Publications decisions

The editorial responsibilities under the direction of the Editor-in-Chief varied depending on the stage of publication. The edi-tors were responsible for maintaining high standards from the point of receiving the articles all the way through to the pub-lication of the study. In mid-2017, the Editor-in-Chief, guided by the ‘summum bonum’ of the planned publication, appointed experts with vast scientific and professional experience, as well as achievements in the international field. Thus, the appointed Scientific Council of the publication, consisted of the highest ranking experts for the planned thematic sections of the confer-ence and publication at the same time. The Editors and the Organising Committee were appointed based on the experience of their members, knowledge and acquired skills. A diversity of views was ensured by the appointment of the Editorial Board, consisting of renowned experts from abroad, representing highly-rated scientific institutions. In the decision-making field, it was crucial to appoint reviewers to direct the papers submitted by the authors to the relevant substantive and recognised reviewers. The professionalism of scientists and their unblemished reputation were used as a guideline during the selection process. After obtaining two independent reviews at the discretion of the Editor-in-Chief, the decision on accepting or reject-ing the submitted paper remained, however the scale of responsibility for this decision varied depending on the opinions issued by the reviewers. In special cases, the decision of the Editor-in-Chief was addressed to a third, independent review. The editors were responsible for deciding about the need for the author to introduce corrections. The decisions made were comprehensive, considering the fact that 131 papers were sent to the Editorial Office. Since the beginning of work on the publication, editors have been guided by the principles of ethics and responsibilities resulting from current legal requirements regarding such aspects as defamation, copyright infringement and plagiarism.

Fair play

The Editor-in-Chief asked for an assessment of papers based on their substantive content regardless of the origin of the author, the institution represented by them, race, sex, sexual orientation, religious beliefs, ethnicity, citizenship or political philosophy. Total impartiality also concerned the selection of reviewers as well as members of the Scientific Council, the Organising Com-mittee and the Editorial Board. The development of the Fair Play principle can be found below in the Confidentiality section.

Confidentiality

The Editor-in-Chief and every member of the editorial office could not disclose any information about the submitted report to third parties. In order to maintain the highest standard of the Editor’s decision, the submitted articles were sent directly to one person from the Editorial Office, which then removed the personal data of the authors before referral for review and further proceedings. Thus, only the Editor-in-Chief and a designated representative for personal data had knowledge of the personal data of the authors. The given report, with the personal data removed, was then submitted to the reviewers appointed by the Council, who possessed no knowledge about the authors of the paper and about each other. The results of the blind, double review were directed to the authors without the disclosure of the personal data of the reviewers.

Disclosure and conflicts of interest

The submitted papers are the intellectual property of the authors and co-authors before, during and after the publication. The members of the Editorial Staff and all persons related to publishing the publications have no right to use them under their ownname. In the event of a possible conflict of interest, the Editor-in-chief issued preventive orders to protect and place the good of the author of the paper above others.