Detailed Editorial and Peer Review Procedures

General Principles of Publication Ethics

The journal Elementary Education in Theory and Practice adheres to the principles of publication ethics and good editorial practices in accordance with the guidelines of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).
All participants in the publishing process—authors, editors, and reviewers—are obliged to comply with the highest standards of academic integrity, transparency, and responsibility.

These procedures constitute a detailed elaboration of the principles of publication ethics and the peer‑review process applied in the journal Elementary Education in Theory and Practice.

Roles and Responsibilities of the Editorial Team

The editorial team of the journal Elementary Education in Theory and Practice is responsible for ensuring high ethical standards at all stages of the editorial and publishing process, in accordance with the COPE guidelines. The editorial team acts to safeguard academic integrity, transparency of procedures, and impartiality of editorial decisions.

Editor‑in‑Chief

The Editor‑in‑Chief bears ultimate responsibility for editorial policy and for all decisions regarding the publication of manuscripts submitted to the journal. In particular, the Editor‑in‑Chief is responsible for:

making final decisions on the acceptance or rejection of manuscripts;
supervising the peer‑review process;
addressing reports of conflicts of interest;
handling complaints and appeals;
initiating and coordinating investigation procedures in cases of suspected breaches of publication ethics;
making decisions regarding the application of Correction, Retraction, or Expression of Concern procedures, in accordance with COPE guidelines.

Ethics Editor

The Ethics Editor supports the editorial team in matters related to publication ethics and research ethics, acting in accordance with the COPE guidelines. The responsibilities of the Ethics Editor include:

advising the Editor‑in‑Chief on matters concerning publication ethics and research ethics;
analysing reports of potential ethical misconduct, including plagiarism, self‑plagiarism, conflicts of interest, and unethical research practices;
participating in editorial investigations regarding ethical concerns;
preparing recommendations concerning the application of Correction, Retraction, or Expression of Concern procedures;
reviewing complaints and appeals related to ethical issues.

The Ethics Editor does not make final editorial decisions regarding publication. Such decisions remain within the authority of the Editor‑in‑Chief.

Section Editor / Handling Editor

The Section Editor (Handling Editor) is responsible for:

preliminary assessment of submitted manuscripts with regard to their relevance to the journal’s scope and formal requirements;
organising and overseeing the peer‑review process;
communicating with authors and reviewers;
submitting recommendations regarding editorial decisions to the Editor‑in‑Chief.

Reviewers

Reviewers are required to:

conduct fair, objective, and confidential reviews of submitted manuscripts;
disclose any actual or potential conflicts of interest;
comply with the principles of reviewer ethics and confidentiality.

Authors

Authors bear full legal and ethical responsibility for the content of submitted and published articles, in particular for:

the originality of the manuscript and the integrity of the reported research;
compliance with principles of research ethics;
the reliability and accuracy of data;
proper disclosure of conflicts of interest and sources of funding;
ensuring that the manuscript complies with applicable ethical and legal standards.

Authors’ Responsibilities

Statements Submitted at the Manuscript Submission Stage

Before submitting a manuscript file, the author is required to review and submit electronically (via the OJS system):

a Copyright Statement;
a Statement on the Use of Artificial Intelligence Tools, including metadata and specification of authors’ contributions (Title page).

Authors bear full and final responsibility for the content of the article, including any text generated by or assisted with artificial intelligence tools.
Guidelines concerning the use of artificial intelligence (AI) tools are available in the Publication Ethics section.

Originality of the Manuscript

Submission of a manuscript via the OJS system implies that:

the reported research has not been previously published;
the manuscript is not under consideration by another journal at the same time;
the publication has been approved by all authors;
if accepted for publication, the article will not be published elsewhere, either in the same form or in English, without the written consent of the Publisher.

Articles whose content, in whole or in part, has previously been published or submitted for publication by the same author (self‑plagiarism) are not eligible for publication in the journal.

