Select your language

The publication of an article in a peer-reviewed journal or a monograph of ČKZ/JKC is an essential building block in the development of a coherent and respected network of knowledge. It is a direct reflection of the quality of the work of the authors and the institutions that support them. It is therefore necessary to agree upon standards of expected ethical behaviour for all parties involved in the act of publishing: the author, the editor (and the editorial board), the peer reviewer and the publisher.

Journal or monograph of JKC is issued by IČKZ. IČKZ take its duties of guardianship over all stages of publishing extremely seriously and we recognize our ethical and other responsibilities.

Our ethic statements, published here are based on COPE’s Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors and on other existing policies.

Duties of authors

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 paper. A paper 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 paper 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 at least 10 years after publication.

Originality and plagiarism: the authors should ensure that they have written entirely original works, and if the authors have used the work and/or words of others that this has been appropriately cited or quoted. Plagiarism takes many forms, from ‘passing off’ another’s paper as the author’s own paper, to copying or paraphrasing substantial parts of another’s paper (without attribution), to claiming results from research conducted by others. Plagiarism in all its forms constitutes unethical publishing behaviour and is unacceptable.

Multiple, redundant or concurrent publication: 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 or publisher concurrently constitutes unethical publishing behaviour and is unacceptable. In general, an author should not submit for consideration a previously published paper.

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 of the paper: 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.

Fundamental errors in published works: when an author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in his/her own published work, it is the author’s obligation to promptly notify the 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.

Duties of the editors and editorial board

Publication decisions: the JKC editor of the journal or monograph is responsible for deciding which of the articles submitted to the editorship should be published. The validation of the work in question and its importance to researchers and readers must always drive such decisions. The editor may be guided by the policies of the editorial boards and constrained by such legal requirements as shall then be in force regarding libel, copyright infringement and plagiarism. The editor may consult with editorial board or reviewers in making this decision or may use various plagiarism checking programs.

Fair play: the editor evaluates manuscripts solely for their intellectual content without regard to race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, and ideological or political orientation of the authors.

Confidentiality: the editor and any editorial staff do not disclose any information about a submitted manuscript to anyone other than the corresponding author, reviewers and others, involved in journal publishing process.

Disclosure and conflicts of interest: unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript are not used in an editor’s own research without the express written consent of the author. Editors should recuse themselves (i.e. should ask another member of the editorial board instead to review and consider) 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 (possibly) institutions connected to the papers.

Complaints and appeals: an editorship should take reasonably responsive measures when ethical or other complaints appeals have been presented concerning a submitted manuscript or published paper, in conjunction with the publisher and the issuer within 30 days. Such measures will generally include contacting the author of the manuscript or paper and giving due consideration of the respective complaint or claims made, but may also include further communications to the relevant institution 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.

Duties of reviewers

Contribution to editorial decisions: peer review assists the editor in making editorial decisions and through the editorial communications with the author may also assist the author in improving the paper.

Promptness: any selected referee who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should notify the editor and excuse himself from the review process.

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

Standards of objectivity: reviews should be conducted objectively. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate. Referees should express their views clearly with supporting arguments.

Acknowledgment of sources: reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors. Any statement that an observation, derivation, or argument  had been previously reported should be accompanied by the relevant citation. A reviewer should also call to the editor’s attention any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other paper of which they have personal knowledge.

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 recuse themselves (i.e. should ask another member of the editorial board instead to review and consider) 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 (possibly) institutions connected to the papers.


All scientific articles published in Journal for the Critique of Science are subject to a double-blind review process. The peer-review is carried out by two reviewers who cover the content area of the article. The purpose of the peer-review is to ensure the appropriateness of the content and compliance of the text with the principles of scientific writing. Peer-reviewers should follow Publication Ethics and Publication Malpractice Statement.

The peer-review draws attention to the relevance of the content, the originality of the text, the observance of ethical principles, the adequacy of the scientific apparatus (IMRD structure), the relevance of the used sources and the appropriateness of the used professional terminology. The purpose of the peer-review is to eliminate content, language, and structural deficiencies and ensure the scientific excellence of the text.

When evaluating articles, peer-reviewers answer the questions in the form questionnaire. The purpose of the form is to facilitate and unify the peer-review process.

When the peer-reviewer accepts an article for review, he/she determines whether the article falls within his/her area of expertise and checks for the possible existence of a conflict of interest. Peer-reviewers must not have a conflict of interest with the authors and are obliged to inform the editors about this when they receive an article for peer-review.

The editor notifies the authors about the results of the peer-review, as a rule, one month after submission of the paper.

If the author does not agree with the peer-reviewer's opinion, he/she can withdraw the contribution or request that the case be decided by editor-in-chief, who can consult with the editorial board.

The editor reserves the right to edit the text in accordance with spelling rules.

The peer-review process is led by managing editor.