Ethical principles

Acta Scientiarum Polonorum Formatio Circumiectus is a peer-reviewed academic journal. Authors, editors and reviewers are required to adhere to the principles of academic integrity, transparency in the publication process and responsibility for the published content.
The journal’s ethical guidelines are consistent with the current recommendations of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and the Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing.

1. The authors’ responsibilities

1.1. Authorship and authors’ contributions
Authorship is limited to individuals who have made a genuine and substantial contribution to the work, in particular to its conception, conducting the research, the analysis or interpretation of results, the drafting of the text, or its substantial scientific revision.
All authors listed in the paper should be familiar with and approve the final version of the manuscript submitted to the journal, consent to its submission, and agree to the order of authorship and the information regarding their contributions to the publication.
The corresponding author is responsible for liaising with the Editorial Board and for communicating information regarding the publication process to the co-authors.
When submitting a manuscript, authors must declare the each contributor’s role in preparing the manuscript.
Individuals who participated in the research or the preparation of the publication, but whose contribution does not qualify them for co-authorship, may be listed in the acknowledgements, with their consent.
Ghostwriting, guest authorship and honorary authorship violate academic integrity. It is unacceptable both to omit individuals who have made a significant contribution to the publication and to list as authors individuals whose involvement does not qualify them for authorship.
Any change to the list of authors or the order of authors after the manuscript has been submitted requires justification and the consent of all authors concerned, including the person being added to or removed from the list of authors. The editorial board does not adjudicate authorship disputes requiring the investigation of facts beyond those documented in the publication process. In such cases, it may refer the matter to the relevant institution for clarification.
1.2. Authenticity, plagiarism and duplicate publications
Only manuscripts that have not been previously published in full or in substantial part, and which are not currently under consideration by another journal, may be submitted to the journal.
Plagiarism, undisclosed reuse of an author's own previously published material, duplicate publications, unjustified splitting of the results of a single study across multiple papers, fabrication or falsification of data, and manipulation of citations are considered unacceptable.
The use of third-party texts, data, figures, tables, maps, photographs, concepts or other materials requires appropriate citation of the source and, where necessary, permission from the rights holder.
Authors are obliged to cite publications that have direct relevance to the research, the methods used, the interpretation of results or the discussion presented. References should be selected on the basis of their relevance to the research.
It is not permissible to submit a translation of a previously published work as a new, original article without disclosing the original publication and without complying with the legal requirements relating to the reuse of content.
Prior sharing of a manuscript in a preprint repository does not preclude its submission to the journal, provided that this fact is disclosed to the Editorial Board. Doctoral dissertations, undergraduate and master's theses and conference abstracts are not considered prior publications, provided that their relationship to the submitted work is disclosed.
1.3. Reliability of research reporting and data integrity
Authors are required to present the methods, results and limitations of their research accurately and in sufficient detail to allow scientific assessment.
Data must not be fabricated, falsified, omitted or selectively presented in a way that distorts the results or their interpretation.
It is unacceptable to modify photographs, images, graphs or other visual materials in a way that misrepresents the scientific findings or is likely to mislead readers. Permissible technical modifications must not affect the information contained in the source material.
The editorial team may ask authors to present source data, research documentation, original visual materials or other materials necessary to verify the reliability of the work, even after publication. Authors should retain research data for a period appropriate to the nature of the study and in accordance with existing legal, ethical and institutional requirements.
