online ISSN 1339-9055 is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. 

Licencia Creative Commons
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Back to content | Back to main menu