About the Journal

Aim and subject of the journal

Each subsequent issue of Ars Educandi focuses on the title category, to which the invited authors can relate their research interests. The inclusion of published articles by common title is to open the possibility of communication between all disciplines of education sciences. The thematic categories of the journal are so general and multi-context, that you can refer to them from different disciplines of pedagogy. At the same time, they are an expression of a specific matter that can combine these diverse disciplines. The thematic part is supplemented with the Reviews - Inspirations - Polemics section, which is intended to help in dealing with the abundance of the domestic and foreign publishing market. Without limiting the authors to the classic form of the review, we encourage you to bring inspiring and / or questionable positions. Ars Educandi, apart from regularly published annals, also include monographs.

 

Open Access Policy

The publication is available on the Internet for everyone. Access is free and is not limited by technical means. The recipient of a publication who has obtained access to it in this way can not use it in a wider scope than it results from the legally defined allowed use.

The journal is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

 

Ethical guidelines for the journal “Ars Educandi”

With regard to good practice and ethical standards in publishing, the Editorial Board of “Ars Educandi” adheres to the guidelines of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) (https://publicationethics.org). 

The standards set out below concern the ethical principles applicable to the four parties involved in the publication process of academic texts – authors, editors, reviewers and publishers – at every stage of publication in the journal, as well as to readers once the publication process is complete.

All articles submitted for publication in the journal *Ars Educandi* are assessed for compliance with ethical principles, rigour, scientific value and usefulness.

Guidelines for members of the editorial board

Standards regulating the work of the editorial board

The editorial board continuously monitors compliance with the standards and ethical principles relating to the publication of academic texts and takes action against practices that do not comply with accepted standards.

Manuscripts submitted for publication are assessed on their merits. Factors such as the authors’ race, gender, identity, age, religion, background, ethnic or national origin, citizenship or political beliefs do not influence the assessment of articles.

The editorial team selects the articles, materials and content intended for publication in the journal, taking into account the following factors: the scientific significance of the work, its originality, clarity and alignment with the journal’s subject scope.

Manuscripts submitted for editorial processing are subject to confidentiality; the editorial team does not disclose information regarding materials submitted for publication to unauthorised persons. The only parties authorised to have access to this information are: the authors themselves, selected reviewers, authorised editors and the publisher. In justified cases (suspected plagiarism or other academic misconduct), the editorial board has the right to deviate from this rule in accordance with the procedure set out in the COPE Code of Conduct.

Unpublished articles may not be used by members of the editorial team or any other persons involved in the publication process without the authors’ written consent.

Members of the editorial team are obliged to make every effort to uphold the integrity of the scientific rigour of published works. To this end, they may make appropriate corrections and, in the event of suspected dishonest practices (plagiarism, falsification of research results), decide to withdraw the text from publication.

The editorial team is always prepared, where necessary, to publish relevant corrections, clarifications or apologies.

2) Procedure for retracting a paper

The editorial team may consider retracting a paper if:

- there is clear evidence of a lack of reliability in the research results, fabrication of data, or the occurrence of unintentional errors (e.g. calculation errors, methodological errors);

- the research results have previously been published elsewhere;

- the paper shows signs of plagiarism, self-plagiarism or breaches ethical principles.

A notice of retraction should be treated as equivalent to the retraction of the article. This notice should include information about the person(s) involved (the header should contain at least the title and surname(s) of the author(s) of the work) and the reasons (in order to distinguish between unintentional errors and deliberate misconduct) for the retraction. Withdrawn texts are not removed from the published version of the journal, but the fact of their withdrawal will be clearly indicated.

3) Preventing ghostwriting and guest authorship

The editorial board of ‘Ars Educandi’, in the interests of the academic integrity of published texts, screens submitted articles in accordance with the principles prohibiting ghostwriting and guest authorship. Ghostwriting occurs when someone has made a significant contribution to the creation of a publication without disclosing their involvement as one of the authors or without their role being acknowledged in the acknowledgements section of the publication. Guest authorship (honorary authorship) occurs when an author’s contribution is negligible or non-existent, yet they are listed as an author or co-author of the publication.

To counteract instances of ghostwriting and guest authorship, the journal’s editorial board has introduced the following procedures: The editorial board documents all instances of scientific misconduct, particularly breaches and violations of the ethical principles applicable in science. As part of its efforts to counter such practices, it will also inform the relevant authorities (including the institution represented by the author and other editorial teams) of any breaches of the established rules.