When submitting a manuscript, authors shall include a statement regarding data availability, specifying where the data supporting the findings can be accessed and under what conditions. If the data cannot be made available, the reason for the restriction on access must be stated. Reasons for limiting access may include, in particular, the protection of personal data, obligations to the data owner, or the need to protect the precise location of vulnerable species.
1.4. Funding and conflicts of interest
Authors are obliged to disclose all sources of research funding and (where applicable) to specify project or grant reference numbers. If a funding body participated in the design of the study, the collection or analysis of data, the preparation of the manuscript, or the decision to submit it, the authors should state its role.
Authors should disclose any financial or non-financial conflicts of interest that may influence, or may be perceived as influencing, the conduct of the research, the interpretation of its results or the content of the publication.
If there is no conflict of interest, the authors should explicitly state this.
1.5. Ethical approval and research authorisation
Research must be conducted in compliance with current legislation, ethical principles and the standards of the relevant bodies.
If the nature of the research requires approval from an ethics committee or another competent body, the authors must provide details of the approval received, including its reference number, if one has been issued.
This applies in particular to research conducted on humans or animals, research requiring institutional approval or permits for sample collection, research on protected species or in protected areas, and other research subject to special regulations.
If a publication contains data, photographs or other material requiring the consent of the persons concerned, the authors are responsible for securing the appropriate consent before submitting the manuscript to the journal.
Authors are responsible for ensuring that the information provided about the required consents and permits is accurate and complete.
1.6. The use of generative artificial intelligence and AI-powered tools
According to the Act on Copyright and Related Rights, only a human can be recognised as the author or co-author of a paper. Generative artificial intelligence tools do not have legal personality and cannot be named as authors or co-authors of a publication, as they bear no responsibility for its content.
Authors remain fully responsible for the accuracy, authenticity, reliability, use of sources and legality of the entire submitted work, even if they used artificial intelligence tools in its preparation.
Any substantial use of generative artificial intelligence in the preparation of a manuscript must be disclosed. The disclosure should identify the tool used and the purpose of its application.
The use of tools exclusively for basic spelling, grammar or linguistic correction does not require a separate declaration, provided that the tool does not generate new substantive content.
The verification of content, data, citations, bibliographic information and other materials generated or recommended by AI tools is the sole responsibility of the authors. It is not permissible to cite sources that the authors have failed to review.
If artificial intelligence or machine learning methods form part of the research methodology, their use must be documented in the ‘Materials and Methods’ section in sufficient detail to allow the methods used to be assessed.
It is unacceptable to use AI tools to fabricate, falsify or modify without disclosure data, results, sources, images or other materials forming the basis of scientific conclusions.
1.7. Materials protected by copyright
Authors are responsible for securing all necessary permissions for the use of materials protected by copyright, including data, figures, tables, maps and photographs derived from other sources.
The source of any material originating from a third party must be duly indicated.
Authors are responsible for ensuring that they hold the rights or permissions necessary to use the submitted materials in the published work.
1.8. Errors identified after publication
If an author finds a significant error or inaccuracy in a published paper, they should immediately inform the Editorial Board and cooperate in determining the appropriate corrective action.
This obligation also applies to situations where, following publication, information emerges that may call into question the reliability of some of the results or conclusions presented in the paper.
1.9. The integrity of the peer-review process
If the journal permits authors to recommend reviewers, the decision on their selection rests entirely with the Editorial Board. Authors must not recommend individuals individuals with whom they have a conflict of interest, nor provide false contact details.
Attempts to manipulate the peer-review process are unacceptable; this applies to the creation of fake reviewer profiles, reciprocal peer-review or citation arrangements, and services offering ghostwriting, ready-made manuscripts or data, or manipulation of the peer-review process.

