PUBLICATION ETHICS AND PUBLICATION MALPRACTICE STATEMENT

The Journal Leather & Footwear with ISSN 0450-8726 (print) and ISSN 1849-9767 (online) is a peer reviewed journal published since 1952 by the Croatian Leather & Footwear Society.

The duties and responsibilities of the authors, reviewers and editors are in compliance with the principles of the COPE – Committee on Publication Ethics, COPE Council, Ethical guidelines for peer reviewers. September 2017. Information adopted and available at: https://publicationethics.org

1. Reporting standards – authors reporting results of original research should present accuracy in the work performed and give an objective discussion of its significance. A manuscript should contain sufficient details and references to permit others to replicate the work. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behaviour and are not acceptable.
2. Originality and Plagiarism – the submitted manuscript is the author’s original work and has not been published under this or similar title ever before, nor submitted to any other editorial board or to any International Referee Committee in electronic, printed or other media nor to any third parties.
3. Multiple, redundant or concurrent publication – author/s should not in general publish manuscripts describing essentially the same research in more than one publication. Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal concurrently constitutes unethical publishing behaviour. In general, an author should not submit a previously published paper for consideration in another journal.
4. Authorship of manuscript – 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. Where there are others who have participated in certain substantive aspects of the research project, they should be named in an Acknowledgement section. The corresponding author should ensure that all appropriate co-authors (according to the above definition) and no inappropriate co-authors are included in the author list of the manuscript, and that all co-authors have seen and approved the final version of the manuscript and have agreed to its submission for publication.
5. Acknowledgement of sources – data and quotations from other works published in journals and other technical and scientific publications should be clearly and distinctly indicated and marked.
6. Disclosure and conflicts of interest – there is no liability towards third parties that results from the publication of the presented data, and least of all of possible conflict of interests. All sources of financial support for the project should be disclosed.
7. Research involving humans or animals – appropriate approval, licensing or registration should be obtained before the research begins. If requested by editors, the authors should supply evidence that reported research received the appropriate approval and was carried out ethically (e.g. copies of approvals, licences, participant consent forms).

1. Contribution to editorial decisions – reviewers assist the editor/s in making editorial decisions and, through the editorial communication with the author, may also assist the author in improving the manuscript.
2. Timeliness – a reviewer should accept an invitation to peer review if qualified to judge a particular manuscript, and agrees to return the review within the proposed time-frame.
3. Confidentiality – in the peer review process reviewers should refrain from using information obtained during the peer review process for their own or another’s advantage, or to disadvantage or discredit others. Others should not be included in the review of a manuscript unless permission is obtained from the editor/s; thus associating their names with the manuscript as to receive due recognition for their efforts.
4. Objectivity and acknowledgement – reviews shall be conducted objectively and reviewers shall express their views clearly with appropriate supporting arguments; thus no personal criticism of the author is acceptable. Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors. Any statement that an observation, derivation or argument had been previously reported should be accompanied by the relevant citation.
5. Competing or conflicting interests – competing interests may be personal, financial, intellectual, professional, political or religious in nature. A reviewer should not consider evaluating manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions related to the submission.

1. Fair play – editor/s evaluate the submitted manuscripts regarding their intellectual content regardless of race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy of the authors.
2. Peer review process – all manuscripts are subjected to peer-review process which are firstly reviewed by the editor/s. Manuscripts suitable for review are then sent to two experts in the field of the research. Referees are asked to give their feedback/comments on the mansucript within given time. Depending on the referees’ evaluations the editor/s will give the final decision for the manuscript which may be: rejection or publication with no or additional improvements.
3. Reviewer selection – the editors ensure that appropriate reviewers are selected for submissions (i.e. individuals who are able to judge the work and are free from disqualifying competing interests).
4. Confidentiality – editor/s and any editorial staff shall not disclose any information about a submitted manuscript to anyone other than the corresponding author, reviewers, potential reviewers, other editorial advisers, and the publisher.
5. The disclosure and conflicts of interest – unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in an editor’s own research without the explicit written consent of the author/s.