Editorial and Peer-review Policy

All participants in the publication process are expected to know and adhere to the principles stated below.
The participants in the publishing process are the author(s), the reviewers, and the Publisher, represented by editorial staff.

Authors

Authorship

Akadémiai Kiadó assumes that by submitting a manuscript all its authors accept its content, have consented to its publication, and hold the necessary permissions for its publication.
The Publisher does not prescribe the level of contribution required for authorship, but at the same time assumes that all participants listed as authors have contributed to the completion of the submitted publication to the extent expected and customary in the given discipline, either by writing the manuscript or by examining, analyzing, or producing the discussed data while conducting the research required to write the manuscript. Similarly, the Publisher assumes that all participants who contributed substantially to the preparation of the manuscript have been duly acknowledged.
At the right places in the manuscript, authors are required to duly acknowledge the individuals who assisted in the creation of the manuscript or the research required for it, but do not meet the criteria for authorship.

Disputes Over Authorship

In case disputes over authorship arise during the review of a manuscript or after its acceptance or publication, the Publisher cannot conduct an investigation or make a decision, so the authors must resolve the issue themselves. If they are unable to do so, the Publisher reserves the right to reject the manuscript or, in the case of a published work, to inform the author’s institution, and to follow the regulations in force there.

ORCID

Authors are requested to provide their ORCID iD when submitting a manuscript for evaluation. Authors who do not yet have an ORCID iD can create one for themselves at https://orcid.org/register.

Communications with the Publisher

Authors are required to keep confidential all communications with the Publisher, including reviewers’ comments and communications with the editorial staff.

Authors may suggest reviewers, but providing misleading or false information, such as suggesting non-real people, will result in rejection of the manuscript and notification of the author’s institution.

Authors may not recommend reviewers with whom they have recently worked together or who work at the same institution as they do.

Citations

In publications, it is necessary to cite the appropriate and relevant literature in order to substantiate the claims made. Authors are asked to refrain from excessive self-referencing, organized circular references, and overly complimentary and redundant references.
In case of citation manipulation, the manuscript may be rejected, and the author may be reported to their institution. Similarly, if an author notices any such attempt or solicitation on the part of reviewers or the editorial staff, they are requested to report it to the Publisher.

Authors are requested to consider the following points when preparing a manuscript:

All claims based on external information (i.e., anything that is not based on the author’s own idea or the general consensus in the discipline) must be cited.
Whenever possible, the original work must be cited instead of citing derivative publications, such as reviews.
Authors must ensure that their citations are accurate, both in content and in form.
Authors must not cite sources that they have not read.
Authors must avoid preferential citations of the works of their friends, acquaintances, or colleagues.
Authors must not use an excessive number of references to justify a single claim.
Authors must cite works that have undergone an appropriate peer-review process. Thus, authors must avoid citing articles and studies published in predatory journals.
Authors must not cite advertisements or materials published for advertising purposes.

Ethical Standards

In order to ensure ethical standards, authors are required to follow the best research practices recorded in the relevant guidelines of the discipline (as practiced in the relevant research communities and geographical areas). In the case of human and animal experiments, the research must be compliant with the rules and ethical standards in force at the author’s research site, and compliance with international standards is encouraged.

The Editorial Staff’s Responsibilities

Editorial staff are expected to have all received manuscripts reviewed. However, in exceptional cases, such as the publication of new works in emerging disciplines, this may be waived.
If a manuscript has already undergone a high-level professional review process (such as the defense of a doctoral dissertation or an academic doctoral thesis), the reviews then received are also acceptable. In this case, however, editorial staff must make sure that the author has incorporated the lessons learned from these reviews into the submitted manuscript.
Editorial staff are expected to verify the authenticity of the contact information of the reviewers suggested by the authors or other participants. If possible, reviewers should be contacted at their institutional email addresses.

