Ethical principles of publishing the Social Policy FORUM journal
The peer-reviewed Social Policy Forum journal, which deals with the broadest possible range of social issues (see below), is published by the Research Institute for Labour and Social Affairs (RILSA), a public research institution.
Editorial board
In publishing the magazine, the editorial board, which is composed mainly of external representatives of academia with the relevant expertise and of representatives of the publisher, makes sure publication ethics are complied with, the prescribed intellectual and ethical standards are upheld, the principles of fairness, objectivity, impartiality and equal treatment in all processes are complied with, and the quality of the accepted articles is sustained. It also takes care to avoid publishing incorrect data or plagiarised work and is prepared to publish corrections, apologies and explanations; when necessary, the board is authorised to retract articles.
All the articles offered must be consistent with the magazine’s focus, must be suitably expert and must be previously unpublished.
The magazine comprises two sections, peer-reviewed and non-peer-reviewed.
Assessment of offered articles
The editorial board plays an active role in assessing offered articles and has the right to accept or reject offered articles.
Articles offered for the peer-reviewed section must satisfy the requirements placed on peer-reviewed articles (for more information see Information for authors). In the first phase articles are assessed by members of the editorial board, who judge their accuracy, consistency with the journal’s focus, their expertise and compliance with the requirements for peer-reviewed articles. In their assessments they uphold the principles of fairness, objectivity, impartiality and equal treatment.
The editorial board sends positively rated articles to reviewers selected from the names proposed by the members of the editorial board.
The editorial board can also recommend authors rework their articles in a certain regard and resubmit them for assessment, or may recommend the option of using them in the journal’s non-peer-reviewed section.
Reviewers
Reviewers must be experts in the given field and must not be in a conflict of interests with regard to the research, the authors’ employers or those who financed them. Reviewers should uphold the ethical principles for writing reviews and in their assessments should comply with the principles of fairness, objectivity, impartiality and equal treatment; they should treat the articles being reviewed as confidential and should be willing to add references to relevant published work if it is not cited by the authors.
Review process
The review process is bilaterally anonymous and takes place in two rounds.
In the first round the offered articles are assessed by at least 2 reviewers according to uniformly defined criteria compiled into a table (see below), with the option of expressing comments. The reviewers choose from four alternative assessments: recommended for publication in the peer-reviewed section; recommended for publication in the peer-reviewed section after reworking in line with the reviewers’ comments; recommended for publication in the non-peer-reviewed section; and not recommended for publication.
If the reviewers disagree, a third review is drawn up.
The authors are informed of the assessment results and invited to act on the comments.
In the second round of the review process the reviewers assess how their comments have been worked into the article by the author. If the author’s alterations are approved, the review process is closed and the article is recommended for publication.
The editorial board’s decision whether to include an article in the peer-reviewed section of the magazine is based on the outcome of the review process.
Articles offered or commissioned for the non-peer-reviewed section are assessed by the editor-in-chief from the point of view of accuracy, consistency with the magazine’s focus and expertise. In his assessment the editor-in-chief upholds the principles of fairness, objectivity, impartiality and equal treatment. If necessary, he consults the article with members of the editorial board.
The contents of each issue are approved by the editorial board.
Authors
Authors must comply with the ethical principles for publishing information and with the applicable standards and legislation. They have to present true and authentic data, observe the rules for citing work results and publications by other authors, protect personal data acquired during research, state their sources of financial support and not distort the information gained in any way. All listed co-authors should have made a significant contribution to the research.
Authors are obliged to take part in the review process and, if errors and shortcomings are identified, to cooperate in removing or correcting them.
Every issue of the magazine contains brief information for authors (see below).
Identified errors and shortcomings
If errors and shortcomings are identified when an article is reviewed, the editorial office invites the author to remove them or, if they are only identified after the article was published, to correct them or apologise; corrections and apologies are published in the soonest possible issue of the journal.
If the editorial office receives legitimate criticism of a published article, the author is informed and invited to respond. If the criticism alleges serious failings requiring publication, the editorial office publishes the criticism and the author’s response or, if the author fails to respond to the criticism despite being invited to do so, it publishes its own opinion.
