Filozofia
Journal for Philosophy

Code of Ethics of the Journal Filozofia

The publication ethics of the journal Filozofia is based on the Code of Ethics of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), available on-line at www.publicationethics.org, and on the examples of good praxis in the Slovak and international academic environment (for instance the rules for the publication ethics of such journals as ACTA FACULTATIS IURIDICAE UNIVERSITATIS COMENIANAE and The Code of Ethics of ArteActa Journal – available at: https://afi.flaw.uniba.sk/index.php/AFI/ethics;
https://www.arteacta.cz/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/eticky-kodex-aa.pdf.

The Code of Ethics of the Journal Filozofia respects the Code of Ethics of the Slovak Academy of Sciences, and it sets forth the ethical duties imposed on authors, members of the editorial office and the editorial board, reviewers, the editor-in-chief, and the publisher and shall be binding on all of them.

I. Responsibilities of Authors

  1. Only those who have significantly contributed to the conception, form, or realization of the presented text (an article, essay, discussion, review – henceforth an “article” or a “study”), are referred to as the authors/co-authors of an article (henceforth “author”). All co-authors must be clearly listed in the text of the manuscript at the moment of its submission to the journal. Requests for the possible addition of co-authors after the acceptance of the manuscript are subject to the approval of the journal’s editor-in-chief.
  2. As part of the formal requirements, the author must indicate his/her scientific/research department (affiliation), publicly available ORCID profile, and the source of financial support for the research, if any.
  3. Authors shall submit to the editorial office only their own original manuscripts, and they should be able to prove this fact if requested. All uses of sources created by other authors must be properly identified and accompanied by accurate and complete citations of these sources, as mentioned in the Guidelines for Authors of the journal Filozofia. Otherwise, this will be regarded as plagiarism, and the paper will be rejected before the review process begins. The author must also reference those publications which he/she has not used verbatim, but which have significantly influenced the form of the submitted manuscript. The author must also take into account the relevant and available works of other authors on the subject matter of the manuscript submitted and include them in the bibliography. Plagiarism, in any form, including self-plagiarism, constitutes unethical conduct and is deemed unacceptable by the editorial office.
  4. The use of AI tools to generate text (even partially) is considered a gross violation of the Code of Ethics and automatically leads to the rejection of the submission and the permanent closing of the author’s Filozofia account in the Open Journal System (OJS). Filozofia regularly checks submitted papers with anti-plagiarism software.
  5. Large Language Models (LLMs), such as ChatGPT, do not meet our criteria for authorship. Authorship involves accountability for the content, which LLMs cannot assume. When using an LLM, its use should be clearly documented in the Methods section of the manuscript (or in an appropriate alternative section if no Methods section is available). The use of an LLM (or other AI tools) for 'AI-assisted copy editing' does require a formal declaration, which should be part of the Title page document of the submission. This statement will be verified as part of standard control procedures. 'AI-assisted copy editing' refers to the use of AI to improve human-written texts in terms of readability, style, and accuracy, ensuring the removal of errors in grammar, spelling, punctuation, and tone. These AI-driven improvements may involve rewording or formatting changes, but do not include content generation or autonomous editorial work. Ultimately, the final version of the text must be under human accountability, with the authors confirming that the edits reflect their original work.
  6. Authors shall submit to the editorial office only a manuscript that has not yet been published, either in whole or in part. Authors agree not to submit their manuscripts to any other journal or any other publications during the entire publication process. By submitting their manuscripts to the journal, authors confirm that they are the only copyright holders; in the event that papers are prepared by a group of authors, the main author shall also duly indicate who all the other co-authors are, and he/she shall also demonstrate that all these co-authors have consented to submit the manuscript to the journal. Authors have to declare the financial support of the research (if relevant) and their professional affiliation. Infringement of copyright of other copyright holders constitutes unethical conduct and is deemed unacceptable by the editorial office and the editorial board.
  7. Authors shall employ argumentation based on true data, on objective foundations leading to objective findings, and on the application of rigorous methodology and scientific principles. Providing misleading or intentionally false statements constitutes unethical conduct and is deemed unacceptable by the editorial office and the editorial board.
  8. By submitting their manuscripts, authors consent to the publication process and particularly to the submission of such manuscripts to a double-blind peer review process or alternatively to another form of assessment of manuscripts by the editorial board. In the event that authors discover, after they have already submitted their manuscripts, that a serious mistake has been made or that there are other serious inaccuracies in their papers, they shall notify the editor-in-chief or the executive editor thereof. Authors shall cooperate with the executive editor in connection with the given matter and provide him/her with all necessary and expeditious assistance to ensure that such serious mistakes or inaccuracies are removed or with the assistance necessary to withdraw the paper from the publication process. Failure to communicate the fact that a serious mistake has been made or that there are other serious inaccuracies or failure to provide assistance shall constitute unethical conduct and is deemed unacceptable by the editorial office and the editorial board.
  9. By submitting their manuscripts, authors grant the editorial office the right to publish these manuscripts (both to print them and to publish them electronically) without being provided with any remuneration for such publishing in return. Authors also consent to have their papers entered into all databases which the journal is or will be a part of. Authors also consent to have their first name, surname, place of work, e-mail address, and ORCID ID provided in the section of the paper titled “contact information.”
  10. By submitting their manuscripts, authors agree to accept and respect the decisions of the editorial office concerning whether their submissions are accepted for publication or declined. The decisions of the editorial office are final.
  11. Authors are obliged to format their submissions in strict accordance with the guidelines of the journal. Submissions that fail to conform to the guidelines will not be considered for review.
  12. Authors submitting texts in English who are not native speakers, are obliged to have their texts checked by a native speaker before submission.

