Peer Review Process
Academic papers, which are submitted to the journal Administrative and Criminal Justice are first assessed by the two editors of the editorial board who decide whether the paper is appropriate for a peer review or not, according to the scope of the journal and the academic quality of the paper. If the paper is evaluated as appropriate for a peer review, the managing editor sends it to two independent experts for a double blind peer review by e-mail. Reviewers remain anonymous for the author and the author's name is removed from the manuscript under review.
The review period is expected to be approximately four weeks long. Reviewers are asked to provide formative feedback, even if a paper is not considered to be appropriate for publication in the journal.
Based on the recommendations of the reviewers, the editors decide whether the paper should be accepted as it is, revised or rejected. In case of revisions, the final decision on the publication will be made after resubmission. If there is no agreement on the part of the editors, the editor-in-chief will make the final decision.
Open Access Policy
This journal provides immediate open access to its content on the principle that making research freely available to the public supports a greater global exchange of knowledge.
PUBLICATION ETHICS AND MALPRACTICE
Scientific council of RAT 10-21-2015, resolution No 5. (minutes No 13.1./3 )
PUBLICATION ETHICS AND MALPRACTICE STATEMENT OF REZEKNE ACADEMY OF TECHNOLOGIES
1. The Publisher states the following principles of publication use and ethics:
1.1. Only original works, that have not been previously published and in which the data do not infringe the copyright of another person or organization, are accepted for publishing.
1.2. The publisher appoints the Editor-in-chief and the scientific committee for a period of 3 years, taking into account their scientific qualification.
1.3. Every submitted paper is reviewed anonymously by 2-3 reviewers.
1.4. The publisher has the right to use plagiarism detection software to screen submitted papers.
1.5. The publisher undertakes to use authors’ personal data only for the needs of identification of authors and co-authors, as well as to preserve data in accordance with the restrictions determined in the current regulations of the Republic of Latvia.
1.6. The publisher undertakes to publish articles accepted after reviewing, make them available electronically by including them in various international scientific paper databases.
1.7. Free access to authors’ articles or presentations in the context of the specific conference is confirmed with authors’ written permissions (authorship statement).
1.8. Complaints concerning the breach of publication ethics or malpractice are examined according to the sixth paragraph of the Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement of Rezekne Higher Education Institution.
2. The members of the scientific committee/ editorial board:
2.1. Our experts in the scientific field and represent the scientific profile of the proceedings.
2.2. Define the subjects of the proceedings and work out criteria for the selection of manuscripts.
2.3. Promote international scientific cooperation and publication of scientific papers.
2.4.Give an opinion on the scientific quality of the content of proceedings and make suggestions for further development.
2.5. Have the right to participate in anonymous reviewing of submitted papers or could be invited as experts in the reviewing process.
3. The Editor-in-chief (or editors) of the scientific publication:
3.1. Takes responsibility to provide authors of potential publications with correct information concerning the manuscript formatting requirements, publication costs, dates, etc.
3.2. Choose reviewers who have corresponding scientific qualifications for the manuscript topic and are experts in a particular field.
3.3. Ensures double-blind if necessarily repeated peer-review of the submitted papers.
3.4. Until the publishing, ensures the confidentiality of information concerning the submitted papers and anonymity of authors.
3.5. Strives to prevent any possible conflict of interests between authors and reviewers or the editorial board.
3.6. Gets acquainted with reviewers’ statements on the novelty and scientific level of submitted papers. Considering the reviewer's statements, the editor-in-chief (or editors) of publication makes decisions to accept or reject the manuscripts.
3.7. If the statements of reviewers are contradictory, the Editor-in-chief invites additional reviewers, experts of the particular field, and only then the editorial board makes decisions whether to accept or reject the manuscripts.
3.8. Organizes correspondence with authors, informing them about reviewers’ statements, necessary corrections, and various publishing matters.
3.9. Basing on the reviewers’ statements asks authors to make necessary corrections in order to increase the quality of the manuscripts.
3.10. Asks authors to submit written consent from human subjects (in case of children – their parents’ or caregivers’ consents) who are respondents of the researches and their personal information (e.g. photos) is used in the manuscripts.
3.11. Provides authors, reviewers, readers, and institutions with prompt and correct information about technical mistakes or breaches of publication ethics or malpractice detected in scientific articles.
4. Authors of original papers:
4.1. Have the right to submit original papers for publication in scientific proceedings, ensuring that the intellectual property rights will not be infringed according to the 14th, 15th articles of the Copyright law and other normative acts of the Republic of Latvia and international normative acts binding for the Republic of Latvia.
4.2. Provide authorship statements, affirming that there is no other person who would have any rights to their papers, their papers have not been previously published and are not under simultaneous consideration by another publication.
4.3. Provide accurate references for other authors’ pictures, citations, data and other materials used in the original manuscripts.
4.4. Are responsible for the validity of research results provided in their manuscripts.
4.5.Must not be guided by personal, ethnic, gender, sexual orientation, citizenship, religious or political criteria while discussing and analyzing research issues.
4.6. Providing research descriptions (especially in case of studies) must obtain written consent to use personal information (personal data, creative works, photos, etc.) from human subjects (in case of children – their parents’ or caregivers’ consents) who are respondents of the research.
4.7. Undertake to notify the editor promptly, if a significant error has been found in the paper after the publishing.
4.8. Take all the necessary measures to ensure the requirements of the sponsors, if such are involved.
4.9. Take the sole responsibility and undertake to solve the matters independently at their own expenses and risk if any objections or demands from the third parties’ concerning the publishing or using the papers occur.
4.10. If the authors are acknowledged specialists of certain scientific fields, they have the right to participate in the anonymous reviewing process of submitted papers of other authors.
5.1. Are experts in certain scientific fields.
5.2. Review the papers anonymously, adding constructive critics or suggestions, taking into account principles of ethics and scientific style, avoiding emotional, unjustified or abusive commentaries.
5.3. Evaluate the content of the papers objectively, according to the scientific article criteria, without regard to ethnic origin, gender, sexual orientation, citizenship, religious beliefs or political views of authors.
5.4. Inform the editor, if there is a need to invite a specialist of other fields, regarding the specificity of the article.
5.5. Keep confidential all the information related to submitted papers.
5.6. Promptly notify the editor/editor board if there is certainty or suspicion of plagiarism or copyright infringement.
5.7. Promptly notify the editor/editor board of the reasons that prevent them from performing a qualitative review in time or occurrence of the possible conflict of interests, asking to exempt them from reviewing.
6. In case of a breach of publication ethics or malpractice:
6.1. Complaints concerning the breach of publication ethics are addressed to the Editor-in-chief who afterward informs the editorial board.
6.2. The duty of editors/editorial board is to examine received complaints and provide written replies within one month. If it is not possible to comply with the abovementioned time limit, editors and the editorial board may extend the term in accordance with the procedure prescribed by the Administrative Procedure Law of the Republic of Latvia.
6.3. After receiving complaints the Editor-in-chief requests written responses from the accused authors. If the authors do not respond or their response does not bring clarity to the situation, the Editor-in-chief addresses the Ethics committee with a request to examine received complaints.
6.4. If the breach of publication ethics occurs, the duty of the Editor-in-chief is to retract unpublished manuscripts of withdrawing them from already published proceedings, in conjunction with informing authors, readers, involved scientific institutions, libraries, and scientific publication databases.