Reviews

Each book published by Akadémiai Kiadó undergoes a review process. This usually involves a peer review by an independent expert, although in exceptional cases the editorial staff may deviate from this process. In the case of textbooks and university course books, it is also allowed to involve university students and lecturers in the review process.

Review Process

Firstly, the Publisher checks whether the submitted manuscript conforms to formal requirements. Secondly, the editorial staff arranges for the review process to begin. Thirdly, the editorial staff considers the reviewers’ recommendations when deciding about the publication of the manuscript. Fourthly, the author receives the reviewers’ comments and the editorial staff’s decision on the manuscript.

Selection of Reviewers

The selection of reviewers is critical to the publication of a manuscript. Many factors are involved, including expertise, judgment, recommendations, conflicts of interest, and previous reviews. Reviewers are expected to be prompt and thorough as well as to show clear reasoning and collegiality.
Potential reviewers must inform the editorial staff of any potential conflicts of interest before accepting the invitation. As communications between reviewers and the editorial staff may contain confidential information, these must not be shared with third parties.

Professional Responsibility

The invitation to be a reviewer can only be accepted if the recipient has the necessary expertise to evaluate the manuscript and is able to provide an unbiased assessment. Reviews must not be biased against the authors’ nationality, religious or political beliefs, gender or other characteristics, the origin of the manuscript, or commercial considerations. The wording of the review must be objective and constructive. Comments must provide feedback that will help the author improve the manuscript. Reviews must be specific, and the general claims must be adequately supported with proper citations to help the editorial staff in the decision making process.

Duties of Reviewers

A reviewer’s primary task is to provide the editorial staff with the information necessary to make an informed decision about the publication of a manuscript. In addition, the reviewer’s opinion must also help the author to make any necessary changes to the manuscript before its publication. Preferably, reviews recommending the rejection of a manuscript must explain the main weaknesses of the manuscript in order to help the author’s further work.
Comments to the editorial staff must not contradict the opinions expressed to the author.

Criteria for Writing Reviews

The following criteria must be followed in reviews:

Reviews must be objective.
Criticism of the author is inappropriate.
Reviewers must express their opinions clearly, using appropriate reasoning and relevant citations that substantiate their claims.
Reviewers must declare any potential conflict of interest.

Reviewers may refuse to review a manuscript that they believe has a conflict of interest with the author or institute associated with the manuscript due to a competitive, collaborative, or other relationship.
Reviewers must keep in mind the confidential nature of the manuscript made available to them. Thus, they cannot use information from the material to be published in their own work.
Reviewers who want to pass on the reviewer’s invitation to a colleague must first contact the Publisher.
Preferably, any issues listed above or arising independently must be discussed directly with the Publisher.

Structure of Reviews

Reviewers must answer the following questions in order to present a manuscript to the editorial staff from as many angles as possible:

Main results. Please summarize what you consider the most important results of the work.
Validity. Are there any flaws in the manuscript that prevent its publication? If yes, please elaborate.
Originality and significance. If the findings of the manuscript do not lead to an original conclusion, please provide the necessary references to assess this.
Data and method. Please provide details on the authenticity of the approach used, the quality of the data, and their presentation.
Conclusion. Is the conclusion of the manuscript correct, valid, and reliable?
Language. Does the manuscript contain phrases that are inappropriate, vulgar, or otherwise objectionable?
Suggested changes. Please list the changes that would benefit the manuscript during revision.
References. Does the manuscript cite its sources properly? Does it cite all works used? Do all cited works contribute to the findings of the manuscript? Which further works should be cited in the manuscript?

It is not mandatory to answer all the questions listed above. Modifying the order of the questions to be answered is also allowed. Nonetheless, reviewers are required to make sure that all points that are relevant to the manuscript are addressed.

Reviewers must indicate if there is any part of the manuscript that they feel is outside of their areas of expertise or that they were not able to process fully.

Acknowledgment of Reviewers

The Publisher endeavors the work of the reviewer with a modest fee among other things.