Publication Ethics

The purpose of this Code of Ethics – in line with the the suggested points of COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics) and with the principles stipulated in the Code of Ethics of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences – is to ensure the purity of scientific public life and to lay down basic ethical rules in order to ensure the effective and high quality professional operation of the journal.

  1. This Code of Ethics applies to the members of the Editorial Board of Human Innovation Review, its authors, editors and all other stakeholders involved in its publication.
  2. Principles for the operation of the journal's editorial board:
    1. Ensuring professional quality.
    2. To uphold Catholic values.
    3. Impartial and objective judgement - in the selection of publications, authors and editors.
    4. Full respect of copyright rules.
    5. Detection of plagiarism or other abuses.
    6. Ensuring equal opportunities - without discrimination on grounds of sex, orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, nationality or political opinion.
    7. Confidentiality and proper handling of personal data.
  3. The members of the editorial board must keep confidential any information or unpublished material obtained in this capacity. They must act objectively and impartially in their work, taking into account only objective professional facts and the interests of the journal.
  4. The editorial board will be assisted by an editor appointed by the editorial board to make decisions on the publication. The reviewer evaluates the material received for review and makes recommendations for publication or rejection. The reviewer may also make suggestions to improve the scientific quality of the article. In the course of his/her work, the reviewer shall act in accordance with the principles applicable to the Editorial Board.
  5. The reviewer shall give his/her opinion objectively and factually, within the time limit set by the editorial board. If the reviewer realises that it is unforeseeable that he/she will be unable to meet the deadline, he/she must inform the Editorial Board immediately. The editor is entitled and obliged to refuse a request if he/she feels that he/she is unable to evaluate the material in accordance with these rules for reasons of professional competence, individual bias or any other reason. The proof-reader may not evaluate material if he/she has any personal or business conflict of interest with the authors or their institutions.
  6. The author must warrant that the work submitted for acceptance is his/her own work of authorship and that no third party has any right to it which would prevent or inhibit its publication. Authors must act in accordance with all applicable laws and professional practices when quoting, adapting or processing. If, after publication, the author discovers a significant error, inaccuracy or legal impediment to publication, he/she must immediately inform the Editorial Board and, if necessary, assist in the withdrawal of the publication.
  7. The publication must include the name of all persons who have made a substantial professional contribution as authors/co-authors. Contributors may include those who have participated in any way in the production of the publication, for example in the research leading to it. The names of authors, co-authors and contributors should be given only with their consent.
  8. If the publication is funded by a grant, the fact and the source of the grant must also be adequately disclosed.