II. Responsibilities of Reviewers

  1. Peer-review is an essential and integral part of formal scholarly communication. The reviewers’ main task is to assist the editorial board and the editor-in-chief in deciding on whether a particular manuscript will be published or declined. A review shall help the author of a manuscript make changes to the manuscript and thus improve it. Reviewers shall not review manuscripts when a conflict of interest could arise stemming either from competition or from another relationship between a reviewer and author. Conflicts of interest in this case include, in particular, any benefit to the reviewer from the approval or rejection of the manuscript, any cooperation in a common project with the author in the past four years, a fundamental difference of opinion on the main theme of the reviewed manuscript, and so on. Reviewers shall notify the editor-in-chief or the executive editor of any conflict of interest which may arise.
  2. Reviewers shall ensure that all information contained in the manuscripts is kept confidential. The editorial office and the editorial board treat manuscripts as confidential, and reviewers shall therefore neither disclose them, nor talk about them to anybody, apart from the editor-in-chief and the executive editor. Significant information and ideas obtained during the continuing review process shall also be treated as confidential and shall thus not be used by reviewers to obtain any personal benefit.
  3. The editorial board is of the view that both authors whose papers have already been published in the journal Filozofia or who intend to submit their papers to the journal are likewise obliged to act as reviewers, in case they are invited by the editor-in-chief or by the executive editor to review a manuscript. In the event that the designated reviewer believes that he/she does not have the expertise necessary, or he/she assumes that he/she will not be able to prepare, for any reasons, such a review within the designated timeframe, the reviewer is obliged to notify the executive editor thereof and be excused from the review process.
  4. The review process is anonymous on both sides. Reviewers shall prepare their reviews in an objective way with respect to the intellectual content and scientific value of the manuscript, such as relevance, originality, conciseness, clarity of the text and the precision, persuasiveness and adequacy of the reasoning. Reviewers prepare the reviews (by filling out the review form) personally with a required structure and to the best of their knowledge and belief.
  5. Reviewers shall notify the editorial office without undue delay of any circumstances under which a particular manuscript shall be rejected. Reviewers are also obliged to notify the editors of suspected use of generative AI tools in the preparation of the manuscript. The review itself shall be prepared in an objective and decent way, based on the knowledge, theories and methods of the relevant discipline. Criticism of the author as a person is inadmissible. Reviewers shall express their opinions in a professional, clear and comprehensible way and shall adequately support them with relevant arguments. Reviewers shall indicate which data or information is cited incorrectly or is not cited at all. Reviewers shall notify the executive editor of any substantial similarity or overlap between the reviewed manuscript and any other paper or publication already published of which reviewers are aware. Reviewers shall support such notice with relevant documents.
  6. In the event that a manuscript is rejected, the non-published information contained in the submitted manuscript shall not be used in reviewers’ own research without an expressed written consent given by the respective author. Reviewers shall not use the information obtained during the preparation of a review either to their own benefit or to that of another person; moreover, they should not use this information to put the authors at a disadvantage or to discredit them.

