These Principles of Publication Ethics are consistent with the guidelines of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) Code of Conduct and Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors [i], Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing [ii] as well as the Code of Ethics for Researchers (Kodeks Etyki Pracownika Naukowego) [iii].
In cases not covered by these Publication Ethics Principles, the Editorial Board shall apply the relevant recommendations for conduct adopted by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) [iv].
The standards outlined below address the ethical principles applicable to Editors, Authors, Reviewers and the Scientific Council at every stage of publication in the journal.
Any and all papers submitted for publication in the journal are examined for compliance with the principles of ethics, integrity, transparency, value and scientific relevance.
The members of the Editorial Board consistently ensure the soundness, consistency, regularity, accessibility and quality of the journal. They are guided by the principles of scientific integrity and impartiality. The Editorial Board strives to raise the scientific, editorial and ethical standards.
Members of the Editorial Board continuously monitor compliance with standards and ethical principles associated with the publication of scientific papers and counteract practices that do not comply with accepted standards.
Papers submitted for publication are evaluated by the Editorial Board primarily in terms of content, form and technical aspects. Decisions of the Editorial Board must be based on scholarly values; aspects such as ethnicity, gender, religion, citizenship or political beliefs of the Authors must not in any way influence the evaluation of the articles [v].
Members of the Editorial Board decide which materials will and will not be published. In making the decision, the following criteria shall be considered crucial: scholarly importance of the paper, originality of approach to the problem, clarity and compliance with the remit of the journal, ethical principles and substantive and formal requirements described in the Principles for Authors section, as well as recommendations provided by the Reviewer during the scholarly review process.
The Editorial Board of the journal is obligated to inform the Author(s) about the result of editorial evaluation of the submitted paper.
Members of the Editorial Board adhere to the principle of confidentiality, and therefore do not disclose any information about papers submitted for publication to unauthorized persons. Persons authorized to receive such information are only the Authors themselves, selected Reviewers, authorized Editors and members of the Scientific Council, as well as the Publisher.
Unpublished articles may not be used by members of the Editorial Board, or by any other persons involved in publishing procedures, without the written consent of the Authors.
When a member of the Editorial Board or the Scientific Council submits a text to the journal, the Editorial Board shall make all possible efforts to maintain impartiality in the editorial and review processes. Supervision of these processes is assumed by another Editor of the journal, and the person submitting the text is excluded from these processes [vi].
The Editorial Board provides the Reader with information about the about the sources of funding for the publication and support of the published research by institutions, organizations or other individuals and entities (financial disclosure).
If complaints, grievances or appeals are received, the Editorial Board of the journal is obligated to record and archive them. The Editorial Board requests that the matter be described in detail in the submission and indicate what content or activities it concerns. The Editorial Board is obligated to keep the submitter's information confidential, unless the submitter wishes for it to be disclosed. Only the submitter, authorized Editors and the Publisher are authorized to have this information. The Editorial Board is obligated to respond in writing to complaints, grievances and appeals submitted to the Editorial Board within a period not exceeding 30 days from the date of receipt of such document. The response of the Editorial Board must include at least an assessment of the case and a description of the actions taken or planned by the Editorial Board in connection with the case.
Contact to the Editorial Board for complaints, grievances and appeals is provided here: archeion@archiwa.gov.pl.
Members of the Editorial Board are obligated to make every effort to preserve the scientific integrity of published articles. To this end, they may make appropriate corrections and, in the case of suspected misconduct (plagiarism, falsification of research results, etc.) or unethical actions, decide to withdraw the paper from publication.
Any and all instances of scientific misconduct, in particular: ghostwriting, guest authorship, plagiarism, making up or falsifying data, data manipulation, the Matilda effect, the Matthew effect [vii], erroneous or unprincipled conduct of research proceedings and violations of the principles of ethics in science are unacceptable and must be promptly reviewed and dealt with by the Editor-in-Chief. The Editor-in-Chief may consult the course of action with the Scientific Council.
The Editorial Board of the journal is obligated to record and archive such cases.