1. The editorial board requires authors to disclose the contributions of individual authors to the publication (specifying their affiliations and contributions, i.e. information on who is responsible for the concept, assumptions, methods and protocol used in the preparation of the publication), with the primary responsibility resting with the author submitting the manuscript.
2. Ghostwriting and guest authorship constitute academic misconduct, and any detected cases will be exposed, including notification of the relevant bodies (institutions employing the authors, scientific societies, associations of scientific editors, etc.).
3. The editorial board requires information on the sources of funding for the publication, as well as the contribution of research institutions, associations and other entities (financial disclosure).

Guidelines for Authors

An author of an article is defined as a person who has made a significant contribution either to the conception of the work or to the analysis and interpretation of the data; who has drafted the original version of the text or critically reviewed it, making a significant intellectual contribution; and who has decided on the final form of the text as it is to be published.

Authors of texts submitted for publication are obliged to provide an accurate description of the research carried out and an objective interpretation of the results. Manuscripts should contain sufficient information to enable the identification of data sources and the replication of the research. The inaccurate or unethical presentation and interpretation of data and research results is unacceptable and may result in the retraction of the manuscript.

Authors may submit for publication only their own original manuscripts. Where they draw on the research and/or words of others, they should use appropriate citations to indicate the source. Plagiarism or fabrication of data is unacceptable.

Authors may be asked to provide raw research data; they should therefore be prepared to make such data available, including for some time after the paper has been published.

Republishing a previously published paper or part thereof (so-called self-plagiarism), or attempting to republish texts describing the same research in similar wording in more than one journal, will be regarded as unethical conduct. Cases of the same work being submitted to more than one journal will be reported to the relevant authorities and the editorial boards of other journals representing the author’s discipline.

Cases where manuscripts are withdrawn after the editorial process has begun, is ongoing, is at an advanced stage, or has been completed and the manuscript is due to go to press will be closely monitored by the editorial team. The withdrawal of such a manuscript and its submission to another editorial board for publication with the aim of optimising or increasing the impact factor or the points-based bonus resulting from ministerial regulations will be treated as an unethical act undermining the efforts made by members of the editorial board and others involved in the publishing process. All editorial boards of journals representing the discipline declared by the author will be informed of any such instances.

All persons listed in the submitted manuscript as authors or co-authors should have made a genuinely significant contribution to the creation of the text (concept, idea, planning, execution, interpretation of results). Furthermore, all persons who have influenced the final form of the paper should be listed as co-authors. The responsibility for ensuring that those who have contributed to the article accept its final form lies with the author submitting the text for publication.

Authors of submitted works are required to always cite the publications they have used in the preparation of the article.

If the author(s) discover significant errors or inaccuracies in their texts, they are obliged to notify the journal’s editorial board immediately so that the text can be withdrawn, an erratum issued, or the errors corrected.

In order to ensure the high quality of published texts and maintain professional standards, texts submitted to ‘Ars Educandi’ are subjected to a Similarity Check procedure designed to detect attempts to publish non-original texts.

 

Procedure for handling reports of suspected copyright infringement (e.g. plagiarism or unauthorised reprinting). Procedure:

Preliminary verification and preservation of evidence

The editorial team acknowledges receipt of the report and examines the extent of the alleged repetitions (often using anti-plagiarism systems). The complainant is asked to provide specific evidence and to indicate the original sources.

Requesting an explanation from the author

The editor-in-chief contacts the author (or authors) of the article in question, presenting the evidence and allegations in a neutral manner, and asks for a written response to the matter within a specified timeframe. 

Assessment of the explanation and decision-making:

• No infringement / minor errors: If the explanations are satisfactory or the matter concerns, for example, an unintentional omission of a footnote in a short passage, the editorial team may decide to publish an erratum or correction.
• Confirmed plagiarism: In the event of a flagrant copyright infringement, the journal decides towithdraw the article for the duration of the proceedings.

 Notifying institutions and other parties

In the event of a confirmed and serious infringement, the editorial board may notify the authors’ employing institution (e.g. a university) and the editors of other journals in which the authors also publish.

Archiving of decisions and feedback

The final decision and relevant communications are published on the journal’s website and forwarded to the person who submitted the report.

Rules concerning reviewers

Standards governing the work of reviewers

Reviewers participate in the work of the editorial board and influence the decisions taken by the editorial board. They may also, in consultation with the authors, influence the final form and refinement of the published works. Their role is advisory.

