Author Responsibilities

Authors are expected to publish original findings. They must declare that their manuscripts have not been published elsewhere, are not currently under consideration for publication elsewhere, and have been submitted solely to our Editorial Board for publication.

Manuscripts submitted to the journal must meet national and international standards for scholarly publishing. Regarding formatting—including citation styles, the transcription of source texts, required accompanying data, the acquisition of publication permissions, and submission deadlines—manuscripts must adhere to the requirements set out in the Editorial Guidelines. Authors acknowledge that manuscripts undergo peer review and that publication is contingent upon the outcome of this review (whether it recommends acceptance or requests revision).

The Editorial Board of 'Új Nézőpont' conducts its work in accordance with national and international ethical standards for scholarly publishing. The Board is both entitled and obliged to inform authors of any ethical violations that would preclude publication and to decide on the manuscript's publication status based on the nature of the violation. The scope of ethical violations (misconduct) considered includes the use of others' or one's own previous findings in a manner that infringes upon intellectual (creative) property rights; the intentional alteration of written, visual, or other sources and data; deliberately misleading referencing or citation; and instances of co-authorship not involving substantive contribution (guest authorship, gift authorship).

We regard the use of artificial intelligence as a particularly significant area within the scope of ethical misconduct (abuses). The use of AI is prohibited in the drafting of manuscripts intended for publication in our journal. While its use is permitted during data collection (or the construction of databases) associated with the manuscript, the author must disclose the relevant data and the methods employed.

Authors bear full professional and ethical responsibility for their manuscripts regarding the use of artificial intelligence, including liability for the types of misconduct described above.

Authors are required to cooperate with the journal’s editorial office throughout the peer-review and editing process, providing substantive responses to inquiries and requests for revisions within a short timeframe.

Editorial Work

The Editorial Board operates under the leadership of the Editor-in-Chief. The Editor-in-Chief and the members of the Editorial Board jointly decide on matters concerning the publication of manuscripts and the editing of the journal. The Editor-in-Chief oversees the process of publishing individual issues. They designate specific Editorial Board members to be directly responsible for the peer review and editing of incoming manuscripts, as well as for the associated written correspondence. For peer review, the Editor-in-Chief either assigns an Editorial Board member or—based on a recommendation from the Board—invites an external reviewer. During the publication process, Editorial Board members liaise with reviewers and authors. If a manuscript is not reviewed by an Editorial Board member, the Board makes a recommendation regarding the choice of reviewer. Editorial Board members responsible for specific manuscripts verify that manuscripts prepared for publication and supported by reviewers comply with the formal requirements set out in the Editorial Guidelines; they also formulate written comments for authors regarding any further corrections that may be necessary.

As a general rule, the Editor-in-Chief and the editors carry out their work in alignment with the journal’s publication schedule, with the publication process organized on a quarterly basis. The Editorial Board reserves the right to publish issues at a different frequency or to merge issues if necessary.

The Editor-in-Chief oversees the entire workflow, from the receipt of the manuscript and its multi-stage revision to its preparation for publication.

Peer Review

Upon receipt of manuscripts at the ‘Új Nézőpont’ editorial office address (ujnezopont@gmail.com), the editor-in-chief informs the authors in writing that their manuscripts have been entered into the peer-review process. Authors are notified that the editorial board has accepted their manuscripts for consideration, though actual publication is contingent upon the conclusion and outcome of the peer-review process.

Manuscripts intended for publication in the journal are evaluated either by members of the editorial board designated by the editor-in-chief or by external reviewers invited by the editor-in-chief (with editorial board members having the opportunity to make recommendations). The editor-in-chief provides written confirmation to the reviewer regarding the peer-review work performed.

The reviewer must evaluate the manuscript in a formal review and may also insert corrections (comments) directly into the manuscript as necessary. The reviewer must clearly state—in a signed assessment—whether they support the publication of the manuscript, recommend its publication following revision, or advise against publication due to significant professional concerns.

The reviewer must submit the written assessment and the copy of the manuscript (including any corrections made) to the Editorial Office. The Editorial Office makes the final decision on publication based on the reviewer's recommendation; a manuscript cannot be published if the reviewer’s recommendation is negative. The editor responsible for the manuscript forwards the review to the author and simultaneously informs them of the Editorial Office’s decision based on the reviewer's recommendation. If a marked-up copy of the manuscript exists and the author is required to make revisions based on it, the responsible editor forwards this along with the review. The same procedure applies to marked-up copies associated with a negative review.

The peer-review process is open; the identity of the reviewer(s) is known not only to the editor-in-chief and members of the editorial board but also to the author. Consequently, the reviewer’s assessment must evaluate the manuscript solely on scholarly grounds and must not contain offensive remarks. In the event of the latter, the editor-in-chief is authorized and obliged to invite a new reviewer or to appoint one from among the members of the editorial board.

Complaint Handling

Authors have the right to appeal against editorial decisions, including those based on peer reviews recommending the rejection of submitted manuscripts. The Editorial Board accepts, deliberates upon, and responds to written submissions sent to its contact addresses (postal address: H-4032 Debrecen, Egyetem tér 1; email: ujnezopont@gmail.com). The Editorial Board makes decisions regarding such appeals only in agreement with the Editor-in-Chief, taking into account the journal’s operational standards and weighing the underlying scholarly and ethical considerations. The Editor-in-Chief informs the author(s) of the decision in writing and, if the matter relates to a peer review, also notifies the reviewer.