Publication ethics

Legal Theory (Pravna Misal) (ISSN 1310-7348) is a peer-reviewed journal published on a quarterly basis by the Institute for the State and the Law, Bulgarian Academy of Sciences.

All participants in the publication process of the journal have responsibilities to meet expected ethical standards at all stages in their involvement from submission to publication of an article. Legal Theory follows the COPE Code of Conduct and Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors and the Code of Conduct for Journal Publishers), uploaded on https://publicationethics.org/resources/guidelines and https://www.elsevier.com/editors/perk . A summary of the journal’s key expectations of editors, peer-reviewers, and authors is included below but a reference to the two documents listed above should be made for full details. The rules concern ethical issues such as: equal treatment of all articles and authors, objectivity of reviewers, originality and plagiarism, confidentiality, fraudulent citation and data, possible conflict of interest.

DUTIES OF THE EDITORIAL BOARD 
The Editorial Board of Legal Theory consists of experts in the field of law with well-established prestige. The Editor-in-Chief provides full names and affiliations of the members of the Editorial Board as well as updated contact information for the editorial office on the journal’s webpage. In addition to general duties, such as constantly improving the quality and integrity of the journal, the editors also have the following responsibilities:

Fair play and editorial independence

The Editorial Board assesses the submitted articles on the ground of their academic merit (importance, originality, study’s validity, clarity) and its relevance to the journal’s scope irrespective of authors’ race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, ethnic origin, citizenship, religious belief, political philosophy or institutional affiliation. The Editorial Board has full authority over the entire editorial content of the journal and the timing of publication of that content. Decisions to edit and publish are not determined by the policies of governments or any other agencies outside of the journal itself.

Decision for publishing

The Editorial Board ensures that all submitted manuscripts which are considered for publication undergo peer-review by experts in the field. The publication decisions are made on the ground of the reviews received in which the validation of the work in question and its importance to researchers and readers is made. The Editorial Board is responsible for deciding which of the manuscripts submitted to the journal should be published. The members of the board may confer with other editors or reviewers in making this decision. The editors may be guided by the policies of the journal’s Editorial Board and constrained by such legal requirements as shall then be in force regarding libel, copyright infringement and plagiarism.

Confidentiality

The Editorial Board 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.

Disclosure and conflicts of interest

Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in members of the Editorial Board’s own research without the express written consent of the author. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage. Members of the Editorial Board should recuse themselves from considering manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or (possibly) institutions connected to the papers. Editors should require all contributors to disclose relevant competing interests and publish corrections if competing interests are revealed after publication.

Involvement and cooperation in investigations

The publisher Institute for the State and the Law, Bulgarian Academy of Sciences should take reasonably responsive measures when ethical complaints have been presented concerning a submitted manuscript or published paper, in conjunction with the Editorial Board and the publisher. Such measures will generally include contacting the author of the manuscript or paper and giving due consideration of the respective complaint or claims made, but may also include further communications to the relevant institutions and research bodies, and if the complaint is upheld, the publication of a correction, retraction, or other relevant measures, as may be relevant. Every reported act of unethical publishing behaviour must be looked into, even if it is discovered years after publication.

OBLIGATIONS OF REVIEWERS

Contribution to editorial’s board decisions

Peer reviews assist the Editorial Board in making editorial decisions and through the editorial communications with the author may also assist the author in improving the submitted manuscript. Peer reviews are an essential component of formal scholarly communication, and lie at the heart of the scientific method. The Editorial Board of Legal Theory also shares the view of many that all scholars who wish to contribute to publications have an obligation to do a fair share of reviewing.

Promptness
Any selected reviewer who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should immediately notify the Editorial Board and decline the invitation to review so that alternative reviewers can be contacted.

Confidentiality
Any manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. They must not be shown to or discussed with others except as authorized by the Editor-in-Chief (who would only do so under exceptional and specific circumstances). This applies also to invited reviewers who decline the review invitation.

Standards of objectivity

Reviews should be conducted objectively. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate. Reviewers should express their views clearly with supporting arguments.

Acknowledgement of sources

Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors. Any statement that an observation, derivation, or argument had been previously reported should be accompanied by the relevant citation. A reviewer should also notify the Editorial Board of any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published paper of which they have personal knowledge.

Disclosure and conflict of interest

Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in reviewers own research without the express written consent of the author. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage. Reviewers should not consider manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers.

DUTIES OF AUTHORS

Publication is free

Authors pay neither submission nor publication fee.

Reporting standards

Authors of articles reporting original research should present an accurate account of the work performed as well as an objective discussion of its significance. Underlying data should be represented accurately in the paper. A paper should contain sufficient details and references to permit others to replicate the work. Review articles should also be accurate and objective, and along with editorial opinion’s works should be clearly identified as such.Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behaviour and are unacceptable.

Data access and retention

Authors may be asked to provide the raw data of their study together with the manuscript for editorial review and should be prepared to provide public access to such data, if practicable. In any event, authors should ensure accessibility of such data to other competent professionals for at least 10 years after publication, provided that the confidentiality of the participants can be protected and legal rights concerning proprietary data do not preclude their release.

Originality and plagiarism

The authors should ensure that they have written and submit only entirely original works, and, if the authors have used the work and/or words of others that this has been appropriately cited or quoted. Plagiarism takes many forms, from “passing off” another’s paper as the author’s own paper, to copying or paraphrasing substantial parts of another’s paper (without attribution), to claiming as own results from research conducted by others. Plagiarism in all its forms constitutes unethical publishing behaviour and is unacceptable.

