The DOOR journal adheres to the guidelines of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). Ethical principles apply to all editors, reviewers, and authors, as they are key stakeholders in the journal’s publication process and its content. The purpose of these ethical principles is to maintain and preserve the integrity of the publishing process in accordance with the fundamental standards of scientific research.

For the purposes of these part, generative AI (generative AI tools or AI tools) are defined as general-purpose AI models or general-purpose AI systems, as outlined in Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 of the European Parliament and the Council of 13 June 2024 (Artificial Intelligence Act).

The Editor’s Responsibilities

The editorial team comprises the editor-in-chief, executive editors and members of the editorial board. The most important task of the editorial team is to decide whether to publish received manuscripts, with the initial assessment conducted by the executive editors and the final decision made by the editorial board. When making such decisions, the executive editors and the editorial board consider the quality of the content, and the final decision must not be biased by race, nationality, or ethical association, nor the sex, gender, or social status of the author, or the author’s political or religious convictions.

The editor-in-chief, executive editors, as well as members of the editorial board, are obliged to keep confidential the information related to the received manuscript and the identity of the author or co-author prior to any potential publication of the manuscript. Information about the received manuscript is only accessible to the executive editors, members of the editorial board, appointed reviewers, and the author or co-authors of the manuscript. In accordance with the principles of the double-blind review process, it is the responsibility of the executive editors to preserve the anonymity of the author(s) from the reviewers, as well as the identities of the reviewers from the author(s) or co-author(s). If the identity of a person is disclosed in the relationship between the author or co-author and the appointed reviewer, the review process must be repeated with a new reviewer.

The editor-in-chief, executive editors, as well as members of the editorial boards, shall not use data or information from unpublished manuscripts for their own research without the explicit written consent of the author or all co-authors.

The editor-in-chief, executive editor, or a member of the editorial board will be exempted from processing a received manuscript if a conflict of interest arises from a competitive, collaborative, or other relationship or connection with the author or at least one of the authors of the received manuscript, with an institution, or a company associated with the manuscript. In such cases, the processing of the received manuscript is delegated by the editor-in-chief, executive editor, or a member of the editorial board to another member of the editorial team.

Editors must keep submission and peer review details confidential. Use of manuscripts in Generative AI systems may give rise to risks around confidentiality, infringement of proprietary rights and data, and other risks. Therefore, editors must not upload unpublished manuscripts, including any associated files, images or information into Generative AI tools.

Responsibilities of the Peer Reviewers

The publication of manuscripts in the DOOR journal relies on a double-blind review process conducted by recognised scientists in the field of the submitted manuscript. The review process is a crucial part of the decision-making process about whether to publish a paper or not. The review process improves the quality of the papers, benefiting both the journal and the authors.

Reviewers are selected from domestic and international scientists whose scientific work and research are closely related to the topic of the manuscript. A reviewer should withdraw from the review process as soon as possible if they believe they are not sufficiently competent in the field of the submitted manuscript or if they believe they are unable to complete the review within the specified timeframe.

The reviewer is obliged to refrain from sharing information about the manuscript received for review and from discussing its content, except in cases where explicit permission has been granted by the editor-in-chief and all executive editors. During the review process, the reviewer communicates about the manuscript solely with the executive editor or a member of the editorial board with whom they have been in contact.

The reviewer must not use data and information from the unpublished and received manuscript for their own research.

The reviewer must be exempted from the review process if there is a conflict of interest arising from a competitive, collaborative, or other relationship or connection with the author or one of the co-authors of the received manuscript, an institution, or a company associated with the manuscript.

Reviewers are obliged to adhere to the ethical guidelines of the journal, as well as other ethical standards related to scientific work and the publishing of scientific papers. When preparing a review, reviewers will be objective and will formulate their assessment of the manuscript clearly and with proper reasoning. Criticising the author on a personal level is not acceptable.

Reviewers are obliged to draw the author’s attention to already conducted research and published literature in the field that is not cited in the manuscript. The reviewer is also required to alert the editor to any significant similarity or overlap between the manuscript under review and any already published papers.

Generative AI may be employed solely for language improvement of their review, including the verification of grammar, structure, spelling, punctuation, and formatting. However, peer reviewers shall retain full responsibility for ensuring the accuracy and integrity of their reviews. The use of Generative AI should be disclosed upon submission of the peer review report. Under no circumstances should evaluators upload manuscripts in whole or in part, including images, figures, tables, or any form of communication related to manuscripts under review, to any Generative AI tools, as this constitutes a violation of DOOR’s confidentiality policy concerning peer review. If it is established that AI tools have been improperly utilised in the development of a review report, the report shall be discarded.

Responsibilities of Authors

Authors must comply with the following principles

• Originality – plagiarism is prohibited. Only manuscripts that are the original work of the author may be submitted and in which the papers and/or parts of papers of other authors are clearly and precisely cited.
• Accuracy of data and citations – data presented in the manuscript must be exact and authors are obliged to cite only those parts of papers of other authors that they have referred to in the manuscript, including those parts that served as inspiration and encouragement in writing the manuscript.
• Disclosure of conflicts of interest – authors are obliged, in the earliest stage of submitting the manuscript, to provide the editorial board with information on any possible conflicts of interest which could relate to the research results and conclusions conveyed in the manuscript. Authors are also obliged to note information on financial support related to the research presented in the manuscript.
• Permission for the reproduction of third-party materials.
• Authorship statement – all authors must sign a statement confirming the originality and contribution to the manuscript.

By submitting a manuscript, authors implicitly confirm the originality of its content and guarantee that it has not been previously published in another language, either in part or in full, and that it is not currently under consideration for publication elsewhere.

The journal’s editorial team is not responsible for any potential plagiarism in the manuscripts it receives. The authors are solely responsible for plagiarism, regardless of whether it is discovered during the review process or after publication in the journal.

AI tools are not eligible to be recognised as authors of a publication. AI tools are unable to fulfil the criteria for authorship since they cannot assume accountability for the submitted work. As non-legal entities, they lack the capacity to determine the existence or non-existence of conflicts of interest or to manage copyright and license agreements.