Declaration of publication ethics and misconduct

Declaration of publication ethics and misconduct
Acta Medicinae et Sociologica
The periodical of Acta Mediciae et Sociologica applies double-blind reviews, therefore all parties in publication - authors, reviewers, editor and publisher of the periodical - need to accept the standards of expected moral behaviour.
With submission the manuscript for publication, all the authors of the manuscript declare that the author and co-author(s) alike meet the highest professional and ethical standards.
Present moral declaration is based on the Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors by COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics.
The editorial board of the periodical decides on whether the manuscripts submitted for publication will be published. The editors are managed by the guidelines framed by the editorial board and are restricted by the operative acts on authors’ rights, libel and plagiarism. The editors may ask for help from the editorial board, scientific editorial board and the reviewers.
Fair Play
The editor gives a review on the intellectual content of the manuscript regardless of the authors’ origin, ethnicity, sexual orientation, religion or political views.
The editor and members of the editorial board cannot share information on the manuscript with others but the authors, reviewers, potential reviewers, editorial advisors and publishers.
Publication and conflict of interest
Manuscripts ready to be published cannot be used for researching purposes without the author’s definite and written permission.
Contribution to editorial decision
Reviewers are to help the editor with making decision, and the articulation of their opinion can help the author to improve the study/article. 
If the manuscript seems to be beyond any of the reviewers or it is impossible to review it in a short time, the editor must be informed and the reviewer in question will be excluded from the process.
Each and every submitted manuscript must be dealt as confidential documents. Publishing and sharing them is possible with the editor’s permission only.
Reviews must be objective and it is improper to criticize the author. Reviewers’ statements must be supported.
Referring to sources
Reviewers need to be able to identify the relevant published works which are not referred to by the authors. All the earlier published observations, implications or statements of arguments need to be given proper references. Reviewers need to call the authors’ attention if the manuscript under review has significant similarity to or overlap between other published studies known.
Publication and conflict of interest
Information and ideas gained by the reviewers’ access must be dealt confidentially and no personal advantage can be taken from them. Reviewers are not allowed to review manuscripts of authors with whom or with the companies, institutions involved in the study they have conflict of interest rising from competition, cooperation or other relation.
Reporting rule
Authors reporting on the original research need to thoroughly report on the work as well as the debate carried about the significance of the work. The background data need to be shown precisely. The article needs to be elaborate and supported by references so that others can reconstruct the work. Cheating or deliberate loose statements are unethical behaviour and unacceptable.  
Data access and withhold
Authors need to make basic data available for the reviewers, and if possible, they need to provide public access to them. Moreover authors need to be ready to conserve them for a reasonable period of time following the publication.
Originality and plagiarism
Authors need to make it clear that the work is original, and if works or words of other authors are used, they are referred to correctly.
Multiple, redundant or synchronic publication
An author usually cannot publish the manuscript closing essentially the same manuscript in more periodicals. Publishing the same manuscript in more periodicals at the same time is unethical behaviour and unacceptable.
References of sources
The works of others need to be referred to precisely. Authors need to refer to publications which are significant for their work.
Authordom involves those who significantly contributed to the concept, implementation or interpretation of the study. Everybody who has significantly contributed to the work needs to be shown as co-author. If certain aspects of the research were contributed to by other participants, they also need to be mentioned as external fellow-worker. The author needs to make sure that all the co-authors but no unauthorized co-authors are mentioned, and that all the co-authors have seen and approved the final version and agreed on the publication. 
Disclosure and conflict of interest
All the authors need to disclose financial or other important conflicts of interest which influence the outcomes of the research or the interpretation of the manuscript. All the financial support resources need to be disclosed.
Basic mistakes in the published articles
If the authors discover mistakes or inaccuracy in connection with the publication, they are obliged to inform the editor or publisher about it, and co-operate with the editor in order to withdraw the mistake or correct that.