The Aeronautical Science Bullettins (Repüléstudományi Közlemények) applies the double-blind peer review process. Each party contributing to the publishing (authors, journal editors, reviewers and publisher) accepts the standards of conduct expected. The present code of ethics is based on the Core Practices for Journal Editors issued by COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics, https://publicationethics.org/core-practices).
The editors of the journal decide which of the articles received will actually be published in the journal. The editors shall ask for input from other editors and reviewers before making the final decision. The editors are guided by the guidelines set by the editorial board of the journal and may be limited by the current legislation on libel, copyright infringement and plagiarism. The editors of the journal are allowed to use anti-plagiarism software.
The editors always evaluate the intellectual content of manuscripts regardless of race, gender, sexual orientation, religious beliefs, ethnic origin, nationality, institutional affiliation or political views of the authors.
The editors and the editorial staff may not provide any information regarding manuscripts submitted for publication. Exceptions to this rule are information provided to the corresponding author, reviewers, potential reviewers, other editorial consultants and the publisher. Any privileged information or ideas obtained during the evaluation should be handled confidentially and cannot be used for personal promotion.
If there is a conflict of interest, another editor is asked to handle the manuscript. The editors are not allowed to use the unpublished material of the submitted manuscript for their own research without the author's prior written consent.
Reviewers support the author(s) in enhancing the academic level of the article during the process of peer revision (double-blind review) and assist the editors in decision-making.
Upon being requested to review, potential reviewers are obliged to decline if they judge themselves to be unqualified to evaluate the research, if there is a conflict of interest, or if they are unable to complete the review for any other reason. If anything occurs during the review process that prevents the reviewer from completing the review the editors should be informed immediately.
All manuscripts received for evaluation are considered confidential documents. Before publication the results may only be used or discussed with others based on the prior consent of the editors. Any privileged information or ideas obtained during the evaluation should be handled confidentially and cannot be used for personal promotion.
The evaluation shall be carried out objectively. Criticism of the author(s) is not appropriate. The reviewers shall express their views in a straightforward and constructive manner.
Reviewers should identify the relevant published works used but not cited by the authors. Any statement that contains an observation, thought or argument from a work earlier published has to be accompanied by the appropriate reference. Furthermore, if the reviewer/editorial consultant is aware of any substantive similarity or overlap between the manuscript examined and other material previously published, he/she should draw this to the editors' attention.
Those invited to review may not evaluate the manuscript if there is a conflict of interest with the authors, firms, or institutions associated with the study due to a competitive, collaborative or other relationship that may bias the evaluation. The editors should be informed if any author of the manuscript is: a past or current co-author or intended future co-author; a current colleague; a former student; a former advisor; a close personal friend; or a family member. The reviewer must inform the editors if he/she has a financial relationship or a current or past conflict with any of the authors. In addition, if the reviewer’s current research competes with that in the manuscript or if the manuscript contradicts or corrects the reviewer’s research, then the editors should be notified.
Authors presenting an original research project should make an accurate report on the work performed. Conclusions may only be based on facts or on the basis of objective and logical evidence. The background data of the study should be presented accurately. The study should provide sufficient detail and references to allow others to repeat the described processes. False or deliberately inaccurate statements are considered unethical and unacceptable behaviour.
It is not good practice to attempt to publish the same research in various separate publications or journals. Submission of the same manuscript to multiple journals is deemed unethical behaviour and is unacceptable.
Authors shall guarantee that the study is their own, original intellectual work and that when the work and/or words of others are used, they are cited appropriately.
Authors should refer to all sources that have influenced their work. The reference list should contain all works cited in the text of the manuscript, and all works cited should be included in the reference list.
Any person who has contributed substantially to the concept, design, implementation and/or interpretation of the presented study should be included as an author. Furthermore, the corresponding author should ensure that all major contributors are listed as co-authors, and that no one is nominated as a co-author who is not entitled to be a co-author. The corresponding author is also responsible for ensuring that all co-authors have seen and approved the final version of the study and have agreed to publish it.
Each author is obliged to disclose any financial or other material conflicts of interest in the manuscript that may influence its results or interpretation. All funding sources of the project should be made public.
If an author discovers significant errors or inaccuracies in his/her already published work, he/she should immediately notify the editors or the publisher of the journal and cooperate with the editors to correct or withdraw the article.