About the Journal

EDITORIAL POLICY

^{PUBLICATION ETHICS}

^{The journal Diacovensia is a scientific journal published by the Catholic Faculty of Theology in Đakovo, Josip Juraj Strossmayer University of Osijek. The Code governs the relations and defines the ethical behaviour of all parties involved in the publication: author(s), editor(s), reviewer(s), publisher(s) and the institutional holder/founder. The Code of Conduct and Prevention of Abuse in the Journal Diacovensia - Theological Contributions is based on the examples of good practice recommended by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), according to the COPE Conduct for Journal Editors. The Code aims to ensure editorial responsibility, fairness, equality, the protection of privacy and transparency regarding the publishing of scientific publications in the journal Diacovensia.}

^{GENERAL PROVISIONS}

^{Reception and publication of articles The editorial board meets once a month to discuss the submitted articles and peer reviews. The editorial board makes decisions on scientific and theological appropriateness of articles submitted for publication, according to the defined methodological requirements. Every article that is submitted to the editorial board for the journal, will be taken into account if it meets basic methodological, scientific and theological criteria that are published in the journal. After accepting the article, the editorial board sends in the article for two anonymous peer reviews. The reviewers are selected by the editorial board by taking into account the scientific qualifications of the reviewers, and the correspondence of their knowledge and research field with the field of the article that is sent in for a review. The editorial board ensures that the reviewer is not in "the conflict of interest" with the author of the submitted article. The editorial board does not have to agree with the recommendations of the reviewers, and may refuse, during the publishing process, to forward an article for a review if they determine that the article does not meet the defined criteria of the journal or if they determine scientific dishonesty or plagiarism. If the reviewer determines that the article needs more revision, the article is forwarded to the author through an associate coordinator of the journal Diacovensia, without revealing the name of the reviewer. The reviewers are distinguished domestic and international scientists, all of whom hold the Doctor of Science degree. The journal conduct mainly the external peer review process, with more of 80% of external reviewers.}

^{The confidentiality of article submission and the reviewing process}

^{The confidentiality is ensured for all authors and their articles from the time of receiving the articles until their publication. The editorial board will not notify any other party, except the editorial board, about the reviewers assigned, they will not publicly discuss any possible reviewers they intend to engage in the process of peer review, and the information will not be available to any other parties involved in the process of publication. The editorial board also ensures that the potential reviewer, in the case of rejecting an article for a review or an untimely submission of a review, keeps the unpublished contents confidential. The unpublished materials and articles submitted to the journal will be marked with special numerical designations to safeguard the privacy and anonymity of authors and reviewers assigned. The editorial board may not use the data from the submitted articles for personal benefit until those articles become publicly available, and will not in any way use the privileged information contained in the articles. The data which the author acquired through their research will be considered particularly classified.}

^{The equality of access}

^{The editor will treat each author equally, regardless of any prejudice based on race, religion, sex, gender, age, political affiliation or geographical origin of the author. The terms used in this Code, which carry gender meaning, regardless of whether they are used in the masculine or feminine gender form include in the same way masculine and feminine gender.} 

^{OBLIGATIONS OF REVIEWERS}

^{Reviewers, after accepting to participate in the reviewing process, in accordance with the existing knowledge and with an as objective as possible process of article assessment, will approach making a review. They will explain their judgement in the reviewing form. Article assessment must not be based on criteria that are not directly relevant to the published article. If the reviewer at any time assesses that they lack knowledge or that they will not be able to finish the appointed task within the set time frame, in order to continue with the reviewing process, they are obliged to report to the editorial board as soon as possible. The reviewer will not give any public information about the reviewing process and the subject of the article for which they need to write a review, and they will not speak publicly about the article or the data from the article. Reviewers will pay special attention to any possible misquotation or plagiarism of data and statements found in the article, and will report every such case to the editor, on the basis of clearly substantiated facts and data, the direct insight and the description of the above. Reviewers will avoid conflicts of interest, and in a special way, any possible connection with the author or institutions that are associated with the article.}

