The Journal

Publication Ethics Code

The Criminology, Victimology, and Security Journal (RCVS) is a peer-reviewed, open-access scientific journal that, with reference to its Ethics Code, adheres to the Codes of Conduct established by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

This is a set of minimum ethical conduct standards to which all parties involved in the publication of this journal (authors, editors, and referees) must adhere.


Author Responsibilities

1) The article submitted to the Journal must be entirely original and must accurately cite the sources and contributions mentioned or used in the proposed text.
2) Authors are obliged not to submit the same manuscript simultaneously to multiple editorial outlets.
3) Authors must provide detailed information on any funding sources for the research and/or project from which the article originates.
4) If an author identifies a significant error or inaccuracy in their text, they must promptly inform the editorial office and provide all necessary information to enable the timely indication of required corrections.
5) Authors are responsible for protecting the privacy, dignity, and anonymity of participants in the research from which the article submitted to the Journal originates.
6) Authors must explicitly acknowledge the contributions of all individuals who have significantly participated in the research, even if only in certain phases.
7) It is appreciated if scholars submitting an article for publication in the Journal are willing to accept a subsequent invitation to serve as a referee.


Editor Responsibilities

1) The Editor-in-Chief, the Scientific Committee Coordinator, and the Editorial Board Coordinator are responsible for selecting articles for publication from all those submitted to the Journal. They commit to publishing corrections, clarifications, retractions, and apologies when necessary. They actively collaborate with the Scientific Committee members to enhance the Journal’s quality.
2) The Editor-in-Chief, the Scientific Committee Coordinator, and the Editorial Board Coordinator select articles for publication based on their content, without discrimination based on race, gender, sexual orientation, religion, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political beliefs of the authors.
3) The Editor-in-Chief, the Scientific Committee Coordinator, and the Editorial Board must perform their roles without personal or ideological biases and without favoritism.
4) For the evaluation of submitted articles, the Journal follows a double-blind review process, in which authors remain anonymous to referees and vice versa.
5) The Editor-in-Chief, the Scientific Committee Coordinator, and the Editorial Board Coordinator are responsible for providing authors with explanations regarding the editorial decisions made about their texts.
6) The Editor-in-Chief, the Scientific Committee Coordinator, and the Editorial Board are obliged not to disclose information about submitted contributions to anyone except referees, potential referees, and the authors themselves.
7) The Editor-in-Chief, the Scientific Committee Coordinator, and the Editorial Board must not use the content of a submitted article for their own research without the explicit consent of the author.
8) The Editor-in-Chief, the Scientific Committee Coordinator, and the Editorial Board Coordinator are obliged to provide new members of the Scientific Committee and Editorial Board with guidelines on their roles in the Journal and to keep all staff members updated on new policies and editorial developments.


Referee Responsibilities

1) Through the peer-review process, the referee collaborates with the editorial office to make decisions on submitted articles and, through communications mediated by the editorial office, is obliged to suggest modifications to authors to improve their contributions.
2) Referees must conduct evaluations objectively and impartially and are therefore required to provide adequate justification for their judgments.
3) Referees are obliged to maintain confidentiality regarding the submitted contribution and the details of the evaluation. Referees may discuss the content of articles only with the editorial office or individuals authorized by it. Confidential information or other indications obtained during the evaluation process cannot be used for personal purposes.
4) Referees are required to promptly inform the editorial office if they suspect they have identified the author of the submitted article.
5) Referees undertake to promptly notify the editorial office of any inability to complete the evaluation within the required timeframe.
6) Referees must also promptly inform the editorial office if they believe they lack the necessary expertise to evaluate the submitted contribution.
7) Referees are obliged to report to the editorial office any substantial similarities or overlaps between the document under review and other works known to them.