Multiple, duplicate, redundant or concurrent submission/publication

As a rule, papers describing essentially the same research should not be submitted or published in more than one journal or primary publication. Submission of a manuscript concurrently to more than one journal is unethical publishing behaviour and is unacceptable. Hence, authors should not submit for consideration a manuscript that has already been published in another journal. The Editorial Board of Legal Theory must have given explicitly their approval to the author in case of secondary publication, which must reflect the same data and interpretation of the primary document. The primary reference must be cited in the secondary publication.

Acknowledgement of sources

Authors should ensure that they have properly acknowledged the work of others, and should also cite publications that have been influential in determining the nature of the reported work. Information obtained privately (from conversation, correspondence or discussion with third parties) must not be used or reported without explicit, written permission from the source. Authors should not use information obtained in the course of providing confidential services, such as refereeing manuscripts or grant applications, unless they have obtained the explicit written permission of the author(s) of the work involved in these services.

Authorship of the manuscript

Authorship should be limited to those who have made a significant contribution to the conception, design, execution, or interpretation of the reported study. All those who have made significant contributions should be listed as co-authors. Where there are others who have participated in certain substantive aspects of the research project, they should be acknowledged or listed as contributors. The corresponding author should ensure that all appropriate co-authors and no inappropriate co-authors are included in the paper, and that all co-authors have seen and approved the final version of the paper and have agreed to its submission for publication.

Disclosure and conflicts of interest

All authors should disclose in their manuscript any financial or other substantive conflict of interest that might be construed to influence the results or interpretation of their manuscript. All sources of financial support for the project should be disclosed. Examples of potential conflicts of interest which should be disclosed include employment, consultancies, stock ownership, honoraria, paid expert testimony, patent applications/registrations, and grants or other funding. Potential conflicts of interest should be disclosed at the earliest stage possible.

Peer review

Authors are obliged to participate in the peer review process and cooperate fully by responding promptly to editors’ requests for raw data, clarifications, proof of ethics approval, and copyright permissions. In the case of a first decision of “revisions necessary”, authors should respond to the reviewers’ comments systematically, point by point, and in a timely manner, revising and re-submitting their manuscript to the journal by the deadline given.

Fundamental errors in published works

When an author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in his/her own published work, it is the author’s obligation to promptly notify the journal Editorial Board or publisher and cooperate with them to retract or correct the paper. If the editor or the publisher learns from a third party that a published work contains a significant error, it is the obligation of the author to promptly retract or correct the paper or provide evidence to the editor of the correctness of the original paper.

PUBLISHER’S OBLIGATIONS

The publisher guarantees that advertising, reprinting or other commercial activities do not have an impact on editorial decisions. The publisher is ready to publish any corrections, clarifications, retractions and apologies when needed. The publisher cooperates for communicating with other journals and/or publishers if this improves publication activity. The publisher cooperates with other publishing houses and organizations in setting standards for publication ethics.

PROCEDURES FOR DEALING WITH UNETHICAL BEHAVIOUR

Dealing with possible misconduct:

Editors have a duty to act if they suspect any misconduct or if a claim of misconduct has been reported by anyone. This duty applies to both published and unpublished article. Editors should not simply reject an article that raise concerns about possible misconduct. Editors are ethically obliged to pursue alleged cases.

Investigation

Whoever informs the editors of misconduct or unethical behaviour should provide sufficient information and evidence to initiate an investigation. Editors must take all allegations seriously and treat them in the same way, until a successful decision or conclusion is reached. Editors should first seek a response from those suspected of misconduct. If the editors are not satisfied with the response, they should ask the relevant employers, or institution, or some appropriate body to investigate. Editors should make all reasonable efforts to ensure that a proper investigation into alleged misconduct is conducted. If this does not happen, editors should make all reasonable attempts to persist in obtaining a resolution to the problem.

The editors will take reasonably responsive measures when ethical complaints have been presented concerning a submitted manuscript or published paper. Such measures will generally include contacting the author of the manuscript or paper and giving due consideration of the respective complaint or claims made, but may also include further communications to the relevant institutions and research bodies, depending on the misconduct seriousness.

Minor misconduct might be dealt with without the need to consult more widely. In any event, the author should be given the opportunity to respond to any allegations.

Serious misconduct might require application of one or more of the following measures:

• - Informing or educating the author or reviewer where there appears to be a misunderstanding or misapplication of acceptable standards.
• - Publication of a formal notice detailing the misconduct.
• - A formal letter to the head of the author’s or reviewer’s department or funding agency.
• - Formal retraction or withdrawal of a publication from the journal, in conjunction with informing the head of the author or reviewer’s department
• - Imposition of a formal embargo on contributions from an individual for a defined period.
• - Reporting the case and outcome to a professional organisation or higher authority for further investigation and action

COPYRIGHT AND ACCESS

Legal Theory is a subscription-based journal. Authors transfer copyright to the publisher the Institute for the State and the Law, Bulgarian Academy of Sciences. The publisher is granted the exclusive right to publish and distribute a submitted manuscript and the authority to enforce the rights in the manuscript, on behalf of an author, against third parties, for example in the case of plagiarism or copyright infringement. The journal is also available to readers in the electronic library of the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences with its abbreviation.