The Science for Population Protection


The high quality of articles published in the journal The Science for Population Protection is guaranteed by a mutually anonymous peer-view process. Presented Code of Ethics sets up basic rules for the journal publishing process and describes principles of ethical conduct of the peer-view process participants – of the authors, editors, reviewers.


  • Each manuscript submitted for expert review has to be an original piece. The manuscript must not be published or accepted for publication in any other journal or by any other publisher, whether in Czech or another language. Originality of manuscripts is reviewed through the control system allowing successful detection of possible similarity with already published texts (including determination of a degree of similarity). The author must not send the journal Science for Population Protection a manuscript for consideration, if it is subject to review by any other magazine.

  • Plagiarism in all forms is unacceptable. Authors are required to refer to the works of other authors, if they quote them verbatim or paraphrase their thoughts. In the event of plagiarism the manuscript will be will be rejected and the author will be withheld from publication activity of the journal The Science for Population Protection.

  • Auto-plagiarism (repeated publication of one’s own works) in all forms is unacceptable. If the manuscript draws from another author's work that has already been published, is in print, or considered for publication, the author must refer to this work. The authors referring to their earlier work, from which the manuscript draws from should avoid excessive purposeful referring to their own work. In the event of auto-plagiarism the manuscript will be rejected and the author will be withheld from publication activity of the journal The Science for Population Protection.

  • Authors can publish partial results of their research simultaneously in more publications. Each of these publications must retain its originality and each text has to vary in its research objective and to a certain extent also in its structure and content. The manuscript, which differs only formally and in style from another author's work, is not considered an original text. Authors have to inform the editor of their already published texts on the same or a closely related topic, and upon a request send the manuscript of those texts to the editor.

  • Persons who have significantly contributed to the research and creation of the manuscript shall be listed as co-authors. Persons who have partaken in the preparation of the manuscript (data collection, data coding, comments or corrections manuscript) shall be listed in footnote (acknowledgment).

  • Authors should respect privacy, dignity and freedom of opinion of the research participants. Authors have to inform research participants (for example, when surveyed in interviews and inquiries) about the purpose of the research, and preserve confidentiality of information and anonymity of research participants in accordance with their requirements.

  • Manuscripts aspiring for publication in the journal The Science for Population Protection (in the section Scientific Articles) go through mutually anonymous peer-view process, and their authors deal with comments according to the agreed completion dates. If authors are unable to meet the set deadline, they will contact the editors as soon as possible and request an extension.

  • Authors ensure that the manuscript does not violate copyright. If authors use external works (graphics, tables), the use of which requires a consent of its originator, they will ensure the necessary permissions before submitting the post.


  • The editors (members of the Editorial Staff) retain their independence. They do not misuse their position. They approach authors discreetly, impartially, promptly and constructively. The editors assess manuscripts on the basis of their professional qualities only, without ideological prejudices and personal preferences.

  • The editors as part of the peer-view process choose reviewers based on their publications on the topic and on their academic contributions. Professional profile of the reviewers always corresponds with the empirical, theoretical and/or methodological focus of the reviewed manuscript. The editors select reviewers objectively in an effort to ensure a high level of the journal expertise. The editors address reviewers from academic and research institutions (or perhaps even from government institutions, non-governmental organizations, or companies) from the Czech Republic, or other countries. Authors may request their manuscripts not to be evaluated by specific reviewers, but the final decision on a selection of reviewers is left to the discretion of the editors. The editors pursue timely recension of all manuscripts and promptly respond to authors’ questions concerning peer-view process of their manuscript.

  • The editors respect confidential nature of mutually anonymous peer-view process. The editors and their co-workers must not provide information about the manuscript and its peer-view process to anyone except the reviewers, the author(s) of the manuscript and, if necessary, other members of the newsroom and the editorial board. The editorial staff ensures anonymity of manuscripts and peer-view process: removes references to the author's work from the manuscript, and all other information in the manuscript and its review, which can identify the authors or reviewers. The editors must not disclose information that could reveal the author(s) to the reviewer (reviewers), or vice versa. The identity of the reviewers may be revealed only if reviewers themselves specifically agree to expose their identity. The executive editor archives all manuscripts, reports and other materials relating to the peer-view process for possible feedback.

  • The editors must not assess a manuscript, which would present actual or potential conflict of interest.

  • The editors have an obligation to the author(s) to adequately justify a decision regarding their manuscript. The editors send the authors an editorial statement that in addition to opinions and comments of the reviewers also contains suggestions and recommendations on how to proceed in the next revision of the text. Manuscripts that clearly do not meet the basic requirements for the type of an article may be rejected by the editorial staff without further explanation.

  • Responsibility for acceptance or rejection of manuscripts bears the editorial staffs, who respect recommendations of the reviewers as a team. The editors retroactively inform reviewers of the results of the review process and of the final decision on acceptance or rejection of the manuscript.


  • Peer-view procedure of the journal The Science for Population Protection is mutually anonymous. Reviewers must reject report elaboration of the manuscript, which represents an actual or potential conflict of interest. If the reviewer knows the identity of the author or co-author of the manuscript, he/she informs the editorial staff. Reviewers respect confidential nature of the peer-view process; they do not pass information regarding manuscript to third parties.

  • Reviewers evaluate manuscripts impartially, objectively, fairly and professionally. If they have any doubts about the quality of the manuscript, they treat authors frankly. Reviewers are expected to satisfactorily justify their recommendations to the editors and to provide adequate quantities of comments and recommendations where appropriate. Reviewers compile report on time according to an agreed date. If reviewers are unable to meet the deadline, they contact the editorial office as soon as possible. The editors then decide whether to extend the deadline, or whether they shall seek another reviewer.