2. Responsibilities of the Editorial Board

2.1. Editorial decisions and impartiality
Decisions are taken based on the novelty of the manuscripts, their scientific quality, methodological rigour, the impact of the findings, and their relevance to the journal’s scope.
Editorial decisions must not be influenced by the author’s origin, nationality, ethnicity, gender, race, religion, political views or any other factors unrelated to the scientific evaluation of the work.
The final decision on whether to accept, request revisions or reject a manuscript is made by the Editor-in-Chief or an appointed editor after taking into account the reviewers’ opinions and, where necessary, following consultation with other members of the editorial team.
Reviewers’ opinions serve an advisory role only. Responsibility for the decision regarding publication rests with the Editorial Board.
Editorial decisions on the substance of the work are made independently of the organisational, financial and promotional interests of the Publisher, sponsors or other entities.
2.2. Selection of reviewers and the course of the peer-review process
The Editorial Board guarantees an appropriate selection of reviewers and an impartial peer-review process.
Research articles accepted for peer review are assessed by at least two independent scholars with expertise in the subject area of the paper.
The journal employs a double-blind peer-review process: authors do not know the identity of the reviewers, and reviewers are not provided with any information that would enable them to identify the authors.
When selecting reviewers, the Editorial Board takes into account the possibility of a conflict of interest, in particular arising from shared affiliation, recent or close academic collaboration, professional dependence, personal relationships or financial interests. The Editorial Board takes reasonable steps to verify the identity of reviewers and to counteract manipulation of the peer-review process.
2.3. Manuscripts by authors associated with the journal
Manuscripts submitted by the Editor-in-Chief, members of the Editorial Board, the scientific advisory board or other persons directly associated with the journal are handled by an independent editor who has no conflict of interest with the author. The author does not participate in the selection of reviewers or in decisions concerning their own work.
2.4. Confidentiality and conflicts of interest
Information regarding submitted manuscripts remains confidential and may only be disclosed to parties involved in the editorial, peer-review or publication process.
Unpublished content, data or concepts contained in a manuscript must not be used by editors or reviewers for their own purposes without the author’s consent.
An editor should withdraw from handling a manuscript if there is a conflict of interest that could compromise their impartiality. In such cases, the work should be entrusted to another member of the editorial board who has no conflict of interest.
Confidential content from manuscripts, reviews and editorial correspondence must not be shared with publicly available generative artificial intelligence tools or other services that do not adequately safeguard confidential information and data.
An editor must not rely on generative AI tools to assess the scientific merit of a manuscript or to make or recommend decisions regarding publication.
2.5. Allegations of scientific misconduct
The Editorial Board examines reports of plagiarism, fabrication or falsification of data, manipulation of images or citations, irregularities relating to authorship, duplicate publications and other forms of scientific misconduct. An anonymous report may be considered if it contains specific, verifiable information.
Where reasonable concerns arise, the Editorial Board may ask authors to provide clarification, source data or other supporting documentation necessary to resolve the case. The party concerned must be given an opportunity to respond before a decision is made.
If the nature of the case so warrants, the Editorial Board may contact the author’s employer, the research organisation, the funding body or any other relevant entity to request clarification of the matter.
The Editorial Board does not conduct investigations falling within the remit of the authors’ employing organisations or other competent bodies, but takes the necessary steps to safeguard the integrity of the publication process and the reliability of the published content.
Proceedings in cases concerning suspected scientific misconduct are carried out in accordance with current COPE guidelines and applicable regulations.

3. Responsibilities of reviewers

Reviewers support the Editorial Board in assessing the scientific quality of a manuscript and may assist authors in improving it. Their opinion serves an advisory purpose.
A reviewer who lacks the relevant competence to assess the work, cannot complete the review by the required deadline, or has a conflict of interest, should immediately inform the Editorial Board and decline to carry out the review. A reviewer must not delegate the review to another person without the prior consent of the Editorial Board.
Conflicts of interest may include, in particular: close academic collaboration with the author, a current shared affiliation, a hierarchical relationship, a close personal relationship, a financial interest in the subject matter of the work, or other circumstances that could reasonably call the reviewer’s impartiality into question.
Reviews should be objective, factual and well-reasoned. Personal criticism of authors is not acceptable.
A reviewer should evaluate a manuscript exclusively on the basis of its academic merit and must not abuse the review process to gain personal, academic or professional advantage.
A manuscript under review is a confidential document. It must not be shared with third parties or discussed outside the peer-review process without the Editor’s consent. If, despite anonymisation, a reviewer recognises the author and this may affect their impartiality, they should inform the Editor.
Confidential content from the manuscript and reviews must not be entered into publicly available generative artificial intelligence tools or other services that do not properly protect confidentiality and data.
A reviewer must not rely on generative artificial intelligence tools to carry out a scientific evaluation of a manuscript or to prepare a recommendation regarding an editorial decision. They are responsible for the content of the review they produce.
Reviewers should draw attention to any important missing citations, substantial similarities to other work, suspected plagiarism, duplicate publication or other irregularities, and report such information to the Editorial Board.
Recommendations for additional references should be based entirely on their substantive relevance to the work under review. A reviewer should not demand the inclusion of citations to their own publications or those of other authors unless this is justified on academic grounds.