The submission of materials that infringe third‑party copyright or violate applicable laws is prohibited. Authors bear full ethical and legal responsibility for any breach of these principles or for misleading the editorial team or the Publisher.

Authors are required to submit an electronic declaration of originality at the manuscript submission stage.

Definition of Authorship

An author or co‑author of an article is a person who:

has made a significant contribution to the creation of the work;
assumes responsibility for the work performed and for its presentation in the publication.

Responsibilities of Authors and the Corresponding Author

The primary contact person (Corresponding Author) is responsible for:

communication with the editorial office throughout the entire publishing process;
approval of the final version of the article for publication;
acceptance of editorial and publisher’s proofreading corrections.

The Corresponding Author is required to ensure that they are authorised to represent all co‑authors in matters related to the publication, including supplementary materials, and to keep all co‑authors informed about the status of the manuscript at each stage of the editorial process.

Contributions of Individual Authors

In the case of articles authored by two or more individuals, the authors are required to submit an electronic statement (Title page) including:

the percentage contribution of each author;
a description of the scope of work, including in particular:

conception and design of the research;
data collection and conduct of research;
data analysis and interpretation;
formulation of conclusions;
manuscript drafting and editing;
other significant components of the research work.

Research and Project Funding

Authors are required to disclose all sources of funding for the research or projects to which the content of the article relates. The following information must be provided:

name of the funding institution;
name of the grant;
contract number and/or grant identifier.

In the case of commercial funding, authors are required to describe the role of the funder in the conduct of the research.

All sources of financial support must be indicated in:

the body of the article (after the references);
the publication metadata.

Acknowledgement of Contributions by Non‑Authors

Authors are required to ensure appropriate acknowledgement of contributions made by individuals who are not authors of the article by including relevant information in the published text (e.g. in a footnote).

This applies in particular to:

commissioned research;
data or information derived from unpublished theses or dissertations;
other significant forms of substantive, organisational, or technical support.

Conflicts of Interest

Authors are required to submit an electronic statement (via the OJS system) at the time of manuscript submission declaring the existence or absence of any conflicts of interest.

A conflict of interest is understood as any circumstances that:

may influence the authors’ objectivity;
may be perceived by third parties as influencing such objectivity,

including, in particular:

employment by or holding positions in institutions related to the subject matter of the article;
remunerated expert or advisory roles;
use of financial resources or infrastructure provided by specific institutions.

Research Involving Human Participants – Authors’ Obligations

All articles published in the journal Elementary Education in Theory and Practice that report findings from research involving human participants must be conducted in accordance with generally accepted ethical standards and applicable legal regulations.

Authors are required to submit a declaration stating that:

participation of research subjects was voluntary and based on informed consent;
participants were informed about the purpose of the research, its procedures, and their right to withdraw at any stage without any negative consequences;
the anonymity and confidentiality of participants’ data were ensured, and personal data were processed in accordance with applicable regulations;
the research was conducted in compliance with the principles of research ethics and applicable law.

In the case of research requiring approval from an ethics committee, authors are required to provide information confirming that such approval was obtained, including in particular the name of the ethics committee and the reference number of the decision.

If approval from an ethics committee was not required, authors should provide an appropriate justification for this circumstance.

Information regarding ethical approval and informed consent of participants must be clearly and explicitly stated in the body of the article.

Anti‑Plagiarism Procedures

Authors’ Obligations

Authors are required to:

submit only original works that do not infringe the copyright of third parties;
properly acknowledge all quotations, borrowings, data, illustrations, and research results derived from other sources;
disclose any previous publications that could be considered self‑plagiarism;
comply with the principles of academic integrity and publication ethics.

All forms of plagiarism, including self‑plagiarism, are unacceptable.