^{OBLIGATIONS OF AUTHORS}

^{Authors need to answer for their intellectual property, and in the submitted article list in detail all possible co-authors. The authorship of the article refers to people who have contributed to its creation. The authors who submitted the article for publication undertake that all that are listed as authors of the article were involved in its creation with all mentioned affiliates. Authors are required to take account of scientific correctness and awareness that they have not published the article somewhere previously. Authors undertake to submit a work of authorship, and they must pay special attention to data accuracy, as well as to references and people mentioned in their work. Authors undertake that they have written and submitted an original work. If they have used someone else's data, words, statements, quotations, or if they have relayed other people's words or sentences, they undertake to use consistent citations. Authors undertake to submit original research results, along with custom images, graphs, tables, etc., in order to allow reviewers transparency and to facilitate the preparation of data for publishing. If the article includes research pertaining to children and socially vulnerable groups, the authors undertake that in doing research they adhered to all laws and regulations, as well as codes of ethics, which define the obligations and responsibilities of researchers. Authors must avoid conflicts of interest of any kind, especially one that could have affected the results of their work. If the author subsequently establishes a big mistake in their work (e.g. misquotes, incorrect data...), they undertake to notify the editor as soon as possible, regardless of the stage of publication of the article in question.}

 ^{OBLIGATIONS OF THE PUBLISHER}

^{The publisher undertakes to ensure the anonymity of the reviewing process during the publication of the journal, and that during the process of data processing and preparation for printing they will not disclose in any way the contents of each particular issue before the process of printing and distribution is finished. The publisher undertakes to seek to publish an annual circulation of the journal within the current year, and to timely notify the authors of submitted articles about the peer review assigned classification, and about the publication time of the article. The members of the editorial council will not abuse their position in the editorial council and not receive any form of material or some other benefit, as well as not abuse their power and position to achieve some benefit for themselves or another person. The members of the editorial and scientific council undertake to report any noted inconsistencies and departures from the provisions specified in this Code. The editorial board undertakes to adhere to all the items defined by this Code, and to seek to adjust any new possible ethical dilemmas in its improved version.}

^{Procedure for Publishing a Manuscript (Step by Step)}

^{1. Submission of manuscript and editorial review}

^{The editor or associate ccordinator gets the manuscript and promptly gives the author a confirmation of the submission within three business days. The editorial board evaluates the received manuscript to determine its suitability for publication in the journal and whether it will be subjected to the review procedure. The Editorial Board promptly informs the author of their choice (whether to accept or reject the work) and any additional requests. At this point, the author may need to make technical and/or methodological improvements to the work based on the directions provided in this article. The editorial review also encompasses verifying the authenticity of the material. In order to uphold the highest ethical and scientific standards for the quality of scientific works, we use the Turnitin tool to verify the originality of the content of all submissions being considered for publication in this journal. The editorial board has the authority to decline papers before they are sent for peer review or to retract published papers if there is clear evidence of unethical research. This includes situations where the data presented in the paper is unreliable or has been previously published in another publication without proper citation, and if the paper contains partial or complete plagiarism or self-plagiarism.}

^{2. Review procedure}

^{All manuscripts that pass the first round of editorial control are sent for double-blind peer review, which does not reveal the identity of either the author or the reviewers. Before sending, the associate coordinator anonymizes the complete manuscript so that all information that can reveal the author's identity is removed from the content of the document that is sent to the reviewers, and identity information is also removed from the characteristics of the electronic document. In the case of one negative review or conflicting evaluations of the article, the Editorial Board is free to seek the opinion of other (third, fourth, etc.) reviewers. The manuscript may be rejected after the review process has been completed in the event that: both reviews are negative, two (out of three) or even if only one (out of two) is negative, but the Editorial Board's assessment is in favour of a negative review, and/or the second review is positive, but with a large number of remarks and requested changes. If the reviews are positive, the process continues.}

