Ethical principles

The rules below have been developed on the basis of the COPE’s Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors, which can be found in the following website: http://publicationethics.org/files/u2/Best_Practice.pdf

I. The authors’ responsibilities

Authorship of the work
The authors of the work are the persons who contributed the most to the idea or the project of its creation, participated in its implementation and/or the interpretation of research results. The co-authors of the work are all other persons who participated in its creation. Collaborators are the persons who have influenced some of the significant aspects of the given scientific paper. The author should make sure that all of the co-authors and collaborators have been listed in the work, that they have seen and approved the final version thereof, and agreed to submit it for publication.

Ghostwriting is a situation in which someone performs most of the work related to the given publication, while his/her identity as the co-author is not disclosed, nor was he/she mentioned in the acknowledgments attached to the work.

Guest authorship is a situation in which one or several authors are assigned to a given publication, while their actual contribution to the work is insignificant or irrelevant.

Ghostwriting and guest authorship are manifestations of scientific misconduct. All detected instances of such behaviour will be revealed, including notification of relevant entities (such as institutions employing the authors, and professional associations). The manifestations of scientific misconduct, especially any breach or violation of the ethics of scientific research, will remain documented in the Editorial Office.

Disclosure of research funding sources and of any conflict of interest
The author should disclose all sources of research funding in his/her work, as well as the contribution of scientific and research institutions, associations and other entities, and any significant conflict of interest that may affect the results or the interpretation thereof.

Research reporting standards
Authors of the papers based on original research should present a detailed description of the work performed as well as an objective discussion of its meaning. Source data should be presented in the paper.

Data access and storage
Authors may be asked to provide source data used in the work for editorial evaluation; therefore they need to store the relevant data within a reasonable period of time after the publication.

Multiple, unnecessary, or competitive publications
As a rule, the author should not publish materials describing the same research in more than one journal or original publication. Submitting the same work to more than one editorial office at the same time is an unethical act and as such, it is not allowed. It is also considered unethical to submit an article, which is a translation of a text that had already been published.

Declaration of sources
The author should cite publications that influenced the creation of the given work, and each time, he/she should declare the use of any work by other authors.

Essential errors in the published works
If the author discovers a fundamental error or inaccuracy in his/her work, he/she is obliged to notify the editors of that fact as soon as possible.

Originality and plagiarism
The author submits only the original work to the Editorial Office. He/she should make sure that the names of the authors quoted in the work and / or the excerpts from the cited works have been correctly identified, listed or mentioned. Plagiarism is treated as unethical and unacceptable behaviour.

Any violation of the abovementioned ethical principles is a reason to reject the paper.

II. The Editors’ responsibilities

Duties of the editors
The editors are aware of the principles of the journal’s operation, including how to deal with unethical practices.

Decision to publish
The scientific editor is obliged to comply with the current law in the field of defamation, copyright infringement and plagiarism. The editor is responsible for decisions regarding whether to publish submitted work. The decision to publish an article is based on reviews, and it may be consulted with subject editors and/or reviewers.

Selection of reviewers
The Editorial Office ensures the proper selection of reviewers, and monitors the correctness of the review process. When choosing the reviewers, the Editorial Office does not designate persons who are in direct subordinate work relationship or in other direct personal relationship to the authors of the reviewed paper. The Editorial Office ensures that the review process is conducted in an impartial manner. At least two independent reviewers are designated, who are experts on the subject matter of the reviewed article.

Confidentiality
In order to provide objective and reliable evaluation, articles are reviewed in a double-blind review process. In accordance with the publishing procedure, a member of the editorial team may not disclose information about the submitted work to any other person than its author, the reviewers, potential reviewers, editorial co-workers, and the publisher. Unpublished articles or their fragments may not be used in the own research conducted by the editorial team members or reviewers without the author’s consent expressed in writing.

Discrimination
When deciding whether or not to accept an article, the criteria include its originality, scientific quality, and consistency with the subject matter of the journal, and not the origin of the author, his/her nationality, ethnicity, political views, gender, race, or religion. In the area of counteracting discrimination, the editors adhere to the Constitution of the Republic of Poland and the law in force within the territory of the Republic of Poland.

III. The reviewers’ responsibilities

Editorial decisions
The reviewer supports the scientific editor and subject editors in making editorial decisions, and he/she can also support the author in improving his/her work. The reviewer has an advisory capacity, which means that the final decision regarding whether to accept the work for publication is taken by the scientific editor.

Punctuality
Any selected reviewer who is not able to review the work, or who knows that a timely submission of such review will not be possible, should inform the editorial secretary of that fact.

Objectivity standards
Reviews should be made objectively. Any personal criticism of the author is considered improper. Reviewers should express their views clearly, and present adequate arguments to support them.

Confidentiality
All reviewed papers must be treated as confidential documents. They may not be shown or discussed outside of the editorial board. They may not be used by the reviewer for any kind of benefit.

Anonymity
All reviews are made anonymously, and the Editorial Office does not share the authors’ personal data with the reviewers.

Conflict of interest
The reviewers should not review any works where there exists a conflict of interest resulting from a relationship with the author, company or institution related to the work under review.

Confirmation of sources
The reviewers should indicate publications, which the author of the work failed to cite. The statement that the observation, source or an argument had been discussed previously should be supported by an appropriate quote. The reviewer should also inform the editorial secretary of any significant similarities or partial overlapping of the reviewed work with any other work published and known to him/her, or any suspicion of plagiarism.