The ethical standards of publishing in the scientific journal Res novae regulate the expected ethical behaviour of all stakeholders in the process of publishing the journal: the publisher, the editorial board, reviewers and contributors. When reviewing and publishing articles, the journal strives to adhere to the highest publishing and academic standards. The ethical standards of publication in the journal have therefore been formulated on the basis of the recommended guidelines for editorial policy prepared by the COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics) organisation.

Obligations of authors

Accountability: Authors are responsible for the articles they submit. They must assure the originality of their work and be aware of the consequences of misconduct. Authors are asked to follow the Guidelines published by the journal, therefore ensuring accuracy, completeness and clarity of their research, including technical editing. Submission of manuscripts implies that the manuscripts are in their final form.

Reporting and standards: Authors 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 paper. The paper should contain enough detail and references to permit others to replicate the work. Review articles should also be accurate and objective. 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 the paper for editorial review, and should be prepared to provide public access to such data, if practicable, and should in any event retain such data for a reasonable time after publication.

Originality and plagiarism: Authors ensure that the paper is entirely their original work. If works and/or words of others have been used, this must be appropriately cited or quoted. Originality, creativity and a cross-disciplinary approach or perspectives are encouraged. Plagiarism takes many forms, from “passing off” another’s paper as the author’s own, to copying or paraphrasing substantial parts of another’s paper (without attribution), or claiming results from research conducted by others. Plagiarism in all its forms constitutes unethical publishing behaviour and is unacceptable.

Multiple, redundant or concurrent publication: Authors should not publish manuscripts describing essentially the same research in more than one journal or primary publication. Authors should not submit for consideration a paper previously published in another journal. Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal concurrently constitutes unethical behaviour and is unacceptable. In terms of content, publication of similar papers in more than one journal is sometimes justifiable under certain conditions on a case-by-case basis. The authors and editors of the journals concerned must agree to the secondary publication. It is the author’s responsibility to check for possible copyright conflict with the copyright holder.

Acknowledgment 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 their work. Information obtained privately, such 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 of the paper: Authorship should be limited to those who have made a significant contribution to the conception, design, execution or interpretation of the paper. Where there are others who have participated in certain substantive aspects of the research, they should be acknowledged or listed as contributors. The corresponding author should ensure that all co-authors are included in the paper, that all co-authors have seen and approved the final version of the paper and have agreed to its submission for publication.

Author self-archiving: The authors are permitted and encouraged to post published articles on their personal or institutional website or repositories, with a clear indication that the paper was published in the journal Res novae.

Human or animal subjects: If the work involves the use of animal or human subjects, the author should ensure that the manuscript contains a statement that all procedures were performed in compliance with relevant laws and institutional guidelines and that the appropriate institutional committee(s) has (have) approved them. Authors should include a statement in the manuscript that informed consent was obtained for experimentation with human subjects. The privacy rights of human subjects must always be observed.

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. Sources of financial support for the project should be disclosed. Potential conflicts of interest should be disclosed at the earliest stage possible.

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 journal editor or publisher and cooperate with the editor to retract or correct the paper. If the editor or the publisher learns from a third party that a published work contains a significant error, it is the obligation of the author to promptly retract or correct the paper or provide evidence to the editor of the correctness of the original paper.

Submission: The submission process is handled electronically. Manuscripts are to be submitted to the e-mail address of the editor-in-chief Matic Batič (). Only full papers are reviewed; abstracts are not considered for review. Guidelines for authors are published on the official website of the journal.

Copyright: Except when otherwise noted, articles in the journal are published under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0 International).

Obligations of reviewers

Contribution to editorial decisions: Peer review assists the editor in making editorial decisions and, through editorial communication with the author, may also assist the author in improving the paper. Peer review is an essential component of formal scholarly communication and lies at the heart of the scientific method. Res novae shares the view that scholars who wish to contribute to publications have an obligation to do a fair share of reviewing.

Duties of reviewers: Reviewers are provided guidance on everything that is expected of them, including the need to handle submitted material in confidence. Reviewers are obliged: to respect the confidentiality of peer review and not to reveal any details of a manuscript or its review during or after the peer-review process; not to use information obtained during the peer-review process for their own or any other person’s or organisation’s advantage, or to disadvantage or discredit others; to agree to review only manuscripts for which they have the subject expertise required to carry out a proper assessment and which they can assess within a reasonable time-frame; to declare all potential conflicting interests, seeking advice from the journal if they are unsure whether something constitutes a relevant conflict; not to allow their reviews to be influenced by the origins of a manuscript, by the nationality, religion, political beliefs, gender or other personal characteristics of the authors, or by commercial considerations; to be objective and constructive in their reviews, refraining from being hostile or inflammatory and from making libelous or derogatory personal comments; to acknowledge that peer review is largely a reciprocal endeavour and to undertake to carry out their fair share of reviewing in a timely manner; to provide personal and professional information that is accurate and a true representation of their expertise.

Promptness: Any selected reviewer who knows that it would be impossible to submit his or her review in a reasonable time-frame should notify the editor and excuse him- or herself from the review process.

Confidentiality: Manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. They must not be shown to or discussed with others except as authorised by the editor.

Standards of objectivity: Reviews should be conducted objectively; personal criticism of the author is inappropriate. Reviewers should express their views with supporting arguments.

Disclosure and conflict 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 papers.

Duties of editors and the publisher

Fair play: The editor-in-chief strives to ensure that peer review at the journal is fair, unbiased and timely. The editor-in-chief should evaluate manuscripts for their intellectual content without regard to race, gender, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, political philosophy or any other personal circumstances of the authors.

Confidentiality: The editor-in-chief and other 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, as appropriate.

Disclosure and conflicts of interest: Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in an editor’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. Editors should recuse themselves from considering 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. Editors should require all contributors to disclose relevant competing interests and publish corrections if competing interests are revealed after publication.

Involvement and cooperation in investigations: The editor-in-chief should take reasonably responsive measures when ethical complaints have been presented concerning a submitted manuscript or published paper, in conjunction with the publisher. Such measures will generally include contacting the author of the manuscript or paper and giving due consideration to the respective complaint or claims made but may also include further communications to the relevant institutions and research bodies, and if the complaint is upheld, the publication of a correction, retraction, expression of concern or other note, as may be relevant. Every reported act of unethical publishing behaviour must be investigated, even if it is discovered years after publication.

Publisher’s responsibilities: The Faculty of Law and Economics as the publisher of Res novae encourages the editors to follow contemporary scientific editorial policies and publication ethics. The publisher defines the relationship between publisher, editor-in-chief, editorial board and other parties, protects intellectual property and copyright, and fosters editorial independence. The publisher works with journal editors to set journal policies appropriately and aims to follow those policies, particularly with respect to: editorial independence; research ethics, including confidentiality, consent and the special requirements for human research; authorship; transparency and integrity (conflicts of interest, research funding, reporting) standards; peer review and the role of the editorial team beyond that of the journal editor (appeals and complaints). The publisher works with journal editors to: communicate journal policies (to authors, peer reviewers, readers); review journal policies periodically; assist the parties responsible for the investigation of suspected research or publication misconduct.