Publication Ethics
Analiza follows the guidelines of COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics). Suspected misconduct is handled according to the COPE flowcharts.
Editorial Independence
Decisions on publication are made solely by the editors, on the basis of the scholarly quality of the manuscript and the reviews. The issuing society (DAF), the publisher (University of Maribor, University Press) and the funder (ARIS) have no influence on editorial decisions.
Duties of Editors
- Evaluate manuscripts solely on their content, regardless of the author’s gender, ethnicity, religion, political beliefs or institution.
- Keep information about submitted manuscripts and reviewers confidential.
- Withdraw from the process in case of a conflict of interest; manuscripts by editors are handled by another member of the editorial board.
- Act on well-founded suspicions of misconduct, including after publication.
Duties of Reviewers
- Assess the manuscript objectively and with reasoned arguments, within the agreed deadline.
- Treat the manuscript and the review as confidential and do not use the manuscript’s content before publication.
- Do not upload manuscript content to unsecured or public artificial intelligence tools and do not delegate their judgement to AI.
- Report any conflict of interest to the editor and decline the review.
- Inform the editor of any similarity to published work or other misconduct they notice.
Duties of Authors
- Submit original work that has not been published before and is not under consideration elsewhere.
- Properly cite all sources and the work of others.
- List as authors all those, and only those, who made a significant contribution to the work; all authors must agree to the submission.
- Disclose any conflict of interest and sources of funding.
- Handle research data in accordance with the journal’s policy (see Research Data Management).
- Notify the editorial office promptly if they discover a significant error in their published work.
Plagiarism and Similarity Checking
All manuscripts are checked with iThenticate and Detektor podobnih vsebin (Similar Content Detector) before review. Plagiarism, undisclosed self-plagiarism and duplicate publication are grounds for rejection or for the retraction of a published article.
Artificial Intelligence
On the use of artificial intelligence, the journal follows the COPE position on authorship and AI tools. AI tools may provide support, but responsibility for the content, scholarly judgement and editorial decisions always remains human. The same rules apply to authors, reviewers and editors. AI use is assessed by level of risk, not by type of tool.
| Level | Meaning | Examples | Rule |
|---|---|---|---|
| Green: assistive use | AI supports expression, organisation or efficiency; it adds no new intellectual content and its use is verifiable. | polishing the language; suggesting structure or formatting; translating or clarifying reviewer comments; comparing methodological options; stress-testing research questions | Permitted. Disclosure is encouraged. |
| Amber: evaluative use | AI influences interpretation, emphasis or judgement but remains under human control. | summaries and explanations; comparison with existing literature; extensive copy-editing or writing support; suggesting approaches | Permitted with human verification. Disclosure is required. |
| Red: prohibited use | AI replaces scholarly judgement, is opaque or breaches confidentiality. | AI-generated hypotheses, analyses or conclusions presented as one’s own; fabricated data, sources or citations; undisclosed use of AI for core reasoning; AI as author; peer review delegated to AI; photorealistic generated images | Not permitted. |
The three-level classification is adapted from the Springer Nature policy on AI.
Authors are fully accountable for the originality, accuracy and integrity of their work. They disclose AI use in a short statement placed before the reference list, stating which tool was used and for what purpose.
Reviewers assess the manuscript independently and with expertise. They may use AI for support, but must not upload manuscript content to unsecured or public AI tools or delegate their judgement to AI. They disclose any AI use to the editor.
Editors are accountable for editorial decisions. They assess AI use in manuscripts in proportion to the risk and intervene where accountability or transparency is unclear. Manuscripts are subject to the same confidentiality as for reviewers.
Corrections and Retractions
Minor errors are corrected by publishing a correction linked to the original article. In cases of serious misconduct (plagiarism, fabricated data, duplicate publication), the article is retracted in accordance with the COPE retraction guidelines: it remains accessible, clearly marked as retracted, with an explanation.
Appeals and Complaints
Appeals against editorial decisions are handled by the editor-in-chief. Complaints concerning the editor-in-chief are handled by the president of DAF together with the advisory board. Please send appeals and complaints to info-daf@guest.arnes.si.