The Editorial Board invites Readers to report such cases when detected. It is suggested that the report should include a detailed description of the case, and an indication of what content is involved.
The Editorial Board, upon receiving such a report, contacts the Author, asks for clarification, gathers and reviews the collected and provided evidence of scientific misconduct, and then formulates a decision to retract, rectify/correct, inform the relevant authorities and/or institutions.
Contact to the Editorial Board on matters of scientific integrity principles is provided here: archeion@archiwa.gov.pl.
Out of concern for the scientific integrity of the published papers, the Editorial Board selects submitted articles in accordance with the principles of the ghostwriting and guest authorship prohibition. Ghostwriting occurs when someone has made a significant contribution to the article, but their contribution as one of the authors is not disclosed or their role is not indicated in an annotation included in the article. Guest authorship (honorary authorship) occurs when someone who made a negligible or no contribution to the publication is named as an Author/co-author of the article.
The Editorial Board implements appropriate procedures to prevent cases of ghostwriting and guest authorship.
The Editors require Authors and Co-Authors to submit statements [viii], in particular, a declaration of the type and extent of the contribution (as a percentage) of individual Authors and Co-Authors to the creation of the work, along with the identifying data (name, affiliation, ORCID ID).
Ghostwriting and guest authorship are manifestations of scientific misconduct, and any detected cases will be disclosed, including notification of relevant entities (institutions employing the Authors, scientific societies, etc.).
If the article was written under a grant, fellowship or subsidy to conduct a research project, the Editorial Board requires that information about the sources of funding and institutional support of the research by organizations and other entities be provided (financial disclosure).
The author may require the Editorial Board to incorporate corrections to the paper submitted by the author.
The Editorial Board also reserves the right to correct texts after they have been published, without informing Readers and Authors. This only applies to so-called minor alterations. Minor alterations include, for example, correction of formatting and spelling. These are not major corrections that would affect the reception or scope of the content presented.
Significant alterations, such as retraction of a paper due to an error, addition or deletion of an Author, data adjustments affecting the interpretation of research results after publication, may be implemented in accordance with the procedures prescribed by COPE [iv].
The Editorial Board invites all interested parties to engage in debates and discussions on published content. The Editorial Board may post the content of the debate in the journal proper, on the journal's website or on an external site.
Contact to the Editorial Board is provided here: archeion@archiwa.gov.pl.
Members of the Editorial Board may consider retracting a published article if:
The notice of retraction of the paper should be considered as equivalent to retraction of the paper. Such notice should contain information about the person (the headline should include at least the title(s) and name(s) of the Author(s) of the paper) and the reasons behind the decision to retract the paper (in order to distinguish unintentional errors from deliberate misconduct). Retracted papers are not removed from the published version of the journal, but the fact and reason for their retraction will be clearly flagged. This does not apply to situations in which the legitimate legal interest of the Author, the Editorial Board, the Publisher or third parties is infringed, in which case the paper may be retracted, and the Editorial Board is obligated to publish an explanatory notice. The author has the right to appeal the decision of the Editorial Board.
In other cases, the Editorial Board follows the recommendations indicated in the COPE Retraction Guidelines [ix] and COPE Flowcharts [iv].
If necessary, the Editorial Board is obligated to publish appropriate rectifications, clarifications or apologies. These will be published on the journal's website and/or in the published version of the journal.
In cases where - according to these Principles of Publication Ethics and COPE's recommendations - the text does not qualify for retraction or correction of minor alterations, the Editorial Board allows the publication of errata, additions and/or rectifications. Any addendum involving significant alterations (affecting the reception or scope of the content presented and the determination of authorship) should be accompanied by a rectification by the Editorial Board indicating the scope of the addition and the reason for the addition.
The Editorial Board follows an open access policy. The journal is published in Open Access, which means that all its content is freely available to users and institutions.
The main and primary version of the journal is its electronic version. The secondary version of the journal is its printed version. All texts and other information published in the paper version are identical to the primary version.
