Editors

The editor is responsible for the editorial process, the final decision and the communication of this to the authors.
The management of the editorial evaluation of a scientific manuscript involves responsibilities that can only be assigned to people. For this reason, we require editors to adhere to the highest standards of integrity in this process. The submitted manuscript must be treated as a confidential document. Generative artificial intelligence or AI-assisted technologies must not be used by editors to assist in the evaluation process or decision-making regarding the manuscript, because the critical thinking and original judgement needed for this work are beyond the scope of this technology and there is a risk that the technology will generate incorrect, incomplete or biased conclusions about the manuscript. This confidentiality requirement also applies to communications regarding the manuscript, including notifications or decision letters, as these may contain confidential information about the manuscript and/or authors. For this reason, editors should not send their letters to the AI tool, even if the aim is only to improve the language and readability.

Editors:

1. Shall make every effort to continuously improve the journal publishing process.
2. Decide on the acceptance or rejection of a reviewed scientific text based on the compatibility of the content of the article with the thematic scope (profile) of the journal, and not by reference to the origin of the author of the work, its affiliation, nationality, ethnicity, political views, gender, race or religion.
3. Act in accordance with the established reviewing procedure, i.e.:
   3.1. Appoint min. two reviewers to evaluate each publication. Do not send articles to reviewers with the same affiliation as given by the author(s) of the publication.
   3.2. The author(s) and reviewers do not know each other's identity (the so-called "double-blind review process"), which means that the article sent to reviewers does not contain personal data of the author(s) of the publication and the author(s) is not given information about the person of the reviewers. The list of reviewers cooperating with the journal's editorial office is published on the journal's website after the second issue is publicated.
   3.3. The review shall be in a written form. The review form is on the website of the journal.
   3.4. The result of the review is the opinion of the reviewer informing about:
   a. rejecting the article,
   b. qualifying the article for publication without corrections,
   c. acceptance for publication after making additions, corrections indicated by the reviewer,
   d. necessity of making substantial changes and repeated reviewing.
4. In the case of 3.4.b-d the article is sent to the author(s) for appropriate corrections/amendments indicated by reviewers.
5. In case 4a, the article is rejected if two negative reviews are received. If the results are different, i.e. one negative and one positive review, the article is sent to another reviewer.
6. After receiving section editor's recomendation the article, the editor-in-chief, qualifies it for publication.
7. The editor-in-chief shall take action in the event of receiving information about violation of ethical standards (such as duplicate publication, plagiarism, fabrication of data, false list of authors, ghost authorship) by the author of the text. These actions include:
   • rejection of the article,
   • gathering full documentation with evidence,
   • informing the author about the outcome of the proceedings and the actions of the editorial team,
   • contacting the author's institution and informing their superiors and/or other persons responsible for supervising the research,
   • informing the reviewers of the action taken.
8. Comply with the current legal status regarding defamation, copyright infringement and plagiarism.

Please note that the Management uses artificial intelligence tools to support the publishing process in order to carry out plagiarism checks. These licensed technologies respect the rights of authors, reviewers and editors to data confidentiality and privacy.