Editorial Responsibilities

The editorial office is required to:

conduct a preliminary anti‑plagiarism assessment of submitted manuscripts at the internal review stage;
refer manuscripts to external peer review in accordance with adopted standards;
use anti‑plagiarism detection software to verify the originality of submitted texts;
reject a manuscript if plagiarism is detected at any stage of the editorial process;
ensure the identifiability of publications by indexing the journal’s content in Crossref and assigning a Digital Object Identifier (DOI) to each article.

Procedures in Case of Violations

In cases of suspected breaches of ethical standards related to improper conduct of research or publication practices, the editorial office conducts an investigation procedure in accordance with applicable ethical guidelines. Where necessary, the editorial office reserves the right to contact authors’ affiliated institutions, research funding bodies, or relevant regulatory authorities.

If misconduct is confirmed, the editorial office undertakes appropriate actions, which may include correction of the text, publication of an erratum, or retraction of the article.

Anti‑Plagiarism Procedure

(section heading – to be completed if a step‑by‑step procedure is provided)

- suspicion of plagiarism
- suspicion of self-plagiarism

Procedure against data manipulation: suspected data manipulation

Procedure for authorship and co-authorship:
- adding an author before publication
- removing an author before publication

PEER‑REVIEW PROCESS

General Information

Scientific peer review constitutes an expert evaluation of a manuscript conducted by external specialists in the relevant field. Reviewers are not members of the journal’s editorial team.

The journal applies uniform standards of expert peer review to all submitted articles, regardless of the authors’ institutional affiliation or their previous publication history in the journal.

Each scholarly article is subject to a mandatory peer‑review procedure, which includes:

parametric assessment, and
qualitative assessment.

The journal applies a double‑blind peer‑review model, which means that:

the identity of the reviewer is not disclosed to the author;
the identity of the author is not disclosed to the reviewer;
the identities of both parties are known to the Handling Editor and the Editor‑in‑Chief.

Articles Submitted by Members of the Editorial Team

In the case of an article submitted by a member of the editorial team, the journal ensures full compliance with the principles of impartiality and independence of the publishing process.

An author who is a member of the editorial team is excluded from all stages of editorial handling and decision‑making related to their own submission, in particular from:

the selection of reviewers;
making editorial decisions.

The peer‑review process is conducted by another member of the editorial team or by the Editor‑in‑Chief and is based on external, double‑blind peer review carried out by independent reviewers from outside the author’s institution.

These principles are intended to prevent conflicts of interest and to ensure the integrity and transparency of the publication process.

Articles Submitted by Members of the Scientific Committee

In the case of an article submitted by a member of the journal’s Scientific Committee, procedures ensuring the impartiality and transparency of the publishing process are applied.

A Scientific Committee member who is the author of a submitted article does not participate in the editorial procedure or decision‑making process relating to their manuscript, in particular in:

the selection of reviewers;
making editorial decisions.

Such articles are subject to an independent, external, double‑blind peer‑review procedure, conducted by the editorial office with the participation of reviewers from outside the author’s institution.

Editorial Responsibilities

The editorial office is required to:

ensure fair and substantive peer review;
provide manuscripts to reviewers without author-identifying information (double‑blind peer review process), in accordance with the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers;
select reviewers employed at institutions other than those affiliated with the author(s) of the publication;
disclose any potential conflicts of interest arising from competition, collaboration, or other relationships or affiliations with any of the authors, institutions, or organisations related to manuscripts submitted for publication; in such cases, the editor should request co‑editors or other members of the editorial team to take responsibility for handling and reviewing the manuscript;
require all collaborators, including guest editors and handling editors, to disclose any significant competing interests and to publish corrections if conflicting interests are identified after publication; where necessary, other appropriate actions should be taken, such as retraction of the publication or publication of an editorial correction;
ensure that advertising, reprints, or other commercial revenues of the journal have no influence on editorial decisions.

Ethical Guidelines and Principles for Reviewers

The peer‑review process is overseen by the Handling Editor, in cooperation with the Editorial Secretary and the Editor‑in‑Chief or their deputy.

