Manuscripts are submitted online. All manuscripts undergo an initial assessment by the Editorial Office to ensure that they comply with the guidelines.
Manuscripts are then assigned to the editor to decide whether they fall within the remit of the journal. If a manuscript is deemed suitable for review, the editor will invite reviewers online, according to the suggestions of the editorial board. Reviewers are given four weeks to submit a report. The review process is double-blind, that is, both the authors’ and the reviewers’ identities are concealed. At least two reports are required to make a decision.
Once at least two reports have been received, the editor makes a decision on the manuscript. If the reviewers’ recommendations diverge, the editor can arbitrate the recommendation or refer the manuscript to a third reviewer.
Authors are given three weeks to revise a manuscript. The editor will make a decision on minor revisions and refer major revisions to one or more reviewers (when possible, the original reviewer/s) for their recommendations before making a decision.
Appeal against editorial decision
Authors can appeal a decision in writing to the editors. Authors have the right to appeal a decision on their submission if they believe it was unfair. To appeal a decision, please submit a letter detailing the nature of the appeal and indicating why the decision is viewed as unfair. The letter should be sent to the editors-in-chief within ten days of the decision. The editors-in-chief will review all relevant documentation relating to the submission, may consult the relevant editors and reviewers, and may appoint a new reviewer to evaluate the submission before making a decision. The decision of the editors-in-chief will be final.
Accepted manuscripts are received by the Editorial Office where they enter the production queue to undergo proofreading, copyediting, layout, and proofing.
Copyediting and production stage
Manuscripts are proofread and copyedited to ensure that the language is clear and suitable for a non-specialist reader, that the figures are presentable, and the referencing is correct. The authors are given the opportunity to approve the proofreading and copyediting changes made and to address any queries at this stage; however, major text changes are not permitted. The proofread version should be returned within a week of receipt.
Edited manuscripts then undergo layout. Proofs are sent to the authors for correction and should be returned within a week of receipt. Only minor corrections such as typos and corrections to layout can be made at this stage. Figures should be carefully checked. Final corrected proofs are not returned to the authors unless requested. No changes can be made after the proof has been approved for publication.
Authors will be informed as soon as their articles are published online. Articles are openly accessible from the website and may be distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Licence. Authors are welcome to deposit the final published version in institutional repositories or personal archives.
Open Access Policy, copyright and archiving
Articles published in Communicationes Archaeologicae Hungariae are fully open access: immediately freely available to read, download and share. Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. All users have a free, irrevocable, worldwide, and perpetual right of access to, and a license to copy, use, distribute, transmit and display the work publicly and to make and distribute derivative works, in any digital medium for any responsible purpose, subject to proper attribution of authorship, as well as the right to make small numbers of printed copies for their personal use.
A complete version of the work in a suitable standard electronic format is deposited immediately upon initial publication in at least one online repository that is supported by an academic or scholarly institution that seeks to enable open access, unrestricted distribution, interoperability, and long-term archiving.
A published article forms part of the published record and will not be altered or removed (see the Article Retraction Policy). A correction will be issued if a published article contains a significant error that affects, for example, the accuracy of the article. Minor errors, such as typographical errors, will generally not be corrected. Corrections are published as either errata or corrigenda. Both errata and corrigenda are published at the discretion of the editors. An erratum or corrigendum will be linked to the original article online.
An erratum is the correction of an error introduced by the journal during editing or production. The author will be given an opportunity to approve an erratum before publication.
A corrigendum is the correction of an error made by the author(s).
All cases of suspected or alleged plagiarism will be considered seriously and on an individual basis.
Submitted manuscript: When suspected plagiarism is reported to the Editorial Office, the report will be acknowledged and all relevant documentation/evidence will be retrieved and examined by the editors, to determine whether material has been plagiarized and, if so, the extent of the plagiarism.
If material has been plagiarized, the corresponding author will be informed by the editor-in-chief that the manuscript is rejected on these grounds.
If the extent of the plagiarism is minor and the editors determine that the author(s) did not intend to plagiarize, no further action will be taken. If the plagiarism is extensive or acknowledged, the authors’ institutions will be informed of the offence (the submitted and plagiarized material will be sent to them) by the editor-in-chief. Authors will be notified by the editor-in-chief that their institutions will be informed and that they will be banned from submitting to the Communicationes Archaeologicae Hugariae in the future.
The reviewer reporting the suspected plagiarism will be informed of the outcome of the investigation.