Authors’ complaints about the actions of the editorial office are dealt with in the first phase by the editor-in-chief; if the author is not satisfied with the way the complaint is dealt with, it is dealt with in the next phase by the editorial board.
Focus of the magazine
social issues in the broadest sense, i.e. in particular social policy, social services, the state social support system, the material need system, the health assessment service, disability, the family, socio-legal protection of children, equal opportunities, insurance systems, accident insurance, income policy, employment, labour market policy, employment abroad??, the work of the labour offices, wage policy, wage and pay systems, occupational safety and the work environment, migration, the integration of foreigners, international cooperation in the field of social security, social dialogue and collective bargaining, working conditions, work organisation, the legislation on all these areas, in particular labour legislation, and other related topics
Editorial board
Doc. Ing. Ladislav Průša, CSc. (chairman - RILSA)
Doc. Ing. Marie Dohnalová, CSc. (Faculty of Humanities, Charles University)
Prof. JUDr. Vilém Kahoun, Ph.D. (Czech Social Security Administration; Faculty of Health and Social Studies, University of South Bohemia)
Prof. Ing. Vojtěch Krebs, CSc. (University of Finance and Administration; University of Economics, Prague)
Mgr. Aleš Kroupa (RILSA)
PhDr. Věra Kuchařová, CSc. (RILSA)
Prof. Tomáš Sirovátka, CSc. (Masaryk University)
Doc. JUDr. Iva Chvátalová, CSc (Metropolitan University Prague; University of Economics, Prague)
Doc. Ing. Jitka Langhamrová, CSc. (University of Economics, Prague)
Prof. Ing. Eva Rievajová, Ph.D.
Information for authors
The magazine comprises two sections: the first section is Peer-reviewed Essays and Studies, where only peer-reviewed contributions are published. The editorial board decides whether to include an article in the peer-reviewed section on the basis of the results of the review process, which is bilaterally anonymous. The editorial office takes the necessary steps to ensure the process is anonymous. Authors may offer articles for both sections, i.e. peer-reviewed and non-peer-reviewed, stating which section an article is intended for. The editorial board only accepts previously unpublished articles in electronic form. The author should attach his/her full contact address, including telephone number and e-mail address. Please send articles in electronic form to the address: .
Formal requirements:The manuscript of an article for the peer-reviewed section (ideally structured as follows: abstract, introduction, current state of knowledge and references to expert literature, the issue under scrutiny and methods used, results, discussion, conclusion), with roughly 20,000 characters including spaces, must contain, as well as the text proper, an approx. 20-line abstract, keywords in Czech, and a JEL classification code. Citations and bibliographic references must be complete and conform to the relevant standard. Charts and illustrations must be suited for black-and-white presentation (in Excel group column format, not spatial). Their source files must be attached as well. The editorial office proofreads the text and makes necessary linguistic alterations.
Contribution ratings *
(*only rate each factor if contained in the contribution)
outstanding / above average / average / satisfactory / unsatisfactorySubject matter
relevance
importance/interest/topicality
How the topic is dealt with
creativity of the approach to the topic
theoretical part**/
quality of data and data analysis, research methodology
link to theory
appropriateness of conclusions
how up-to-date the used literature and sources are
style
** treatment of the topic in the context of contemporary knowledge, clarity and suitability of the theoretical concepts employed/explicitness of the theory and values underpinning the assessment
Comparison with the standard of contributions in the Essays and Studies section in previous issues***
□ outstanding
□ above average
□ average
□ can be recommended in a suitable context
***does not apply to the first issues of the journal and reviewers who are unfamiliar with the journal
Reviewer’s opinion
□ I recommend publication in the peer-reviewed section
□ I recommend publication in the peer-reviewed section after reworking in line with comments
□ I recommend publication in the non-peer-reviewed section
□ I do not recommend publication at all
Justification of the opinion
(comments, suggestions for reworking etc. - briefly in a few sentences)