The first stage of the peer‑review procedure is an initial editorial assessment, which includes:

formal evaluation of the manuscript;
assessment of the manuscript’s compliance with the journal’s scope;
verification of the correctness of metadata;
anti‑plagiarism screening using the iThenticate system.

The outcome of this assessment is communicated to the author. Manuscripts that do not meet formal requirements may be rejected, with the possibility of resubmission.

Reviewers’ Obligations

Reviewers are required to:

possess appropriate subject‑matter competence and ethical qualifications and have no conflicts of interest with the author;
accept or decline the invitation to review via the OJS system.
complete the review within a period not exceeding four weeks and select a recommendation consistent with the content of the review;
prepare the review using the review form in OJS or a file compliant with the editorial guidelines;
maintain objectivity, a constructive tone, and professional language;
evaluate the quality and scientific rigor of the manuscript without extending its scope;
refrain from discriminating against authors on the basis of nationality, gender, beliefs, background, or commercial considerations;
promptly notify the editorial office of any conflicts of interest or lack of competence to evaluate the manuscript;
maintain confidentiality of the peer‑review process, including after publication of the article;
inform the editorial office of any suspected ethical misconduct.

After completing the review, the reviewer receives confirmation and is included in the annual list of reviewers published on the journal’s website.

Consideration of Reviews and Editorial Decision

The final decision regarding the publication of an article is made by the editorial board of the journal.

The editorial board reserves the right to reject a manuscript at any stage of the peer‑review process, in particular in the event of:

lack of compliance with the journal’s scope;
formal deficiencies;
a negative peer‑review recommendation;
a negative result of the anti‑plagiarism assessment.

In cases that are ambiguous or require additional deliberation, the final decision is made by the Editor‑in‑Chief.

Only research articles and review articles are subject to the peer‑review process. Editorials are not subject to peer review.

After receiving the reviewers’ comments, the author is required to respond by:

a) introducing revisions in a manner that enables their assessment by the editorial office (e.g. by highlighting changes in the text or using track‑changes mode), and
b) providing a response to the reviewers’ comments, including a substantiated scholarly justification for declining to implement certain suggested changes (submitted as a separate file).

The decision to accept a manuscript for publication is made after completion of the peer‑review process and reconciliation of the positions of the author, reviewers, and the editorial board.

Submission of a manuscript does not guarantee its acceptance for publication.

Each article includes information on the date of submission and the date of acceptance for publication. The peer‑review process is confidential, and its details are not made public.

Conflicts of Interest and Management of Potential Disputes

Conflict of Interest – Definition

A conflict of interest arises when relationships of an economic, professional, or personal nature exist between authors, reviewers, or members of the editorial team that may influence:

the development of research results;
the evaluation of a submitted manuscript;
the decision‑making process regarding the publication of an article in the journal Elementary Education in Theory and Practice.

A conflict of interest may result in particular from:

participation in joint research projects;
previous co‑authorship of publications;
professional, institutional, or political competition.

Any author, reviewer, or member of the editorial team in whom a conflict of interest exists is required to immediately disclose this fact to the Editor‑in‑Chief of the journal.

Authors’ Obligations Regarding Conflicts of Interest

Authors are required to:

submit an electronic declaration (via the OJS system) at the time of manuscript submission indicating the existence or absence of any conflicts of interest;
disclose all circumstances that may influence, or may be perceived by third parties as influencing, their objectivity, including in particular:

employment by or holding positions in institutions related to the subject matter of the research;
remunerated expert or advisory roles;
use of financial resources or infrastructure provided by specific institutions.

Procedure for Identifying Conflicts of Interest

In order to identify and prevent conflicts of interest in the journal Elementary Education in Theory and Practice, the following procedure is applied:

Reviewers are required to:

submit an electronic declaration of the absence of conflicts of interest in the OJS system before agreeing to conduct a review;
withdraw from the peer‑review process in the event that a conflict of interest is identified, resulting in particular from:

previous or ongoing collaboration with the author(s);
professional, personal, or other relationships that may affect the impartiality of the evaluation.