To review a manuscript, the editorial board invites individuals who are most competent in the subject area or issue addressed in the article. This is intended to ensure the most comprehensive and appropriate substantive assessment of the content.

Reviewers are required to submit their reviews by a pre-agreed deadline. If, for valid reasons, they are unable to meet the deadline or undertake the review, they must immediately inform a representative of the editorial team of this situation.

All works under review are confidential, which means that their disclosure to third parties is not permitted (except to authorised persons).

The identities of the parties involved are not disclosed to reviewers or to the authors themselves. In justified cases, where there is a suspicion of unethical conduct on the part of either party, this rule is waived only after the procedures set out by COPE regulations for the respective stages of the investigation have been completed and exhausted.

Reviews should be objective in nature. Personal criticism of the authors is considered inappropriate. All of the reviewer’s observations should be properly substantiated.

Where necessary, reviewers should identify relevant works not cited by the author. Any significant similarities to other works should also be identified and reported to the editorial team.

Conflict of interest

A conflict of interest arises when an author (or the organisation they represent), a reviewer or an editor is involved in financial, institutional or personal relationships that inappropriately influence, or may influence, their actions. Other, related terms for this phenomenon include: conflict of obligations and conflict of loyalty. Its potential impact on scientific judgement ranges from negligible to very significant. A conflict of interest may also arise even when the person concerned is unaware of it. The most obvious examples of conflict of interest relate to financial relationships, such as employment, receiving remuneration, providing paid consultancy services and expert opinions, grant applications and so on. Situations of this kind also carry the greatest risk of undermining the credibility of the journal, the authors, and even the scientific research itself. However, sources of conflict of interest may also include personal relationships, scientific rivalry, or political or intellectual passions.

Reviewers must not use the works under review for their own personal needs or gain.

Any author, reviewer or member of the editorial board who has a conflict of interest of any kind is obliged to report this to the editor-in-chief of the journal.

Rules concerning the publisher

In cases of alleged or proven scientific misconduct, dishonest publication or plagiarism, the publisher, in close cooperation with the journal’s editorial board, shall take all appropriate measures to clarify the situation and make corrections to the article in question. This includes the prompt publication of an erratum or, where justified, the full retraction of the paper from the journal.

The handling of such cases will comply with the procedures set out in the COPE Code.

Readers

In cases of alleged or confirmed scientific misconduct, readers shall inform the editorial team of the nature of their suspicions or concerns. The editorial team shall immediately take steps to clarify the matter, acting in accordance with the procedures adopted under the regulations and the COPE Code

Once the investigation has been completed, the editorial team informs the reader of the findings and, if necessary, makes the findings public.

 

Guidelines for the use of AI-based tools and technologies in the journal ‘Ars Educandi’

Authorship

In accordance with the position of COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics), we do not treat AI tools as authors or co-authors of submitted manuscripts. Full responsibility for the content of the article lies with the authors, who approve the final version of the text. Submission of the text to the editorial team constitutes an unequivocal declaration by the authors that the submitted manuscript is an original work, has not been previously published, and does not infringe the rights of third parties.

Based on the recommendations of the STM (International Association of Scientific, Technical and Medical Publishers), the Editorial Board considers it unacceptable to present any content generated by AI tools as if it were the result of the authors’ own research.

The Editorial Board accepts the use by authors of tools designed to proofread the language of submitted manuscripts. The Editorial Board also permits the use of AI tools (e.g. Google Translate, DeepL, ChatGPT, Copilot) to assist in translating the authors’ original work into the target language within the manuscript; however, the authors remain fully responsible for the final editing of the text prepared in this way. The use of AI-assisted tools must be disclosed in a statement, the text of which will be included in a footnote beneath the article title. It is not necessary to submit a statement if only automated tools for editing and proofreading (such as the built-in editing tools in Microsoft 365) are used.

Statement

The peer review process 

Reviewers bear full responsibility for the content of their reviews; therefore, they must not use any AI-assisted tools or technologies to aid them in formulating their opinions on the manuscripts entrusted to them, as there is a risk that such technologies may generate conclusions that are erroneous, incomplete or biased with regard to the text under review. The use of automated tools for editing and proofreading is permitted.

Reviewers must not submit the manuscript entrusted to them, or any part thereof, to AI-based tools, as this may lead to a breach of confidentiality and the Authors’ intellectual property rights.