Published articles: When suspected plagiarism is reported to the Editors, the report will be acknowledged and all relevant documentation/evidence will be retrieved and examined by the editors (in conjunction with the relevant member of the editorial board), to determine whether material has been plagiarized and, if so, the extent of the plagiarism.
If material has been plagiarized, the corresponding author will be informed by the editors and questioned. If the extent of the plagiarism is minor and the editors determine that the authors did not intend to plagiarize, a statement indicating the plagiarized material and appropriate reference will be published online and the article online will be linked to the statement.
If the plagiarism is extensive or acknowledged, the article will be retracted (see Article Retraction Policy) and a statement will be published acknowledging the original author(s). The authors’ institutions will be informed of the offence (submitted and plagiarized material will be sent to them) by the editor-in-chief. Authors will be notified by the editor-in-chief that the relevant institutions will be informed and that they will be banned from submitting to the Communicationes Archaeologicae Hungariae in the future. The original author(s) and publisher will also be informed of the offence. The reader reporting the suspected plagiarism will be informed of the outcome of the investigation.
Article Retraction Policy
Published articles should remain extant and intact. However, under exceptional circumstances e.g. plagiarism (see Plagiarism Policy), redundant publication, copyright infringement or contains a significant error, articles may need to be retracted. The need for a retraction will be determined by the Editors following the guidelines according to the COPE flowcharts.
To retract an article, a notice of retraction will be published. This notice of retraction will include the title and authors of the article, the reason for the retraction and who is retracting the article and will be linked to the original article online.
The data collected from registered and non-registered users of this journal fall within the scope of the standard functioning of peer-reviewed journals. It includes information that makes communication possible for the editorial process; it is used to inform readers about the authorship and editing of content; it enables collecting aggregated data on readership behaviors, as well as tracking geopolitical and social elements of scholarly communication.
This journal's editorial team uses this data to guide its work in publishing and improving this journal..
Those involved in editing this journal seek to be compliant with industry standards for data privacy, including the European Union's General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) provision for "data subject rights" that include (a) breach notification; (b) right of access; (c) the right to be forgotten; (d) data portability; and (e) privacy by design. The GDPR also allows for the recognition of "the public interest in the availability of the data", which has a particular saliency for those involved in maintaining, with the greatest integrity possible, the public record of scholarly publishing.
The names and email addresses entered in this journal site will be used exclusively for the stated purposes of this journal and will not be made available for any other purpose or to any other party.
Publication Ethics and Publication Malpractice Statement
The publication ethics and publication malpractice statement of Communicationes Archaeologicae Hungariae follows the COPE guidelines, the Code of Conduct and Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors and the Code of Conduct for Journal Publishers.
RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE EDITOR-IN-CHIEF
The editor-in-chief ensures that all submitted research papers being considered for publication will undergo double-blind peer-review by at least two reviewers who are expert in the field. Article types that are not peer reviewed (e. g., book reviews) will undergo full editorial review by at least one member of the editorial team. The editor-in-chief is responsible for deciding which of the manuscripts submitted to the journal will be published. The decision must always be based on the importance, originality, validity, and clarity of the paper, its relevance to the scope of the journal and the reviewers’ comments – without regard to the authors’ race, gender, sexual orientation, ethnic origin, citizenship, religious beliefs, political philosophy, or institutional affiliation. The editor-in-chief consults other editors or reviewers in making the final decision.
The editor-in-chief has full authority over the entire editorial content of the journal and the timing of publishing that content.
Such legal requirements as libel, copyright infringement, and plagiarism will also be considered.
Editors and editorial staff must not disclose any information about a submitted manuscript to anyone other than the corresponding author, reviewers, potential reviewers, other editorial advisers, and the publisher, as appropriate.
Editors and editorial board members will not use unpublished information disclosed in a submitted manuscript for their own research purposes without the authors’ explicit written consent.
Involvement and cooperation in investigations
Editors (in conjunction with the publisher) will take responsive measures when ethical concerns are raised regarding a submitted manuscript or published paper. Every reported act of unethical publishing behavior will be investigated, even if it is discovered years after publication. Editors follow the COPE Flowcharts when dealing with cases of suspected misconduct. If the ethical concern is found to be well-established, a correction, retraction, expression of concern, or another relevant note will be published in the journal.
Contribution to editorial decisions
The peer review process assists editors in making editorial decisions and, through editorial communications with authors, may assist authors in improving their manuscripts. Peer review is an essential component of formal scholarly communication.
Any invited referee who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should notify the editor and decline the invitation to review.
