Publikační etika

Časopis Acta Informatica Pragensia se zavazuje dodržovat a dohlížet na publikační etiku a kvalitu publikovaných článků. Z tohoto důvodu se od autorů, recenzentů, redaktorů a členů redakční rady očekává, že budou dodržovat standardy etického chování.

Povinnosti autorů

They commit themselves that in their contributions they will discuss the benefits of their research objectively, based on the publishing rules, including compliance with citation standards and guidelines of the Acta Informatica Pragensia journal. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate conclusions are considered to be unethical, and hence unacceptable for the Acta Informatica Pragensia journal.

By submitting their manuscript to the Acta Informatica Pragensia journal the authors confirm that it is their original work. If words and/or works of other authors have been used, it must be explicitly stated in the manuscript. The authors are not allowed to send their manuscript for consideration when it is subject to assessment in another journal, or vice versa to send to another periodical the manuscript which is being assessed at a given moment by the Acta Informatica Pragensia journal. The author who is responsible for the text is obliged to ensure the consent of all co-authors of the work (if there are more authors) with its final wording and submission for publication.

  • Reporting standards: Authors of reports of original research should present an accurate account of the work performed as well as an objective discussion of its significance. Underlying data should be represented accurately in the manuscript. A manuscript should contain sufficient detail and references to permit others to replicate the work. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behaviour and are unacceptable.
  • Data Access and Retention: Authors may be asked to provide the raw data in connection with a manuscript for editorial review, and should be prepared to provide public access to such data, if practicable, and should in any event be prepared to retain such data for a reasonable time after publication.
  • Originality and Plagiarism: Authors should ensure that they have written entirely original works, and if the authors have used the work and/or words of others this must be appropriately cited or quoted.
  • Multiple Publications: An author should not in general 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 behaviour and is unacceptable.
  • Acknowledgement of Sources: Proper acknowledgment 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. Information obtained privately, as in conversation, correspondence, or discussion with third parties, must not be used or reported without explicit, written permission from the source. Information obtained in the course of confidential services, such as refereeing manuscripts or grant applications, must not be used without the explicit written permission of the author of the work involved in these services.
  • Authorship: Authorship should be limited to those who have made a significant contribution to the conception, design, execution, or interpretation of the reported study. All those who have made significant contributions should be listed as co-authors. Where there are others who have participated in certain substantive aspects of the research project, 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 on the manuscript, and that all co-authors have seen and approved the final version of the manuscript and have agreed to its submission for publication.
  • Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest: All authors should disclose in their manuscript any financial or other substantive conflict of interest that might be construed to influence the results or interpretation of their manuscript. All sources of financial support for the project should be disclosed.
  • Fundamental Errors in Published Works: When an author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in his or her own published work, it is the author’s obligation to promptly notify the Managing Editor of the Acta Informatica Pragensia journal and cooperate with the editor to retract or correct the article.

Povinnosti redaktorů a členů redakční rady

The Managing Editor and members of the Editorial Board undertake to ensure objective evaluation of the manuscript, solely on the basis of its academic qualities. All submitted manuscripts are checked for plagiarism by iThenticate (for manuscripts in English) and Odevzdej (for manuscripts in Czech and Slovak). It is obligatory to observe the anonymous evaluation of the manuscript by the reviewers, as well as the anonymity of reviewers. An Academic Editor is assigned to each manuscript – an expert in the issue usually selected from the Editorial Board to avoid conflicts of interest. The Academic Editor recommends to the Section Editor-in-Chief or Editor-in-Chief (in the case of a special issue) the acceptance / revision / rejection of the manuscript based on referee report received from independent reviewers.

Academic and Managing Editors are responsible for evaluating and processing possible complaints related to ethical misconduct in the published (or submitted) manuscript, as well as for the formal editing of the manuscript. Academic and Managing Editors have a duty to act if there is a suspicion of misconduct or if an allegation of misconduct is revealed. This duty extends to all submitted manuscripts regardless of publication or rejection. Academic and Managing editors promise a prompt response to complaints.