Management of Potential Disputes

Conflicts of Interest / Competing Interests

A conflict of interest arises when economic, professional, or personal relationships exist between authors, reviewers, or members of the editorial team that may influence the development of research results, the evaluation of a manuscript, or the decision‑making process regarding its publication in the journal Elementary Education in Theory and Practice.

Conflicts of interest may arise in particular from:

participation in joint research projects;
previous co‑authorship of publications;
professional or personal relationships;
professional or political competition.

Any author, reviewer, or member of the editorial team in whom a real or potential conflict of interest exists is required to immediately disclose this fact to the Editor‑in‑Chief of the journal.

Procedure for Identifying Conflicts of Interest

The journal Elementary Education in Theory and Practice applies a procedure for identifying conflicts of interest, according to which:

Reviewers are required to:

submit an electronic declaration of the absence of conflicts of interest in the OJS system before agreeing to conduct a review;
withdraw from the peer‑review process if a conflict of interest arises from competition, collaboration, or any other relationship with the author of the submitted manuscript.

Authors, editors, and reviewers are required to comply with principles of good practice in publication ethics. Fraud, concealment of conflicts of interest, or deliberately false, inaccurate, or misleading declarations are regarded as unethical conduct and are unacceptable.

Research Involving Human Participants and Ethical Disputes

In the case of articles based on research involving human participants, including children and individuals with limited decision‑making capacity, authors are required to strictly adhere to the principles of research ethics, in particular:

obtaining informed consent from research participants;
obtaining approval from an appropriate research ethics committee, where required.

Detailed principles of ethics for research involving human participants are specified in the “Publication Ethics” section on the journal’s website.

Authors bear full legal and ethical responsibility for the views, content, and research results presented in their articles. The Publisher and the editorial office do not bear legal responsibility for claims arising from the content of published works.

Procedures in the Event of Suspected Ethical Misconduct

In managing potential disputes involving authors and publications, the editorial office follows the guidelines of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

In the event of suspected breaches of research ethics or publication ethics, the editorial office conducts an investigation. Where necessary, the editorial office reserves the right to contact:

the institutions with which the authors are affiliated;
research funding bodies;
relevant regulatory authorities.

If misconduct is confirmed, the editorial office will take appropriate action, which may include:

correction of the article;
publication of an erratum;
retraction of the article.

Appeals and Complaints

Scope of the Procedure

The procedure applies to:

appeals against editorial decisions;
complaints concerning procedural irregularities (e.g. excessive delays in the peer‑review process);
complaints related to publication ethics.

Procedure for Handling Appeals and Complaints

Appeals and complaints are initially reviewed by the Editor‑in‑Chief and, where appropriate, by the Section Editor / Handling Editor responsible for the manuscript.

Complaints Concerning Scholarly Content (e.g. Rejection of a Manuscript)

The Editor‑in‑Chief and/or the Handling Editor reviews the authors’ arguments and decides whether:

the rejection decision should be upheld;
an additional independent peer review is required;
the appeal should be upheld.

Authors are informed of the decision, together with a justification where appropriate. Decisions regarding appeals are final. New manuscript submissions are given priority over appeals.

Complaints Concerning the Editorial Process

The Editor‑in‑Chief, together with the Handling Editor, examines the complaint. The complainant receives appropriate feedback, and the conclusions of the review may be used to improve editorial processes and publishing procedures.

Complaints Concerning Publication Ethics

In the case of complaints concerning the conduct of an author, reviewer, or researcher, the Editor‑in‑Chief or the Handling Editor proceeds in accordance with the guidelines of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and relevant publication ethics bodies. In complex cases, advice may be sought from the Publisher, independent experts, or legal counsel.

The complainant is informed of the decision taken.