1.1 Papers should be accompanied by a statement that the paper has not been published previously or submitted to another journal. Legal and other responsibility for incorrect preparation of a paper is assumed by all the Authors to equal extent which is confirmed by the author's signatures on the first page of the manuscript.
1.2 Materials taken from other sources must be accompanied by a written statement from both author and Publisher giving permission to the Journal for reproduction. Permission should be obtained in writing from at least one author of papers still in press, unpublished data and personal communications.
1.3 Only original submissions that are not under consideration by another periodical or publisher can be accepted.
1.4 All human and animal studies must have been approved by the investigators Institutional review board or local ethics committee.
1.5 Authors of clinical papers are obliged to ensure patients privacy rights. Only clinical or scientific data are permitted for publishing. The description of race, ethnicity or culture of a study subject should occur only when it is believed to be of strong influence on the psychological or medical condition in the study. When categorizing by race, ethnicity or culture, the names should be as illustrative as possible and reflect how these groups were assigned.
1.6 The Editors are accountable for everything published in their journals. They strive to meet the needs of readers and authors; strive to constantly improve their journal; have processes in place to assure the quality of the material they publish; champion freedom of expression; maintain the integrity of the academic record; preclude business needs from compromising intellectual and ethical standards; always be willing to publish corrections, clarifications, retractions and apologies when needed.
1.7 Relations with readers: The Editors ensure that all published reports and reviews of research have been reviewed by suitably qualified reviewers (including statistical review); that non-peer-reviewed sections of their journal are clearly identified; they adopt processes that encourage accuracy, completeness and clarity of research reporting including technical; edit and use of appropriate guidelines and checklists (Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association), continuously develop a transparency policy to encourage maximum disclosure about the provenance of non-research articles; adopte authorship or contributorship systems that promote good practice and discourage misconduct (e.g. ghost and guest authors); inform readers about steps taken to ensure that submissions from members of the journal’s staff or editorial board receive an objective and unbiased evaluation. Readers are informed about who has funded research or other scholarly work and whether the funders had any role in the research and its publication and, if so, what this was.
1. 8 Relations with authors: Editors’ decisions to accept or reject a paper for publication is based on the paper’s importance, originality and clarity, and the study’s validity and its relevance to the remit of the journal. Editors do not reverse decisions to accept submissions unless serious problems are identified with the submission. New editors do not overturn decisions to publish submissions made by the previous editor unless serious problems are identified. Editors review author instructions regularly and providing links to relevant guidelines (see 3.2); publish relevant competing interests for all contributors and publishing corrections if competing interests are revealed after publication; ensure that appropriate reviewers are selected for submissions (i.e. individuals who are able to judge the work and are free from disqualifying competing interests); respect requests from authors that an individual should not review their submission, if these are well- reasoned and practicable; be guided by the COPE flowcharts (http://publicationethics.org/flowcharts) in cases of suspected misconduct or disputed authorship; publish details of how they handle cases of suspected misconduct (e.g. see the COPE flowcharts).
1.9 Relations with editors: Editors provide guidance to reviewers on everything that is expected of them including the need to handle submitted material in confidence; require reviewers to disclose any potential competing interests before agreeing to review a submission; have systems to ensure that peer reviewers’ identities are protected; encourage reviewers to comment on ethical questions and possible research and publication misconduct raised by submissions, inappropriate data manipulation and presentation; encourae reviewers to comment on the originality of submissions and to be alert to redundant publication and plagiarism; send reviewers’ comments to authors; seek to acknowledge the contribution of reviewers to the journal; encourage academic institutions to recognise peer review activities as part of the scholarly process; monitor the performance of peer reviewers and taking steps to ensure this is of high standard; develop and maintain a database of suitable reviewers and updating this on the basis of reviewer performance; ceae to use reviewers who consistently produce discourteous, poor quality or late reviews; use a wide range of sources (not just personal contacts) to identify potential new reviewers (author suggestions, bibliographic databases); following the COPE flowchart in cases of suspected reviewer misconduct (see 1.8).
1. 10 Protecting individual data: The Editors Obey laws on confidentiality and protect the confidentiality of individual information obtained in the course of research or professional interactions. Note that consent to take part in research or undergo treatment is not the same as consent to publish personal details, images or quotations. They encourage ethical research (e.g. research involving humans or animals); endeavour to ensure that research they publish was carried out according to the relevant internationally accepted guidelines (e.g. the Declaration of Helsinki for clinical research, the AERA and BERA guidelines for educational research). Editors seek assurances that all research has been approved by an appropriate body (e.g. research ethics committee, institutional review board) where one exists. However, editors recognise that such approval does not guarantee that the research is ethical.
1.11 Dealing with possible misconduct: Editors have a duty to act if they suspect misconduct or if an allegation of misconduct is brought to them. This duty extends to both published and unpublished papers. Editors do not simply reject papers that raise concerns about possible misconduct. They are ethically obliged to pursue alleged cases. Editors first seek a response from those suspected of misconduct. If they are not satisfied with the response, they ask the relevant employers, or institution, or some appropriate body (perhaps a regulatory body or national research integrity organization) to investigate. Editors make all reasonable efforts to ensure that a proper investigation into alleged misconduct is conducted.
1.12 Intellectual property: Editors are alert to intellectual property issues and work with the publisher to handle potential breaches of intellectual property laws and conventions.