The Editorial Board strives to archive texts in various databases for their greater availability.
The Editorial Board encourages Authors to archive research data in open research data repositories. The Editorial Board does not require Authors to include research data. Nevertheless, in selected cases, the Editorial Board may ask the Author to provide research data (e.g., in cases of problems with the integrity of the presented data or duplication of data reported to the Editorial Board).
The journal does not publish advertisements and announcements of events related to the remit of the journal or advertisements and announcements related to publications and publishing activities.
The Editorial Board of the journal advises that it does not charge author fees (APC - article processing charges), submission fees, publication fees, review fees, article processing fees, and does not pay fees to Authors.
The Editorial Board pays the Reviewers a fee at the average rate for 1 overtime hour for an academic staff member employed as a professor at public universities.
Reviewers' fees are calculated in January for the given calendar year.
Any doubts about scientific integrity should be addressed to: archeion@archiwa.gov.pl.
Discussions and comments should be addressed to: archeion@archiwa.gov.pl.
Research ethics - questions and notifications should be addressed to: archeion@archiwa.gov.pl.
In cases not described in these Principles of Publication Ethics, the Editorial Board follows the recommendations provided in the COPE Retraction Guidelines [ix] and COPE Flowcharts [iv].
Authorship can refer to individuals or groups that create an idea or develop the publication that disseminates that intellectual or creative work [x]. The Editorial Board does not accept texts that are products of artificial intelligence technology.
All persons listed in the submitted work as Authors must have had an actual significant contribution to the creation of the paper (design, idea, planning, execution, interpretation of results). In addition, all persons who influenced the final form of the work should be listed as Co-Authors. It is the responsibility of the Author submitting the paper for publication to make sure that all contributors approve of the final form of the paper.
Other persons who do not meet the above prerequisite of Authorship and whose contribution to the text was insignificant (e.g., general mentoring, coordinating research, collecting data) may give permission to be included in an annotation to the article.
The order of Authors must be established and accepted by all Authors of the text. The change of authorship or order in unpublished texts requires the consent of all Authors of the text, Reviewers and the Editor-in-Chief, as well as an explanation of the reason for such changes. Once the text is published, changes to the Authors' information may be effected in accordance with the procedures indicated by COPE [iv].
For determining the Authors' contributions, the Editorial Board recommends using the CRediT taxonomy (Contributor Roles Taxonomy) [xi].
The Editorial Board requires that the Authors submit relevant statements [xii], in particular, a declaration of the type and extent of the contribution of each of the Authors to the creation of the paper, together with their data (name, surname, affiliation, ORCID ID).
Author(s) shall, prior to publication of the text, submit a statement to the Editorial Board in which they grant the Publisher a royalty-free and non-exclusive license for the Publisher to use the Work in open access, including under the terms of the Creative Commons license, and confirm that they meet the criteria for authorship set forth in these Publication Ethics Rules.
An Author, submitting for publication a paper with multiple Authors, shall submit a declaration to the Editorial Board with information on the contribution of the individual Authors to the publication, declare that no other person deserving authorship has been omitted, and certify the completeness and correctness of the submitted statement.
An Author submitting a paper for publication agrees to make editorial corrections, to respond to reviews within the deadline set by the Editorial Board, and declares that, when called upon by the Editorial Board, they will fulfil their obligation to respond to the discussion or polemics undertaken.
The Author may require the Editorial Board to incorporate his or her own corrections into the text.
All Authors bear full responsibility for the published content, unless otherwise specified (e.g., that they are responsible only for a specific part of the research in their area of specialty). It is advisable to specify the nature of each Author's contribution when stating their affiliation.
Artificial magnification of an Authors publication output by repeatedly documenting the same scientific achievement under different titles is a reprehensible action.
Texts submitted for publication are evaluated by the Editorial Board primarily in terms of content, form and technical aspects. Decisions of the Editorial Board must be based on scholarly values; aspects such as ethnicity, gender, religion, citizenship or political beliefs of the Authors must not in any way influence the evaluation of the articles [v]. If an Author suspects that fair play principle has not been upheld, they may file a complaint or grievance with the Editor-in-Chief. For more on this topic, see Principles concerning members of the Editorial Board (see Publication Decisions and Complaints, Grievances, Appeals).