  • Publication Decisions: The Editors-in-Chief and the Section Editors-in-Chief of Acta Informatica Pragensia are responsible for deciding which of the manuscripts submitted to the journal should be published. The validity of the work in question and its importance to researchers and readers must always drive such decisions. The editor may confer with other members of the Editorial Board in making this decision.
  • Review of Manuscripts: The Managing Editor must ensure that each manuscript is initially evaluated by the Editors-in-Chief or the Section Editors-in-Chief. The Managing Editor must use appropriate software to examine the originality of the contents of the manuscript. After passing this test, the manuscript is forwarded to at least two reviewers for double blind peer review, each of whom will make a recommendation to publish the manuscript in its present form, to modify the manuscript, or to reject the manuscript.
  • Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest: Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used by anyone who has a view of the manuscript in his or her own research without the express written consent of the author.
  • Fair play: Manuscripts shall be evaluated solely on their intellectual merit without regard to authors’ race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy.
  • Confidentiality: The members of the Editorial Board and any editorial staff must not disclose any information about a submitted manuscript to anyone other than the corresponding author, reviewers, potential reviewers, other editorial advisers, and the publisher.

Povinnosti recenzentů

Reviewers are always selected with adequate diligence in order to be qualified by business expertise and/or academic research history. Evaluation is carried out objectively, comments are based on arguments and clearly formulated. If the selected reviewer does not feel competent to assess the quality of the manuscript, or is aware that he or she will not be able to express an opinion within a specified quality and timeframe, he or she must immediately inform the Managing Editor and resign from the review procedure. Reviewers do not evaluate manuscripts if they have a conflict of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationship that they have with some of the authors of the assessed manuscript.

  • Promptness: In case any reviewer feels that it is not possible for him or her to complete the review of a manuscript within stipulated time then the same must be communicated to the Managing Editor, so that the manuscript could be sent to another reviewer.
  • Confidentiality: Information regarding manuscripts submitted by authors should be kept confidential and be treated as privileged information.
  • Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest: Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in a reviewer's own research without the express written consent of the author. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage. 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 manuscript.
  • Standards of Objectivity: Reviews should be conducted objectively. There shall be no personal criticism of the author. Reviewers should express their views clearly with supporting arguments.
  • Acknowledgement of Sources: Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors. Any statement that had been previously reported elsewhere should be accompanied by the relevant citation. A reviewer should also call to the Managing Editor's attention any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published paper of which they have personal knowledge.

Úpravy článku po jeho vypublikování

Vydavatel časopisu Acta Informatica Pragensia nahrazuje původní články opravenými verzemi, aby zabránil nedorozuměním a poskytl čtenáři nejnovější verzi daného článku. Informace o tom, že se jedná o opravenou verzi článku budou uvedeny na titulní stránce opravené verze článku.

Stažení publikovaného článku

Redaktoři časopisu by měli zvážit stažení publikovaného článku, pokud:

  • mají jasné důkazy o tom, že zjištění jsou nevěrohodná buď v důsledku nesprávného provedení (např. zpracování dat) nebo zásadní chyby (např. chybné výpočty nebo chyby při realizaci experimentu),
  • závěry byly dříve zveřejněny jinde bez řádného odkazu, povolení nebo odůvodnění (tj. případ redundantních publikací),
  • jedná se o plagiátorství,
  • uvádí neetický výzkum.

Stažené články nelze odstranit ze všech elektronických archivů i kvůli již přidělenému DOI, z těchto důvodů je stav každého takového článku jasně označen na webu časopisu.


Tyto etické standardy byly do značné míry sestaveny ze stávajících standardů založených na pokynech COPE’s Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors, Retractions: Guidance from the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) a s ohledem na doporučení poskytovaná vydavatelstvím Elsevier.