The journal entitled Pro Publico Bono – Journal for Understanding Societies (hereinafter: Journal) is an international scientific journal in English, published both in printed and electronic version, the founder of which calls for the adoption of a code of ethical conduct (hereinafter: Code) that ensures the reception of the manuscripts in an appropriate procedural order, as well as the workflow of their editing and publication. This ethical statement has been prepared in accordance with the COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics, https://publicationethics.org/core-practices) best practice guidelines for journal editors.

The Purpose and Scope of the Code

1 §

(1) The purpose of the Code is to lay down the ethical rules of publication for the Journal implementing the principles of the international scientific community.

(2) The personal scope of the Code extends to the authors, the peer reviewers, the editorial contributors, the editor-in-chief, the editors and the editorial board.

(3) The provisions of other regulators connected to the Journal, in particular, those of the Deed of Foundation as well as the Editorial Guidelines and the Guide for Authors must be applied in conjunction with the provisions of the present Code. Regulations having relevance to the Journal are accessible on the website of the Journal.

(4) In addition to the ethical standards set out in the present Code, the provisions of the Code of Ethics of the National University of Public Service must also be applied (www.uni-nke.hu/document/uni-nke-hu/Etikai-Kodex-hataly-2019.-VIII.-1-tol.pdf).

(5) All concerned parties contributing to the publication are expected to adhere to the ethical standards as stated in the Journal. During their activity, they must comply with the provisions of the Code.

(6) By submitting their manuscripts to the editors, the authors acknowledge that the provisions of the Code are binding on them.

(7) On the part of the publisher, the commencement of the publishing process must be regarded as the acceptance of the present Code.

The Duties of the Authors

2 §

1 Principles of Contribution

Interpretations and conclusions may be based solely on facts or objective and logical reasoning. The data underlying the study must be presented accurately. False or knowingly inaccurate statements are considered to be unethical and unacceptable conduct.

2 Originality and Plagiarism

The authors must guarantee that the study they submit is their own original intellectual property, or, if they have used others’ work and/or expressions, that they have correctly quoted and appropriately referenced them.

3 Multiple, Concurrent or Simultaneous Publication

The appearance of a manuscript describing the same research in several independent publications or journals is considered to be incorrect practice. Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal at a time is considered to be unethical and unacceptable conduct.

4 Citations and References

Works quoted or used in terms of content – including texts and illustrations – must in all cases be properly referred to using the referencing guide published in the Journal. References to the works used must be placed at the respective text or illustration, and every work used must be included in the list of references. The reference list of the literature used may not comprise any work that is not mentioned in the main text or in the footnotes to it.

5 The Position of the Author of the Study

Every person who has made a substantial contribution to the core concept, plan, implementation or interpretation of the presented study must be included as an author. Every person who has significantly contributed to the study must be indicated as a co-author. Furthermore, all those who participated in specific relevant stages of the research project must be referred to as contributors. The correspondent author must guarantee that every significant co-author has been mentioned and that no ineligible person has been named as a co-author. In case of studies or works by multiple authors, the correspondent author must guarantee that every co-author has initialed and approved the final version of the study and has consented to its publication.

6 Publication and Conflict of Interest

In his/her study, every author is required to disclose the financial or other fundamental conflicts of interest that may influence its results or interpretation. If the research project was funded, all sources of financial support must be published.

7 Fundamental Errors in Published Works

If the author discovers any significant error or inaccuracy in his/her published work, he/she must promptly notify the editor or publisher of the Journal and cooperate with the editorial board in the recall or correction of the study.

The Duties of Peer Reviewers and the Review Process

3 §

1 Contribution to the Decisions of the Editorial Board

(1) The peer reviewer helps the editorial board in making decisions with their suggestion as to the acceptance or rejection of the manuscript, and, when required, he/she may support the author during the double-blind peer review to achieve the required academic standards in the paper.

(2) The Journal uses the so-called double-blind peer review method. The editors invite two peer reviewers to evaluate the manuscripts received and accepted by the Journal. In order to meet the requirements of objective, independent professional evaluation, the reviewers only receive the text of the work and the authors of the work are granted access only to the content of the evaluations.

(3) The editors describe the main principles of the peer review process in a review form.

2 Efficiency

The invited reviewer must state within a reasonable period of time whether he/she is able to undertake the evaluation of the study. If the reviewer considers that his/her professional background is insufficient for the evaluation of the research presented in the manuscript, or if he/she is unable to complete his/her evaluation efficiently by the deadline given, then he/she must notify the editorial board that he/she cannot undertake the review.

3 Confidentiality

Every manuscript received for evaluation must be considered to be a confidential document. They may only be published or discussed with others with the consent of the editorial board.

4 Objectivity

The evaluation of the study must be unbiased. Criticism of the author’s person is unbefitting. Reviewers must clearly formulate and support their opinions with arguments.