4. Complaints and appeals

Authors, reviewers and readers may submit complaints to the Editorial Board concerning the editorial process, the peer-review process, publication ethics standards or the content published in the journal.
Complaints should be sent to the Editorial Board’s address as provided in the ‘Contact’ section. The complaint should provide sufficient information to identify the matter concerned, along with as detailed a description as possible of the concerns raised.
An author may lodge an appeal against an editorial decision. The appeal should set out specific scientific or procedural arguments justifying a reconsideration of the case. Dissatisfaction with the reviewers’ opinions or the Editorial Board’s decision alone does not constitute sufficient grounds for an appeal.
Complaints and appeals are handled impartially. Where possible, the matter is reviewed by someone who was not involved in the original decision.
If a complaint concerns the actions of the Editor-in-Chief or if there is a conflict of interest preventing the Editorial Board from considering it impartially, the matter is referred to the Publisher or a person appointed by the Publisher.
The Editorial Board may seek additional information or documents needed to resolve the case from the complainant or appellant.
Lodging an appeal does not automatically overturn the previous editorial decision. Following the review of an appeal, the author will be informed of the decision. The decision on the appeal is final.
Complaints regarding suspected scientific misconduct are dealt with according to the principles set out in this document and with reference to the relevant COPE procedures.

5. Notes on published articles, corrections and retractions

Readers may submit comments on the contents of published articles to the Editorial Board. The Editorial Board assesses their validity and, depending on the nature of the complaint, may ask the authors for clarification or a response, or take measures to correct the published content.
If, after publication, a significant error is identified which does not undermine the main findings and conclusions of the paper, the Editorial Board may publish a correction.
If the results or conclusions of a publication cannot be regarded as reliable due to serious errors, scientific misconduct or other significant irregularities, the paper may be retracted in accordance with current COPE guidelines.
If there are serious doubts regarding the integrity of a publication, but the matter has not yet been definitively resolved, the Editorial Board may publish an ‘Expression of concern’.
Notices of corrections, retractions and expressions of concern are made publicly available and permanently linked to the original article.
Publication does not prevent the journal from taking action if significant errors or breaches of publication ethics are discovered subsequently.

6. Copyright and open access

The journal’s current guidelines define the rules regarding copyright, publication terms and open access.
All articles published in the journal Acta Sci. Pol., Formatio Circumiectus series, are made available under an open access licence (Creative Commons CC BY 4.0). This means that readers have free and unrestricted access to the full text of all articles published in the journal, and have the right to reuse the published material provided they give appropriate attribution to the original work, and open-access publication is supported by the authors’ institutions or research funding bodies by means of payment for the editorial processing of the articles.
No special permission is necessary to reuse all or part of an article published in the journal, including illustrations and tables. In the case of articles published under the Creative Commons CC BY 4.0 open licence, any part of the article may be reused without permission, provided that the original article is clearly cited.
Authors must ensure that they have the necessary rights and permissions to publish third-party material.

7. Breach of publication ethics

Depending on the nature of the case and the stage of the publication process, a breach of publication ethics may result in manuscript rejection, the termination of the editorial process, the publication of a correction, an editorial note, or the retraction of the publication.
Where justified, the Editorial Board may notify the author’s institution, the research organisation, the funding body or any other relevant entity of the matter.
Any action taken will reflect the circumstances of the case and be guided by the current COPE guidelines.