Authors of papers submitted for publication are obligated to accurately describe the research work performed and objectively interpret the results. The papers should contain enough information to identify the sources of research data. Unreliable or unethical presentation and interpretation of data and research results is unacceptable and may result in retraction of the paper.
Any and all instances of scientific misconduct, in particular: ghostwriting, guest authorship, plagiarism, making up or falsifying data, data manipulation, the Matilda effect, the Matthew effect [vii], erroneous or unprincipled conduct of research proceedings and violations of the principles of ethics in science are unacceptable and must be promptly reviewed and dealt with by the Editor-in-Chief. The Editor-in-Chief may consult the course of action with the Scientific Council. The Editorial Board of the journal is required to record and archive such cases.
Papers that do not fulfil the principles of scientific integrity will not be accepted for publication. If the misconduct is reported/observed after the paper has already been published, the Editorial Board, upon receiving such a report, contacts the Author, asks for clarification, gathers and reviews the collected and provided evidence of scientific misconduct, and then formulates a decision to retract, rectify/correct, inform the relevant authorities and/or institutions. The author has the right to appeal against the decision of the Editorial Board.
Authors of submitted papers are obligated to always indicate the sources of research data, publications and other sources that they have used in the creation of the article.
It is imperative to follow the rules of correct citation of other authors' works in publications. Unjustified citation of one's own work or work that is substantively removed from the content of the publication with the intention of increasing the citation rate or other scientometric indicators of one's own or others' work should be avoided.
Authors may only submit their own original papers for publication. Same papers cannot be submitted concurrently to another journal/publication or be part of an already published journal/publication.
Only in special and justified cases is it permissible for the Editor-in-Chief to agree to republish a previously published text. Such a text must contain a bibliographic reference to the originally published paper.
Authors using research or citing the data or words of others should apply appropriate markings to indicate citation. Plagiarism or data fabrication is not acceptable.
Unpublished articles may not be used by members of the Editorial Board, or by any other persons involved in publishing procedures, without the written consent of the Authors.
When submitting a text, the Authors provide information about the sources of funding for the publication and support of the published research by institutions, organizations or other individuals and entities (financial disclosure).
In addition, they submit a declaration of no conflict of interest [xiii].
Authors may be requested to present unprocessed research results, so they should be prepared to provide access to these data. It is not required to attach research data to articles; however, we do require authors to provide a reference in the article as to where the research data is stored. The Authors may archive such data in open research data repositories [xiv], and subsequently enter the correct citation of them in their publications, in particular by providing a DOI number or other identifier.
If the Author discovers significant errors or inaccuracies in their paper, they are obligated to immediately notify the Editor of the journal in order to retract the paper, make an erratum or correct the errors that have occurred.
As an Author notifies the Editorial Board of their desire to publish the paper, they also declare that they would fulfil their obligation to respond to the Editorial Board's call for clarification in case of any complaints, grievances, or allegations of scientific misconduct regarding the published text.
The Author, as well as the Editorial Board and Reviewers may, at the stage of the editorial process (prior to the publication of the text), through discussions, revise texts. The Author, by submitting a text for publication, agrees to actively participate in discussions with the Editorial Board of the journal.
The Editorial Board reserves the right to correct texts after they have been published, without informing Readers and Authors. This only applies to so-called minor alterations. Minor alterations include, for example, correction of formatting and spelling. These are not major corrections that would affect the reception or scope of the content presented.
Significant alterations, such as retraction of a paper due to an error, addition or deletion of an Author, data adjustments affecting the interpretation of research results after publication, may be implemented in accordance with the procedures prescribed by COPE [iv].
The Authors are obligated to promptly report and correct any perceived errors, inaccuracies or misleading statements.