5 Citations and References

Reviewers must identify the relevant published works not quoted by the authors. Any statement that contains an observation, train of thought, or argument from a previously published work must be properly referenced. The reviewer must also draw the attention of the editorial board to any essential similarities or overlaps between the reviewed manuscript and other works known to him/her or published earlier.

6 Publication and Conflict of Interest

Privileged information or ideas obtained during the evaluation of the study must be kept confidential and may not be used to promote one’s personal career. Reviewers may not evaluate the submitted manuscript if, due to any competition, collaboration or other factor, their interests are in conflict with the authors, companies or institutions associated with the study.

The Duties of the Editors, the Acceptance and Publication of Manuscripts

4 §

1 Decisions on the Publication

(1) The editorial board of the Journal decides on

a) the general substantive and formal criteria of publications,

b) thematic policy of given issues,

c) review policy and requirements,

d) bi-annual report of publication policy.

(2) The editors of the Journal receive manuscripts submitted for publication through the online journal management system provided by the publisher of the Journal, maintain contact with the authors and contributors, and coordinate the review and publication processes.

(3) The chief-editor makes a decision about the acceptance of manuscript if it complies with the profile of the Journal, the norms of the discipline and the provisions of regulators related to the Journal.

(4) The accepted manuscript is launched to peer-review process if it meets the requirements of format and plagiarism test.

(5) If the manuscript is fully supported by two reviewers, the chief-editor makes decision on its publication. In case of its refusal by one or two reviewers, the manuscript shall be rejected by the chief-editor. The rejection shall be based on the reasoning of rewievers.

(6) Following the editorial test of plagiarism, the upcoming issue of the Journal will be compiled in light of the reviewers’ opinions.

(7) After compiling the upcoming issue of the Journal, the editors decide on finalising the issue and forwarding it to the publisher.

(8) The editors include the reviewers’ opinions as well as the results of the test of plagiarism in the reasoned decision on the publication.

(9) If the editorial board requires a complete revision of the manuscript in their decision about the publication, the author may resubmit the revised manuscript. In this case, the provisions of this section must be applied to the revised manuscript.

2 Equal Opportunities

The editorial board always evaluates the submitted studies irrespective of the authors’ race, gender, sexual orientation, religious beliefs, ethnic origin, nationality or political philosophy.

3 Confidentiality

The editorial board and its members may not disclose any information to any parties in relation to the manuscript submitted for publication. Exceptions to this rule include the author, the reviewers, the potential reviewers and the publisher.

4 Publication and Conflict of Interest

(1) Members of the editorial board may not use the unpublished materials of the submitted manuscript for their own research without the written consent of the author.

(2) On the basis of the information available, the editors select the peer reviewers and other contributors invited during the peer review and publication process of the submitted manuscript in such a way that no conflicts of interest would arise between the persons, research areas, institutions and publishers.

(3) If the Journal or its publisher has received funding, it must be stated in the Journal with the name of the funding agency.

5 Handling Incorrect Statements

The editors make every effort during the publishing process to ensure that the published studies do not contain any incorrect or untrue statement. They involve peer reviewers to identify incorrect statements. They involve copy editors and proofreaders to identify incorrect or imprecise statements caused by the inaccurate use of the language. The presumably incorrect statements are discussed with the author during the publishing process and, if required, an expert opinion is also obtained. The editors receive notifications of presumed errors detected in already published works in written form, via their electronic mail and postal addresses. They confirm the receipt of notification in writing to the person who made it and examine its content. The editors inform the author about the notification maintaining the anonymity of the notifier. Following the consultation with the author, they make a proposal for the correction or recall of the work, or, if these are not necessary, they send a written justification to the notifier in written form.

6 Complaints and Appeals

Contributors to the publication of the Journal do their utmost to maintain and defend its academic standards and professional publishing considerations. Editors receive complaints and remarks related to their own and the publisher’s work and the operation of the Journal in writing, electronically or by post. They investigate the complaint received, take action to resolve it if necessary, and respond to the complaint in writing.

The Archiving Policy of the Journal

5 §

(1) The authors of the Journal do not pay or receive any fees for the publication of their studies on any grounds.

(2) The Journal is open access. The authors are free to download and print the electronic version of the published work, as well as to upload it on any other online platform without changes. The identification data of the Journal must be given when the study is made publicly available.

(3) Readers are free to download or print the electronic version of the studies published in the Journal from the website of the Journal.

(4) All users must apply the citation style of the respective fields of studies when using the published studies in whole or in part.

(5) The studies published in the Journal will also be uploaded to the REAL-J, Repository of the Library of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences, and links to them will also appear on the Facebook community page of the Journal.

(6) The Journal applies the “blue” archiving policy of Sherpa/Romeo: archivable postprint (final, revised manuscript) or publisher’s version/PDF.

Final Provisions

6 §

(1) The Code will also be made public on the website of the Journal.

(2) The Code enters into force on the date of signature and also applies to the issues in preparation or in progress.