1.13 Encouraging debate: Editors encourage and be willing to consider cogent criticisms of work published in their journal.
1.14 Complaints: Editors respond promptly to complaints and ensure there is a way for dissatisfied complainants to take complaints further.
1.15 Corrections: Articles are published as they appear in the journal unless a correction needs to be included in which case it should be clearly identified.
1.16 Ensuring the integrity of the academic record: Errors, inaccurate or misleading statements must are corrected promptly and with due prominence, following the COPE guidelines on retractions (see 1.8).
1.17 Protecting individual data: Editors obey laws on confidentiality in their own jurisdiction. Regardless of local statutes, however, they always protect the confidentiality of individual information obtained in the course of research or professional interactions (e.g. between doctors and patients). It is therefore almost always necessary to obtain written informed consent for publication from people who might recognise themselves or be identified by others (e.g. from case reports or photographs). It may be possible to publish individual information without explicit consent if public interest considerations outweigh possible harms, it is impossible to obtain consent and a reasonable individual would be unlikely to object to publication. Consent to take part in research or undergo treatment is not the same as consent to publish personal details, images or quotations.
2.1 Received manuscripts are first examined by the editors. Incomplete packages or manuscripts not prepared in APA style will be sent back to the authors without evaluation. Editors take all reasonable steps to ensure the quality of the material they publish, recognising that journals and sections within journals will have different aims and standards.
2.2 Upon acceptance, authors transfer copyright to the journal and all published manuscripts become the permanent property of the journal.
2.3 All manuscripts are subject to three or more double-blind peer reviews. Reviewers are unaware of the identity of the authors, and authors are also unaware of the identity of reviewers. There are at least three or more reviewers for the total number of articles in each issue. Final decisions regarding publication are made by the Editors, on the basis of peer reviews.
2.4 The journal reserves the right to correct the terminology or style, to reduce the size of the paper as well as to remove redundant figures and graphs without authors' permission.
2.5 Editors strive to ensure that peer review at their journal is fair, unbiased and timely. The journal have a system to ensure that material submitted to their journal remains confidential while under review.
2.6 The Editors ensure that people involved with the editorial process (including themselves) received adequate education and keep abreast of the latest guidelines, recommendations and evidence about peer review and journal management; keep informed about research into peer review and technological advances; review peer review practices periodically to see if improvement is possible; referring troubling cases to COPE (see 1.8), especially when questions arise that are not addressed by the COPE flow charts, or new types of publication misconduct are suspected; considere the appointment of an ombudsperson to adjudicate in complaints that cannot be resolved internally. The journal has a system to detect falsified data (e.g. inappropriately manipulated photographic images or plagiarised text) when suspicions are raised. The journal basing decisions about journal house style on relevant evidence of factors that raise the quality of reporting (e.g. adopting structured abstracts, applying appropriate guidance) rather than simply on aesthetic grounds or personal preference.
3.1 Papers submitted should be prepared in correct English or Hungarian language, with a structured English abstract (150 words) and 3-5 relevant keywords.
3.2 Submissions must be prepared in APA style; refer to the Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association (latest edition) for information on how to format and prepare a manuscript for publication.
3.3 All the manuscripts should be written in correct language (using recognized terminology) and should be submitted online together with tables and figures. Other forms of submissions are not accepted.
3.4 Manuscripts should be submitted at this link.
4.2 When a large, multicenter group has conducted the work, the group should identify the individuals who accept direct responsibility for the manuscript (3). These individuals should fully meet the criteria for authorship/contributorship defined above, and editors will ask these individuals to complete journal-specific author and conflict-of-interest disclosure forms. When submitting a manuscript authored by a group, the corresponding author should clearly indicate the preferred citation and identify all individual authors as well as the group name. Other members of the group should be listed in the Acknowledgments.
4.3 Acquisition of funding, collection of data, or general supervision of the research group alone does not constitute authorship. All persons designated as authors should qualify for authorship, and all those who qualify should be listed. Each author should have participated sufficiently in the work to take public responsibility for appropriate portions of the content. Authorship of multicenter trials is attributed to a group. All members of the group who are named as authors should fully meet the above criteria for authorship/contributorship.
4.4 The group should jointly make decisions about contributors/authors before submitting the manuscript for publication. The corresponding author should be prepared to explain the presence and order of these individuals. It is not the role of editors to make authorship decisions or to arbitrate conflicts related to authorship.
4.5 Contributors Listed in Acknowledgments: All contributors who do not meet the criteria for authorship should be listed in an acknowledgments section. Examples of those who might be acknowledged include a person who provided purely technical help, writing assistance, or a department chairperson who provided only general support. Editors should ask corresponding authors to declare whether they had assistance with study design, data collection, data analysis, or manuscript preparation. If such assistance was available, the authors should disclose the identity of the individuals who provided this assistance and the entity that supported it in the published article. Financial and material support should also be acknowledged.
4.6 Groups of persons who have contributed materially to the paper but whose contributions do not justify authorship may be listed under such headings as “clinical investigators” or “participating investigators,” and their function or contribution should be described—for example, “served as scientific advisors,” “critically reviewed the study proposal,” “collected data,” or “provided and cared for study patients.” Because readers may infer their endorsement of the data and conclusions, these persons must give written permission to be acknowledged.