In accordance with these Principles of Publication Ethics, the Editorial Board invites all interested parties to engage in debates and discussions on published content. The Editorial Board may post the content of the debate in the journal proper, on the journal's website or on an external site.
Contact to the Editorial Board is provided here: archeion@archiwa.gov.pl.
As an Author notifies the Editorial Board of their desire to publish the paper, they also declare that they would fulfil their obligation to respond to the initiated debate.
The Author has the right to retract a paper submitted to the Editorial Board in case of gross negligence of the Editorial Board during editorial work. In case of significant delays in the editorial work, the Authors should be informed of the reason for the delay. The Editorial Board should provide the Author with information about the assumed maximum time for processing the article. Complaints and grievances about the negligence of the Editorial Board, as well as requests for retraction of an article, should be addressed directly to the Editor-in-Chief.
Contact to the Editorial Board is provided here: archeion@archiwa.gov.pl.
If personal data are processed in the text for scientific purposes, it is necessary to ensure that the rights of the data subject are safeguarded or appropriate consents are obtained for the processing of such data, particularly bearing in mind international and national law, with emphasis on Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data and repealing Directive 95/46/EC (General Data Protection Regulation). If necessary, the author should provide the Editor with a personal data entrustment agreement or relevant authorizations.
An Author submitting a paper for publication must declare that the article is original, does not infringe on the rights or interests of third parties, and that they have secured a permission from persons whose images or statements, artwork or photographs have been captured/used in the Work to use them in the text and make them available online and in print.
As an Author submits a paper for publication, they specifically agree to provide such documents and statements as required by the Editorial Board and/or Publisher regarding:
All the required forms can be found on the journal's website in downloadable format: https://ejournals.eu/czasopismo/archeion.
In cases not described in these Principles of Publication Ethics, the Editorial Board follows the recommendations provided in the COPE Retraction Guidelines [ix] and COPE Flowcharts [iv].
Reviewers and opinion providers may not undertake the task of evaluating an article when it is beyond the scope of their scientific experience and competence.
Reviewers and opinion providers involved in the evaluation of articles may not participate in the evaluation process in any and all cases where there is a conflict of interest between them and the person being evaluated, casting doubt on the objectivity of the evaluation. Reviewers shall make a statement of no conflict of interest [xiii].
Reviews and opinions should be meticulous, accurate and objective, and ratings should be justified. Unjustified positive reviews are as reprehensible as unjustified negative reviews.
Neither Reviewers nor Editors may use data or concepts contained in texts provided to them without the Author's permission.
The Editorial Board, when appointing a Reviewer, must take into account the principle of preventing conflicts of interest.
Reviewers may not use the reviewed works for their personal needs and benefits. They also may not evaluate texts where there may be a conflict of interest with the Author(s).
A conflict of interest on part of a Reviewer may occur when there are circumstances that may raise doubts about his/her impartiality or influence his/her actions during the review procedure, e.g. business, financial, legal ties, Reviewer's opinions, scientific rivalries, family relations.
The Editorial Board, Author(s) and Reviewers may, at the stage of the editorial process (prior to the publication of the text) by way of discussion, revise texts.
Reviewers participate in the work of the editorial team and influence the decisions made by the Editorial Board. They can also, in consultation with the Authors, influence the final shape and improvement of published texts.
The review is conducted in double blind mode, which means that the Authors and Reviewers do not know each other's identities.
The identities of the Authors are unknown to the Reviewers but known to the Editorial Board.
The names of the Reviewers for each article are not disclosed in the respective volume of the journal Archeion on the editorial page. Once a year, the journal makes public the list of cooperating Reviewers.
The review takes place before the publication of the text, after the Author submits the text to the Editorial Board for evaluation. To evaluate each scientific paper, the Editorial Board appoints at least two independent Reviewers from outside the scientific unit affiliated with the Author of the publication (external reviews). Texts in a foreign language are evaluated by at least one Reviewer affiliated with a foreign institution other than that of the Author of the reviewed work.
Selection of the Reviewers is the responsibility of the Editorial Board, guided in particular by the research interests, scientific achievements and competence of the Reviewer in the subject matter covered by the reviewed text.