III. Responsibilities of Editors and of the Editorial Board

  1. The editor-in-chief and the executive editor of Filozofia (henceforth "editors") aim to maintain the journal’s profile and reputation. The editors are responsible for the overall content and structure of the journal.
  2. The editors shall ensure that manuscripts are accepted on the basis of full adherence to the principles of equal treatment and may therefore not reject a manuscript on the grounds of sex, religion or belief, race, nationality or ethnicity, disability, age, sexual orientation, marital or family status, skin color, language, political or other views, national or social origin, property, family line or other status. The editors shall ensure that no conflict of interest arises in connection with the publication process.
  3. The editors are guided by the general policies of the publisher and must bear in mind the recommendations of the editorial board of the journal, and, at the same time, proceed in accordance with all valid legal regulations, especially copyright laws and the Civil Code. In their decisions the editors can consult with members of the editorial board, with reviewers, or with the publisher.
  4. The editors uphold procedures which guarantee the quality of the journal, and which are responsible for ensuring that the editorial decision-making is not in any way influenced by any potential commercial, personal, or institutional interests. The editors shall ensure that the review of manuscripts is unbiased and impartial and that manuscripts are assessed solely on the basis of their content. The editor-in-chief and the executive editor shall ensure that authors are provided with anonymous reviews and that they incorporate them into their manuscripts. The editors are authorized to request that all contributors as well as reviewers acknowledge any conflicts of interest and make public corrections if a conflict of interest becomes apparent after publication. The editor-in-chief has the right to accept or reject manuscripts or request revisions. Furthermore, he/she has the right temporarily to suspend or stop the editorial or publication process in case there is suspicion of (self-)plagiarism or other form of fraud or unethical conduct, including the finding of a high likelihood of the use of generative AI tools. In that case the editor-in-chief or (with his/her permission) the executive editor can ask the author for the explanation. However, if the results of the originality check show a high likelihood of using generative AI tools or the author fails to respond satisfactorily, then the editorial process, or respectively the publication process, shall be stopped and the manuscript will be rejected.
  5. In order to ensure that manuscripts and their contents are of a respectable scholarly quality, the editor-in-chief together with the executive editor shall ensure that an initial internal assessment of all submissions is carried out. Such initial internal assessments shall focus both on the formal requirements and whether the manuscripts fall under the scope of the journal. In the event that such an assessment is negative, the editor-in-chief shall ask the executive editor to notify the author of the given manuscript thereof without undue delay. In this case, the manuscript will not go to peer review. The editorial office’s decisions are final. The author is required to respect these decisions. If the editor-in-chief has doubts about the content of the manuscript being consistent with the focus of the journal, the executive editor will send the manuscript to one referee for an anonymous preliminary review. The result of the preliminary review is information provided by an expert that is intended solely for the editorial office and on which the editorial office relies when making further decisions regarding the manuscript. For the preliminary review, the manuscript is sent anonymized, and the editorial office also maintains the anonymity of the preliminary reviewer. If the result of the preliminary assessment is negative, the executive editor shall, at the discretion of the editor-in-chief, notify the author of the manuscript without undue delay. In that case, the manuscript will not be sent for peer review. If the result of the preliminary assessment is positive, the executive editor shall arrange for a standard anonymous peer review of the manuscript. Furthermore, the editor-in-chief and the executive editor check whether the publication ethics have been adhered to by the author of the manuscripts.
  6. The editors are not permitted to share any information about a submitted manuscript with anyone other than its author or authors, other members of the editorial staff, and reviewers (including potential ones). Editors are not allowed to use any information acquired from the unpublished manuscript, or other unpublished ideas acquired in the Review Process, for their own research purposes or that of anyone else, without an explicit written consent of the author. The editors provide information in the journal about corrections, explanations, or apologies related to the published article.
  7. Members of the editorial board must uphold, in the same fashion as editors, the principles of confidentiality and impartiality and avoid conflicts of interest. In case a manuscript is submitted by members of the editorial board (including the director of the Institute or the editor-in-chief), or in the case of their proposal of a monothematic issue of which they will be guest editors, the authors or the guest editors will not participate in the editorial and publishing process of their own contribution or monothematic issue, they will not know the identity of the reviewers, they will not participate in the decision-making of the editorial board on publishing or not publishing their work, nor will they in any way influence the decision, which is based on the results of the anonymous peer review process. In these cases, they must follow the Guidelines for Authors and the Code of Ethics governing the responsibilities of authors. This limitation of the rights of a member of the editorial board is in accordance with the Statute of the journal (Article 6, point 9). The executive editor in charge of the overall editorial process may not submit his/her own manuscript or act as a guest editor. The mutual anonymity during the peer review process, as well as its objectivity, is ensured through standard procedures within the OJS editorial system, in which the access rights of individual participants can be regulated. The conclusions of the peer review process, as well as its conduct, can be made available for scrutiny by competent authorities upon request in the event of disputes. All participants are bound by the journal’s Code of Ethics.

