The Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Law (ISSN:1788-6171) journal applies the collegial revision (double-blind review) process, therefore each party contributing to the publishing (author, journal editor, lecturer and publisher) should accept the standards relevant for the expected moral behaviour. The present moral statement is based on the Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors applicable by journal editors of the COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics, http://publicationethics.org/about).

The editor of the journal decides which articles received to be published will actually be published in the journal. The editor can be guided by the guidelines set by the editorial board of the journal and may be limited by the current legislation on libel, copyright infringement and plagiarism. The editor may ask help from other editors or lecturers to make his own decision. The editor of the journal is allowed to run a program for filtering out plagiarism.

The editor always evaluates the intellectual content of manuscripts regardless of race, gender, sexual orientation, religious beliefs, ethnic origin, nationality or political views of the authors.

The editor and the editorial staff do not provide any information regarding the manuscript submitted for publication. Exceptions to this rule are the correspondent author, lecturers, potential lecturers, and other editorial consultants and the publisher.

The editor is not allowed to use the unpublished material of the submitted manuscript for his own research without the author's prior written consent.

The lecturer helps the editor in decision-making if it is required, supports the author in raising the scientific level of the article during the process of collegial revision (double-blind review).

In case the selected lecturer feels that he is not professional enough to evaluate the research presented in the manuscript or knows that he is not able to prepare his statement effectively and in time, he is obliged to notify the editor and waive his participation in the proofreading process.

All manuscripts received for evaluation should be considered as confidential document. These can only be released or discussed with others based on the prior consent of the editor.

The evaluation shall be carried out objectively. The criticism of the author is not appropriate. The lecturers shall make their viewsstraightforward and arguing.

The lecturers should acknowledge the relevant published works not cited by the authors. Any statement that contains an observation, thought or argument from a work earlier published has to be accompanied by the appropriate reference. Furthermore, the lecturer should draw the editor's attention to any substantive similarity or overlapping between the manuscript examined and other material previously published and known by him.

 

The privileged information or ideas obtained during the evaluation should be handled confidentially and cannot be used for personal promotion. Copy editors may not evaluate the manuscript if they are in conflict with the authors, firms, or institutions associated with the study due to competitive, collaborative or other relationship.

Authors presenting the original researches should make accurate reports of the work performed. The draw of interpretations and conclusions can only be based on facts or on the basis of objective and logical proof. The background data of the study should be presented accurately. The study should provide sufficient detail and reference to allow others to repeat the described processes. False or deliberately inaccurate statements are considered unethical and unacceptable behaviour.

Authors should guarantee that the study is their own, original intellectual work and if they used others’ works and/ or expressions, those are cited appropriately and professionally referred to them.

It is not a good practice to include the manuscript of the same research in various independent publications or journals. Submission of the same manuscript to multiple journals is deemed unethical behaviour and unacceptable.

The cited works must be properly referred to in all cases. Authors should refer to all publications that have influenced their work.

Any person who has contributed substantially to the concept, design, implementation or interpretation of the presented study should be included as an author. Those should be indicated as co-authors who have contributed significantly to the study. However, those should be mentioned as contributors who have been involved in certain important stages of the research project. Furthermore, the correspondent author should warrant that all major co-authors are mentioned in the study and he has not nominated persons as co-authors who are not entitled for it and all co-authors have seen and approved the final version of the study and agreed to publish it.

Each author is obliged to disclose those financial or other material conflicts of interest in his manuscript which may influence its results or interpretation. All funding sources of the project should be made public. 

If the author discovers significant errors or inaccuracies in his work already published, he should immediately notify the editor or the publisher of the journal and cooperate with the editor to revoke or correct the study.