A Reviewer may refuse to complete a review for formal (e.g., conflict of interest, inability to meet deadlines for review) or non-formal (research interests do not coincide with the subject matter addressed in the text) reasons. In such a case, the Reviewer is obligated to notify the Editorial Board without delay.
It is unacceptable to appoint a member of the Editorial Board or a member of the Scientific Council as a Reviewer.
The Editorial Board does not use reviews from other journals, commercial review platforms, online forums, etc.
When the Author of the text is a member of the Editorial Board or the Scientific Council, the selection of a Reviewer rests with another member of the Editorial Board who is not the Author. Such a person is bound by the rules and responsibilities of the Author but is not entitled to the privileges of a member of the Editorial Board or Scientific Council to participate in editorial work, in the review process and in making decisions related to the text.
The review must be provided in writing. The reviewer may provide a review form or complete the review using the appropriate online form. The review must contain a clear assessment as to whether the article should be accepted for publication or rejected.
Only texts that are subject to the review process and have received two positive reviews may be accepted by the Editorial Board for publication without a second round of review.
A text that has received one or two conditional reviews, i.e., such where the reviewer indicates the possibility of admitting the text for publication after corrections, may be sent back with recommendations to the Author. The Author makes the appropriate corrections, then the text can be sent for re-review (second round of reviews). Then the second Reviewer should be informed of the result of the first round.
Papers that have received two negative reviews are rejected by the Editorial Board without conducting a second round of reviews.
Texts that have received one negative review may be reviewed by the Scientific Council of the journal to propose acceptance, rejection of the text or to conduct a second round of reviews.
Evaluation criteria considered during the review process are indicated in the review form.
The Editorial Board provides the Reviewer with a Review Form, which is the basic document for expressing the Reviewer's conclusions. The Reviewer may additionally provide other materials (e.g., written comments, the content of the reviewed text with comments) along with the review form.
The content of the review is not disclosed to the public.
Review reports are available to Authors (after anonymization), Editorial Board and Scientific Council. The Editor-in-Chief may make first-round review reports available to second-round reviewers.
No direct interaction between Authors and Reviewers is allowed. Contact is anonymized. Conclusions and review reports, as well as Authors' responses, are communicated through the Editorial Office or using a suitable system that ensures anonymization of data in double blind review mode. No direct interaction between Reviewers is permitted.
All reviews are confidential, which means that disclosure to third parties is not permitted (except for authorized persons).
Reviews should be objective in nature. Personal criticism of Authors of papers is considered inappropriate. All observations of the Reviewer should be adequately justified. If necessary, Reviewers should indicate relevant research sources or works not cited by the Author. Any relevant similarities to other works should also be indicated and reported to the Editorial Board.
Reviewers are obligated to make every effort to comply with the standards and ethical principles associated with the publication of scientific papers and to counteract practices that are inconsistent with accepted standards. To this end, they may propose appropriate corrections and changes, and in the case of suspected misconduct (plagiarism, falsification of research results, etc.) or unethical actions, decide not to allow the text to be published.
Reviewers are obligated to submit reviews by the established deadline. If for some reason (substantive, lack of time) they are unable to meet the deadline or undertake the review, they should immediately inform the Editorial Board.
In cases not described in these Principles of Publication Ethics, the Editorial Board follows the recommendations provided in the COPE Retraction Guidelines [ix] and COPE Flowcharts [iv].
Issues such as ethnicity, gender, religion, citizenship or political beliefs of the Authors must not in any way affect the outcome of the review. Texts submitted for publication are evaluated primarily in terms of content, form and technical aspects, as well as scientific integrity. Reviewers' decisions must be based on scholarly values.
Members of the Scientific Council should be recognized experts in the field consistent with the remit of the journal.
Names and affiliations of members of the Scientific Council are published on the journal's website. The Editorial Board shall promptly update the information on the composition of the Scientific Council.