^{3. Editing of the manuscript}

^{If there are changes that the reviewer or both reviewers require as a condition for publication, the Editorial Board will send a part or, if necessary, the entire review (anonymous) to the author with instructions and remarks. If the author does not make changes or does not express himself within the deadline set by the Editorial Board, the publication of the article is postponed; that is, the article is moved to one of the following issues; and in case the author turns a deaf ear, the article will not be published. After the author corrects the manuscript, the editor-in-chief checks the changes and, if necessary, sends the manuscript to reviewers for review. If the author does not agree with the requested changes and/or additions, he has the right to withdraw his work.}

^{4. Verification through proofreading}

^{Once the review process is complete and all conceivable revisions have been implemented, the article is subsequently assigned to the proofreading stage. The editorial board retains the authority to revise the manuscript in order to conform it to the requirements of the Croatian language, specifically with regard to composition in a foreign language, the suitable foreign language. In cases where the proofreader identifies changes that are beyond the author's control or where further clarification is needed, the document may be referred back to the editor for revision. This revision phase generally entails a more limited scope.}

^{5. Concluding categorisation}

^{The Editorial Board considers the categorization of papers prior to, during, or subsequent to the proofreading process during a session, contingent upon the session schedule. The ultimate categorisation is determined through the evaluation process, which duly considers and respects the objections and proposed categorizations of reviews, in addition to the viewpoints expressed by every member of the Editorial Board. The ultimate categorisation of the piece is typically determined by the editorial board of the journal, acting upon the editor-in-chief's recommendation. Under unusual circumstances, the editor-in-chief may independently determine such a course of action.}

^{6. Final authorization and modification}

^{At the conclusion of the process for the new issue, specifically after proofreading and inputting the required data and equipment, an individual copy of the manuscript is dispatched to each author by the Editorial Board. The authors are then permitted to submit, within the allotted time, any further changes of a more limited scope, as well as respond to any inquiries that may have arisen during the process of proofreading or author approval of changes that require the Editorial Board's approval. In the event that the authors fail to provide feedback within the specified timeframe, the Editorial Board will presume that they have no objections; any inquiries will remain unresolved. Moreover, any modifications for which the Editorial Board seeks the authors' approval will be either rejected or accepted, contingent on the evaluation of the intervention's permissibility. Printing will proceed in accordance with predetermined deadlines.}

<sub>RETRACTIONS AND CORRECTIONS

In the event that fraudulent activity or suspicion of wrongdoing arises, the Editorial Board shall conduct an investigation in accordance with the guidelines set forth by COPE. In the event that legitimate concerns arise subsequent to an investigation, the responsible authors will be notified via the email address provided and given an opportunity to rectify the situation. The journal might adopt the subsequent actions, contingent upon the circumstances. These may include but are not restricted to, the following:</sub>

_{- The manuscript may be returned to the author if it is rejected while it is still being considered.}

_{- If the article has already been published online, depending on the type and gravity of the offence:}

• _{A correction or erratum may be appended to the article.}
• _{The article may be accompanied by an editorial expression of concern or note from the editor or, in extreme circumstancesthe article may be retracted.}

_{In the published erratum or correction, editor's note, editorial expression of concern, or retraction notice, the rationale will be specified. It should be noted that a retraction signifies that the article remains accessible on the platform with the watermark "retracted" and the rationale for this is detailed in a note that is hyperlinked to the watermarked article.}

^{- The institution of the author may be notified.}

<sup>- A notification regarding a potential violation of ethical principles within the peer review process may be appended to the bibliographic record of the author or article.
- Authors who want to modify their published works with their new names may do so by directly contacting the Editor-in-Chief.</sup>

<sup>ELIMINATION OF PUBLISHED MATERIAL

Diacovensia retains the right to remove any content, including articles, chapters, books, or similar materials, from its online platforms under extraordinary circumstances. In the following circumstances, Diacovensia may undertake such action:</sup>

^{(i) upon receiving notification that the content in question is defamatory, violates the intellectual property rights, privacy rights, or other legal rights of a third party, or is otherwise unlawful;}

^{(ii) in response to a court or government order mandating the removal of the content; or}

^{(iii) if the content's removal would immediately and significantly endanger public health. Removal could be permanent or transient.}

^{In addition to retaining bibliographic metadata (e.g., title and authors), a statement will be provided to justify the removal of the removed content.}