Publication Ethics and Publication Malpractice Statement

Review Process

All manuscripts submitted to the Analecta Technica Szegedinensia are peer-reviewed according to the following procedure:

  • Initial review: The Editor-in-Chief evaluates each manuscript to determine if its topic and content is suitable for consideration by the Analecta Technica Szegedinensia, and one of the associate editors manages the additional process.
  • Peer review: Each manuscript is reviewed by two independent referees who are recruited among the internationally recognized experts relevant for the given area. If the decisions of the two reviewers are not the same, the paper is sent to a third reviewer. Criteria for acceptance by the Analecta Technica Szegedinensia include originality of the material presented in the manuscript, clarity of writing, strength of the conclusions, and potential importance of the work.
  • Recommendation: Based on the referees' comments, the Editor-in-Chief makes a final decision:
    • Accept Submission,
    • Minor Revisions Required,
    • Major Revisions Required,
    • Decline Submission.

The Editor-in-Chief is responsible for the quality and selection of manuscripts chosen to be published, and the authors are always responsible for the content of each article.

 

Ethical guidelines for journal publication

(based on Elsevier recommendations and COPE's Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors)

Authors: Authors should present an objective discussion of the significance of research work as well as sufficient detail and references to permit others to replicate the experiments. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behavior and are unacceptable. Review articles should also be objective, comprehensive, and accurate accounts of the state of the art. The authors should ensure that their work is entirely original works, and if the work and/or words of others have been used, this has been appropriately acknowledged. Plagiarism in all its forms constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable. Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal concurrently constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable. Authors should not submit articles describing essentially the same research to more than one journal. The corresponding author should ensure that there is a full consensus of all co-authors in approving the final version of the paper and its submission for publication.

Editors: Editors should evaluate manuscripts exclusively on the basis of their academic merit. They should encourage debate and academic integrity and also protect individual data. They also have a duty to act if any misconduct is suspected and to ensure the integrity of the academic record. The editors must not use unpublished information in the editor's own research without the express written consent of the author. They should take reasonable responsive measures when ethical complaints have been presented concerning a submitted manuscript or published paper.

Reviewers: Any manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage. Reviews should be conducted objectively, and observations should be formulated clearly with supporting arguments, so that authors can use them for improving the paper. Any selected referee who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should notify the editor and excuse himself from the review process. Reviewers should not consider manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers.