Ethics in publishing

Responsibilities of Authors

1.1. Authorship of the manuscript

The authors of a manuscript are persons who have contributed to the formulation of the research objectives and hypotheses, the development of the research methodology, as well as the interpretation and discussion of the results. Co-authors are all other persons who participated in conducting the research and processing the data. The author should ensure that all co-authors are listed in the manuscript, that they have read and approved the final version, and that they have agreed to submit it for publication.

Ghostwriting refers to a situation in which someone has made a substantial contribution to the work related to a given publication, while their identity as a co-author is not disclosed and they are not mentioned in the acknowledgements attached to the manuscript. Guest or honorary authorship refers to a situation in which one or more authors are listed for a publication despite their actual contribution being minor or insignificant.
Ghostwriting and guest authorship constitute forms of scientific misconduct. All detected cases of such practices will be disclosed, including notification of the appropriate entities (such as the authors’ employing institutions and professional associations). Instances of improper scientific conduct, in particular any violations or breaches of research ethics, will be documented by the Editorial Office.

1.2. Disclosure of sources of research funding and conflicts of interest

The author should disclose all sources of research funding in the manuscript, as well as the contributions of scientific and research institutions, associations, and other entities, and any significant conflicts of interest that may affect the results or their interpretation.

1.3. Reporting standards

Authors of papers based on original research should present a detailed description of the work performed, as well as an objective discussion of its significance. Source data should be presented in the article.

1.4. Data access and retention

Authors may be asked to provide the source data used in the manuscript for editorial review; therefore, they must retain the relevant data for a reasonable period after publication.

1.5. Duplicate publication

An author should not publish materials describing the same research in more than one journal or original publication. Submitting the same manuscript simultaneously to more than one editorial office is unethical and therefore unacceptable. Submitting an article that is a translation of a text that has already been published is also considered unethical.

1.6. Acknowledgement of sources

The author should cite all publications that influenced the creation of the work.

1.7. Fundamental errors in published works

If an author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in their work, they are obliged to notify the editor as soon as possible.

1.8. Originality and plagiarism

The author submits only original work to the Editorial Office. The author should ensure that the names of authors cited in the manuscript and/or fragments of cited works are correctly identified and listed. Plagiarism is the use of data from another person’s work without disclosing the source of the information used. Self-plagiarism is the use of data from one’s own previously published work without disclosing the source of the information used.

Plagiarism and self-plagiarism are regarded as unethical and unacceptable conduct.

Any violation of the above-mentioned ethical principles constitutes grounds for rejection of the manuscript.
Responsibilities of the Editorial Board

2.1. Responsibilities of the editor(s)

The Editor-in-Chief and subject editors are familiar with the journal’s operating principles, including procedures for dealing with unethical practices.

2.2. Publication decision

The editor is obliged to comply with applicable regulations concerning defamation, copyright infringement, and plagiarism. The editor is responsible for decisions regarding the publication of submitted manuscripts. The decision to publish an article is based on peer reviews and may be consulted with editors and/or reviewers.

2.3. Selection of reviewers

The Editorial Board ensures the appropriate selection of reviewers and monitors the proper conduct of the peer review process. When selecting reviewers, the Editorial Board does not appoint individuals who are in a direct subordinate professional relationship or other direct personal relationship with the authors of the reviewed article. The Editorial Board ensures that the peer review process is conducted impartially. At least two independent reviewers who are experts in the subject of the reviewed article are appointed.

2.4. Confidentiality

To ensure an objective and reliable evaluation, articles are assessed under a procedure in which authors and reviewers do not know each other’s identities (double-blind review process). In accordance with this procedure, a member of the editorial team may not disclose any information about a submitted work to anyone other than its author, reviewers, potential reviewers, editorial staff, and the publisher. Unpublished articles or their parts may not be used in the research conducted by members of the editorial team or reviewers without the written consent of the author.

2.5. Discrimination

Decisions on acceptance or rejection of an article are based on the criteria of originality, scientific quality, and relevance to the journal’s scope. The author’s origin, nationality, ethnic background, political views, gender, race, or religion have no influence on the decision. In the area of preventing discrimination, the Editorial Board complies with the Constitution of the Republic of Poland and the law applicable within the territory of the Republic of Poland.
Responsibilities of Reviewers

3.1. Editorial decisions

The reviewer assists the editor(s) in making editorial decisions and may also help the author to improve the manuscript. The reviewer has an advisory role, which means that the final decision regarding acceptance of the manuscript for publication is made by the scientific editor.

3.2. Timeliness

A reviewer who is unable to provide a reliable review or knows that timely submission of the review will not be possible should inform the Editorial Secretary.

3.3. Standards of objectivity

Reviews should be conducted objectively. Any personal criticism of the author is considered inappropriate.
Reviewers should clearly express their views and provide convincing arguments in support of them.

1.4. Confidentiality

All manuscripts submitted for review should be treated as confidential documents. They must not be shown to or discussed with others outside the Editorial Office. They must not be used by the reviewer for any personal benefit.

3.5. Anonymity

All reviews are anonymous, and the Editorial Board does not disclose the personal data of authors to reviewers.

3.6. Conflict of interest

Reviewers should not review manuscripts that give rise to conflicts of interest resulting from relationships with the author, a company, or an institution associated with the reviewed work.

3.7. Acknowledgement of sources

Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the author. Any statement that an observation, source, or argument has been previously reported should be supported by an appropriate citation. Reviewers should also inform the Editorial Secretary of any substantial similarity or partial overlap between the manuscript under review and any other published work known to them, as well as any suspicion of plagiarism.

For Authors