IV. Responsibilities of the Publisher

  1. The Institute of Philosophy of the Slovak Academy of Sciences, v. v. i., as the publisher of the journal Filozofia, in collaboration with the editors ensures that the roles of the publisher, editors, and the editorial board of the journal are clearly defined.
  2. The publisher guarantees the independence of the editors and the editorial board regarding their decisions and protection against commercial, political, institutional, or any other type of pressure.
  3. The publisher monitors the adherence to the procedures which ensure the quality of the journal (including the review process, the rules for accepting or rejecting an article) and safeguards against unethical behavior (conflicts of interest, violation of the rules of impartiality and confidentiality) and illegal transactions (violation of copyright laws and other intellectual property rights, violation of the Civil Code, etc.).
  4. The publisher follows procedures which ensure an objective evaluation of the journal in the public and in relevant citation databases (Arts & Humanities Citations Index, Current Contents Arts & Humanities, Additional Web of Science Indexes, Scopus and others).
  5. The publisher is not allowed to attempt dishonestly to influence the evaluation of the journal Filozofia by artificially increasing any measurable value (its scope, costs, on-line readership, and so on).
  6. The publisher is capable of transparently sustaining the means of financing the journal. The publisher, moreover, undertakes that it will fulfill all contractual commitments in relation to the preparation, publication, and distribution of the journal, into which it has entered.
  7. The publisher shall archive on a long-term basis the final published version of every issue of the journal.

V. Violation of the Code of Ethics

  1. Any violation of the responsibilities set out in this Code of Ethics shall be deemed a breach of the Code of Ethics.
  2. Plagiarism (including self-plagiarism), i.e., the literal or modified appropriation of another author’s ideas (or of one’s own already published text or parts thereof) and their use in a manuscript sent to the editorial office of the journal Filozofia without a clear indication of the original source, is considered to be a particularly serious violation of the Code of Ethics.
  3. The use of AI tools for generating text (even partial) claimed to be the author’s is considered a gross violation of the Code of Ethics and leads to the automatic rejection of the manuscript and the permanent cancellation of access to the author’s account in the OJS system of the journal Filozofia.
  4. There is a zero-tolerance policy on threats or inappropriate and unprofessional language, used either orally or in written correspondence, towards the editor-in-chief, the executive editor, the reviewers, or anyone on the Filozofia staff. Such behavior will result in the author’s Filozofia account in the OJS being permanently closed and no further submissions from the author will be considered.
  5. Submitting multiple articles or versions of the same article one after another is considered spamming, which is unacceptable. If the author disregards the instructions and warnings given by the editors, the author’s Filozofia account in the OJS will be permanently closed and no further submissions from the author will be considered.

VI. Procedure for dealing with breaches of the Code of Ethics

  1. A possible violation of the Code of Ethics of the journal Filozofia should be addressed to the editor-in-chief of the journal or to the statutory body of the publisher of the journal.
  2. In cases of complaints concerning possible violations of the Code of Ethics and complaints concerning the investigation of the correctness of the editorial procedure of the journal Filozofia, in disputed cases and in other ethical issues related to the review process and the editorial process, the publisher shall without undue delay create an ad hoc committee, consisting of at least three members of the editorial board, none of whom is a direct party to the dispute.
  3. The Commission, in cooperation with all parties involved, on the basis of the rules of procedure established by the statutory body of the publisher of the journal, decides on the further procedure by a majority vote, based on a discussion guided by the Code of Ethics of the Slovak Academy of Sciences and the recommendations of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). The decisions of the committee must be communicated in writing to all parties involved.
  4. In resolving disputed issues, the utmost care shall be taken to protect the privacy of all parties involved.

VII. Final Provisions

  1. The Code of Ethics of the journal Filozofia was discussed at the meeting of the Advisory Board of the journal on 25.9.2026 and approved by the Director of the Institute of Philosophy of the Slovak Academy of Sciences, v.v.i., in Bratislava on 05.10.2026.
  2. The Code of Ethics of the journal Filozofia comes into force on the day of its publication on the website of the Institute and the journal.