Any manuscripts received for review are confidential documents and must be treated as such; they must not be shown to or discussed with others, except if authorized by the editor-in-chief (who would only do so under exceptional and specific circumstances). This also applies to invited reviewers who decline the review invitation.
Standards of objectivity
Reviews should be conducted objectively; observations should be clearly formulated with supporting arguments so that authors can use them for improving the manuscript. Personal criticism of the authors is inappropriate.
Acknowledgement of sources
Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors. Any observation, derivation, or argument that has been reported in previous publications but not referenced in the manuscript should be noted and accompanied by the relevant citation. A reviewer should also notify the editors of any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other unacknowledged manuscript (published or unpublished) of which they have personal knowledge.
Unpublished material disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in a reviewer’s own research without the authors’ express written consent. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for the reviewer’s personal advantage. This also applies to invited reviewers who decline the review invitation.
Authors of original research should present an accurate account of the work performed and its results, followed by an objective discussion of the significance of the undertaking. The manuscript should contain sufficient detail and references to permit others to replicate the work. Review articles should be accurate, objective, and comprehensive, while editorial 'opinion' or perspective pieces should be clearly identified as such. Knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behavior and are unacceptable.
Data access and retention
Authors may be asked to provide the raw data of their study together with the manuscript for editorial review and should be prepared to make the data publicly available if practicable. In any event, authors should ensure accessibility of such data to other competent professionals for at least ten years following publication (preferably via an institutional or subject-based data repository or other data center), provided that the confidentiality of participants can be protected and legal rights concerning proprietary data do not preclude their release.
Originality, plagiarism and acknowledgement of sources
Authors should ensure that they have written and submit only entirely original work, and if they have used the ideas and/or words of others, that this has been appropriately cited. Publications that have been influential in determining the nature of the work reported in the manuscript should also be cited. Plagiarism takes many forms, from "passing off" another's paper as the author's own, to copying or paraphrasing substantial parts of another's paper (without attribution), to claiming results from research conducted by others. Plagiarism in all its forms constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable.
Multiple, duplicate, redundant or concurrent submission/publication
Papers describing essentially the same research should not be published in more than one journal or primary publication. Hence, authors should not submit for consideration a manuscript that has already been published in another journal. Submission of a manuscript concurrently to more than one journal is unethical publishing behavior and unacceptable.
Authorship of the paper
Authorship should be limited to those who have made a significant contribution to the conception, design, execution, or interpretation of the reported study. All those who have made significant contributions should be listed as co-authors. The corresponding author ensures that all contributing co-authors and no uninvolved persons are included in the author list. The corresponding author will also verify that all co-authors have approved the final version of the paper and have agreed to its submission for publication.
Disclosure and conflicts of interest
All sources of financial support for the work should be disclosed (including the grant number or other reference number if any).
Fundamental errors in published works
When authors discover significant errors or inaccuracies in their own published work, it is their obligation to promptly notify the journal’s editors or publisher and cooperate with them to either correct the paper in the form of an erratum or to retract the paper. If the publisher or editors learn from a third party that a published work contains a significant error or inaccuracy, then it is the authors’ obligation to promptly correct or retract the paper or provide evidence to the journal editors of the correctness of the paper.
Acknowledgement of sources
Authors should ensure that they have properly acknowledged the work of others, and should also cite publications that have been influential in determining the nature of the reported work. Information obtained privately (from conversation, correspondence, or discussion with third parties) must not be used or reported without explicit written permission from the source. Authors should not use information obtained while providing confidential services, such as refereeing manuscripts or grant applications, unless they have obtained the explicit written permission of the author(s) involved in these services.
Authors are obliged to participate in the peer review process and cooperate fully by responding promptly to editors’ requests for clarifications, and proof of ethics approval and copyright permissions. In the case of a first decision of "revisions necessary", authors should respond to the reviewers’ comments systematically, point by point, and in a timely manner, revising and re-submitting their manuscript to the journal by the deadline given.
DUTIES OF THE PUBLISHER
Handling of unethical publishing behavior
In cases of alleged or proven scientific misconduct, fraudulent publication or plagiarism, the publisher, in close collaboration with the editors, will take all appropriate measures to clarify the situation and to amend the article in question. This includes the prompt publication of an erratum, clarification or, in the most severe case, the retraction of the affected work. The publisher, together with the editors, shall take reasonable steps to identify and prevent the publication of papers where research misconduct has occurred, and under no circumstances encourage such misconduct or knowingly allow such misconduct to take place.
Access to journal content
The publisher is committed to the permanent availability and preservation of scholarly research and ensures accessibility by partnering with organizations and maintaining our own digital archive.