The journal Litikon adheres to the highest standards of scientific research and observes the principles of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) throughout all stages of the peer review and publishing process. Through this commitment, it aims to guarantee transparency, fairness, and an ethical approach toward authors, reviewers, and readers alike.

1. Guidelines for Authors

Authors bear full responsibility for the content and quality of their submissions.

  • Originality: Every submission must be original. Borrowing ideas or data from other authors must be indicated in the text with a reference to the used literature. Any form of plagiarism or self-plagiarism (recycling one’s own contributions) is unacceptable.
  • Truthfulness: The editorial board considers it self-evident that authors will not fabricate or intentionally manipulate research data.
  • Multiple Submissions: Authors are expected not to submit manuscripts to the editorial board that have already been submitted to other journals. A manuscript may only be submitted to another journal once it has been officially rejected by the previous one or formally withdrawn by the authors.
  • Transparent Authorship: Only individuals who have made a genuine contribution to the realization of the work and approved its final version may be listed as authors. Artificially adding authors, as well as omitting actual contributors (so-called ghost authors), is unacceptable.
  • Conflicts of Interest: Upon submitting a manuscript, authors must declare any circumstances that could potentially influence or bias the nature of the research.
  • Sources of Funding: All grants, institutions, and funding sources that supported the research must be clearly stated in the article.
  • Ethical Oversight in Research: If the research involved human participants or animals, authors must demonstrate that they acted in accordance with international ethical standards (e.g., informed consent of participants).
  • Use of AI (Artificial Intelligence): According to the latest COPE guidelines, artificial intelligence tools must not be listed as co-authors, as they cannot bear legal and ethical responsibility for the content. If an author used AI (e.g., for editing text or analysis), its use should be acknowledged.

2. Guidelines for the Editorial Board

The editorial board ensures the scientific integrity of the journal.

  • Editorial Independence: Decisions regarding the acceptance or rejection of submissions must be based on their merit, originality, importance, and relevance to the field of research. Decision-making must not be influenced by commercial interests, political pressures, or personal biases against authors (based on race, gender, nationality, or institution).
  • Ensuring Objective Peer Review: The editorial board is obliged to ensure that the peer review process is fair, impartial, and timely. Editors must select qualified experts with appropriate background and ensure that reviewers have no conflict of interest regarding the authors.
  • Confidentiality of Information: The editorial board must handle submitted manuscripts as strictly confidential documents. Information and ideas from unpublished texts must not be misused for personal gain or shared with third parties.
  • Handling Ethical Misconduct: If suspicion of scientific misconduct arises (e.g., plagiarism, data falsification), whether before or after publication, the editorial board is obliged to act according to COPE flowcharts. It must contact the authors, and if necessary their home institutions, to ensure a proper investigation.
  • Corrections and Retractions: If a published article is found to contain a major error or an ethical violation, the editorial board must promptly publish a correction, an expression of concern, or, in extreme cases, retract the article entirely.
  • Process Transparency: All guidelines must be clearly described on the journal’s website: how the peer review process works, who publishes and manages the journal, and how authors can submit their work.

3. Guidelines for Reviewers

The role of reviewers is to contribute to the academic quality of the journal.

  • Objectivity: The reviewer evaluates the manuscript solely on the basis of its scientific merit, execution quality, and contribution.
  • Factual Approach and Feedback: The reviewer should state their views factually, clearly, and without personal bias. Any feedback should be presented in a way that provides authors with concrete and constructive guidance to improve the quality of their submission.