Tento web používá soubory cookies. Dalším procházením webu vyjadřujete souhlas s naším používáním souborů cookies. Více informacíSouhlasím
X

Manuscripts must be reviewed with due respect for authors’ confidentiality. By submitting their manuscripts for review, authors entrust the editors with their scientific work and creative effort, on which their reputation and career may depend. If confidential data are disclosed during the manuscript peer review, copyright may be infringed. Reviewers are also entitled to confidentiality, and this must be respected by editors. A confidentiality breach may be necessary where unfair or fraudulent conduct is suspected. However, in all other cases confidentiality must be respected. The rules are detailed in Section 6: Editorial office, and Section 7: Peer review process in the Ortodoncie journal.

 

Reviewers’ anonymity and their obligation to confidentiality

Peer reviews for the Ortodoncie journal are double-blind. If a reviewer asks that his/her name be revealed to the study authors, the editors will comply with the request. A reviewer must not share any information on the manuscript submitted with anyone except the editors and through them with the authors. A reviewer is obliged scrupulously to protect the confidentiality of authors’ material and must not provide the material to another party. Reviewers must not use knowledge acquired from the unpublished manuscript for their own research or other research projects. A confidentiality breach is considered unethical and is unacceptable.

 

Objectivity and peer-review quality

The aim of the peer-review process is to improve the quality of the manuscript. Reviewers must evaluate the study competently and objectively in accordance with their best knowledge and opinion. A peer review must be written clearly and unambiguously, the arguments must be well founded. Reviewers should point out any weak points in the manuscript, including missing sources of information and significant published titles related to the topic that are supported with specific quotations. Further, reviewers are obliged to notify the editors if they suspect any unethical conduct by the authors, particularly if they believe that the manuscript is not original, there are similarities with other published material and suchlike.

 

Reviewers’ competency

Reviewers who do not feel sufficiently qualified to assess a manuscript or know that they will not be able to meet the deadline must notify the editors immediately so that the editors can approach other reviewers in time.

 

Objectivity and conflicts of interest

Reviewers must evaluate manuscripts impartially. They are obliged to refuse to review a manuscript in the case of any potential conflict of interest, including:

●       any benefit to the reviewer from approval or refusal of the manuscript;

●       any collaboration in the project in question within the last five years;

●       a fundamental difference of opinion on the major topic of the manuscript.

 

Reviewers must inform the editors if they suspect that they have a close professional or private relationship with any of the authors or co-authors, or other important collaborators in the project. When a reviewer does not refuse to review a manuscript, the editors understand that there is no conflict of interest. Any breach of the conflict-of-interest rule is considered unethical conduct and is unacceptable. Reviewers of the journal must notify editors about any change that may result in a conflict of interest, including cases where the change took place during the peer-review process.

PARTNEŘI

© Česká ortodontická společnost 2021