Duties of the members of the Scientific Council include:
The journal is published in open access, which means that all content is available free of charge to users and institutions at a time and place of their choosing.
Access to content published online in the journal does not require a login.
All texts from the journal are published electronically under a CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 license, which means that works may be copied and distributed in any medium and format under the terms of attribution, non-commercial use, without derivative works (more information at: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
The Editorial Board invites all interested parties to engage in debates and discussions on published content. The Editorial Board may post the content of the debate in the journal proper, on the journal's website or on an external site.
Any questions, comments or polemics should be addressed to the Editorial Board: archeion@archiwa.gov.pl.
The Editorial Board requests to be informed of any and all cases of scientific misconduct, in particular: ghostwriting, guest authorship, plagiarism, making up or falsifying data, data manipulation, the Matilda effect, the Matthew effect7, erroneous or unprincipled conduct of research proceedings and violations of the principles of ethics in science. The Editorial Board of the journal is obligated to record and archive such cases. It is suggested that the notification should include a detailed description of the case, and an indication of what content is involved.
Such reports must be immediately reviewed and investigated by the Editor-in-Chief and the Scientific Council.
The Editorial Board, upon receiving such a report, contacts the Author, asks for clarification, gathers and reviews the collected and provided evidence of scientific misconduct, and then formulates a decision to retract, rectify/correct, inform the relevant authorities and/or institutions. The Editorial Board shall contact the person reporting the violation and/or make the decision available to the public.
Any concerns about scientific integrity should be directed to: archeion@archiwa.gov.pl.
Discussions and comments should be directed to: archeion@archiwa.gov.pl.
[i] COPE Council, Code of Conduct and Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors, https://publicationethics.org/files/Code_of_conduct_for_journal_editors_Mar11.pdf, accessed on: 12.06.2024.
[ii] The Committee on Publication Ethics, DOAJ, the Open Access Scholarly Publishing Association, the World Association of Medical Editors, Principles of transparency and best practice in scholarly publishing, https://doaj.org/apply/transparency/, accessed on: 12.06.2024.
[iii] Kodeks Etyki Pracownika Naukowego, Appendix to Resolution No. 2/2020 of the General Assembly of the Polish Academy of Sciences of June 25, 2020. Issue III.
[iv] COPE Council, Polish: all flowcharts, https://publicationethics.org/resources/flowcharts/polish-all-flowcharts, DOI: https://doi.org/10.24318/cope.2019.2.36, accessed on: 12.06.2024.
[v] The Committee on Publication Ethics, DOAJ, the Open Access Scholarly Publishing Association, the World Association of Medical Editors, Principles of transparency and best practice in scholarly publishing, https://doaj.org/apply/transparency/, accessed on: 12.06.2024.
[vi] COPE Council, Editor as author in own journal, https://publicationethics.org/case/editor-author-own-journal, accessed on: 12.06.2024.
[vii] Examples of scientific misconduct:
[viii] The list of required documents is presented in the section Rules for Authors (see Basic formal requirements for publication).
[ix] COPE Council, COPE Guidelines: Retraction Guidelines, DOI: https://doi.org/10.24318/cope.2019.1.4, accessed on: 12.06.2024.
[x] COPE, Authorship, https://publicationethics.org/resources/discussion-documents/what-constitutes-authorship-english-june-2014, accessed on: 12.06.2024.
[xi] CRediT, https://credit.niso.org/, accessed on: 12.06.2024.
[xii] The necessary documents are described in the section Principles concerning the Authors (see Basic formal requirements for publication).
[xiii] “A conflict of interest on the part of the Author occurs when the Author has certain financial interests or connections, direct or indirect, or there are other situations that may raise doubts about his/her impartiality or affect his/her actions,” e.g., when the validity of the research depends on the Author's personal relationships, private opinions, scientific rivalries, etc." After: Oxford Academic, Conflicts of interest, https://academic.oup.com/pages/authoring/journals/preparing_your_manuscript/conflicts_of_interest, accessed on 12.06.2024.
[xiv] Authors are encouraged to archive research data in open research data repositories: