Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement

Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement

Critical Housing Analysis is a peer-reviewed academic journal focusing on critical and innovative housing research. The journal was launched in January 2014 and publishes two online issues annually. Critical Housing Analysis is published by the Institute of Sociology of the Czech Academy of Sciences. The Journal’s operations are subject to applicable laws and internal regulations of the Academy of Sciences, including the Code of Ethics for Researchers of the Czech Academy of Sciences.

In order to meet high standards of ethical behaviour at all the stages of the publication process, authors, editors and reviewers are obliged to act in compliance with the Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement. Our publication ethics and malpractice statement is based on the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors. We closely follow the Publishing Ethics Resource Kit (PERK) that provides guidelines to support journal editors in handling publishing ethics allegations.

Editors' responsibilities

1. The journal is governed by the editorial board that is made up of outstanding academics from different countries and different continents, including several editors of mainstream scientific journals (see Editorial Board).
2. Editorial board members:
   • review submitted manuscripts;
   • advise on journal policy and scope;
   • discuss and approve the contents of individual issues.
3. The editors are expected to act a balanced, objective and fair way while carrying out their duties, without discrimination on grounds of gender, sexual orientation, religious or political beliefs, ethnic or geographical origin of the authors.
4. The editors and any editorial staff must not disclose any information about a submitted manuscript to anyone other than the corresponding author, reviewers, potential reviewers, other editorial advisers, and the publisher, as appropriate.
5. Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted paper will not be used by the editor or the members of the editorial board for their own research purposes without the author's explicit written consent.

Authors' responsibilities

1. All authors are obliged to participate in a peer review process.
2. Authorship should be limited to those who have made a significant contribution to creating the paper. Every researcher who contributed substantially and non-trivially is entitled to authorship or co-authorship. Fabrication and falsification of research data contravenes the principles of scientific work.
3. Authors must be able to document their procedures and answer editors’ questions about data sources and methods applied.
4. All sources used must be properly cited and referenced in accordance with copyright and ethical rules of scientific work to avoid plagiarism.
5. Only previously unpublished manuscripts can be offered to the peer-reviewed section of the journal. It is considered unethical to offer a paper for publication to several periodicals simultaneously.
6. All authors are requested to disclose any actual or potential conflict of interest including any financial, personal or other relationships with other people or organizations that could inappropriately influence, or be perceived to influence, their work.
7. All authors should notify promptly the journal editor or publisher if a significant error in their publication is identified, as well as to cooperate with the editor and publisher to publish an erratum, addendum, corrigendum notice, or to retract the paper, if necessary.

Reviewers' responsibilities

1. Peer reviewers are obligated to follow the principle of impartiality and objectivity and to evaluate a manuscript to the best of their knowledge and should be aware of any potential conflicts of interest, and if necessary inform the editor and refuse to review.
2. Peer reviewers are expected to alert the editor, when any other published or submitted content is similar to that under review. Reviewers should identify cases in which relevant published work referred to in the paper has not been cited in the reference section. They should point out whether observations or arguments derived from other publications are accompanied by the respective source.
3. Peer reviewers should also maintain the confidentiality of any information supplied by the editor or author. Peer reviewers should not retain or copy the manuscript.

Peer-review process

1. All papers will be submitted to a quick double-blind peer review by at least two independent experts in the topic of the paper who are not in close working, institutional or personal relations with the author.
2. The peer-review is defined as "obtaining advice on individual manuscripts from reviewers’ expert in the field of publication".
3. The review process is set up to be as objective and quick as possible and reviewed articles are treated confidentially prior to their publication.
4. The referees’ reports are not guaranteed to the authors; if the referees see potential in the paper and voluntarily offer comments in the review process, the editor-in-chief may inform the author of the comments in the decision letter. If both referees accept the submitted paper, it will be published after being quickly edited and once the signed licensing agreement is received from the authors. If both referees refuse the submitted paper, it will be rejected for publication. If the two referees disagree, the editor-in-chief will make the final decision.

Publication ethics

1. The publishing process of the journal is run under the rules of Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement. Authors, the editor-in-chief and editors, reviewers, members of the editorial board and the publisher should obey to the principles of the Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement. The editor-in-chief is to support and promote the Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement. Their action in this respect shall be subject to reviewal by the editorial board.
2. Should any misconduct occurred, the editorial board shall take reasonable steps to identify and prevent the publication of papers.
3. The editorial board will accept papers that show originality and/or well-founded (convincing) criticism; that are coherent, stay on topic, provide clear and convincing examples and are not ideologically driven.
4. The board will not accept papers that:
   • contain unfounded allegations;
   • are unethical, use vulgarities or support discrimination, violence, personal abuse, etc.;
   • may be accused of plagiarism.
5. When needed, the editorial board is obliged to publish: corrections, clarifications, retractions or apologies.

Publication schedule

The authors will be informed of the decision to publish within seven weeks after submitting the paper. If accepted, the paper will be published on the website of the journal within five weeks after its acceptance, assuming formalities relating to publishing are dealt with promptly by the author.