Authors of publications should present the results of their work clearly, honestly, and fairly, and disclose information about all parties contributing to the publication (intellectual, financial, etc.).
Authors may submit only their own original texts for publication.
Only individuals who have significantly contributed to the development of the paper may be listed as authors, while those who have made a minor contribution or provided auxiliary roles (such as collecting scientific materials, providing technical assistance in calculations and/or drawings, etc.) should be acknowledged but not listed as authors. Only humans can be authors of scientific texts. AI tools cannot be considered authors or co-authors. The editorial board asks authors to disclose information about entities contributing to the publication (intellectual, financial, etc.).
All authors are equally responsible for the content of the publication unless the article clearly indicates how the work was divided (e.g., in an author's note). In the event of detecting a situation indicative of scientific misconduct, where the actual author is a person not listed in the list of authors or in the acknowledgments attached to the work (so-called "ghost-writing"), or when one or more authors are assigned to a publication while their actual contribution is minimal or insignificant ("guest authorship"), the Editorial Board notifies the employing institution (nominal) of the author and the associations, teams, and scientific societies of which the author is a member.
Authors are obligated to disclose all sources of project funding in their work, as well as the contribution of research institutions, associations, and other entities, and to indicate any conflicts of interest that could affect the results and interpretation of the work.
The editorial board considers it unethical and unacceptable to simultaneously submit the same work to more than one journal.
Data and methods used in the research must be presented in the article in sufficient detail for other researchers to replicate the calculations. Authors must have access to raw data so that they can provide it to Reviewers and Journal Editors upon request.
When an author uses materials (e.g., patterns, text, research, etc.) prepared by other individuals, they
should use indications indicating citation. If the manuscript contains previously published figures or images, authors should obtain necessary copyright permission for publication under the CC-BY license. Authors should cite publications that influenced the creation of the work and confirm the use of other authors' work each time. All bibliographic sources used in the article should be indicated in the text. Plagiarism is considered unethical and unacceptable behaviour.
Authors cannot use confidential information without the consent of the appropriate authorities.
The Editorial Team of the journal is responsible for the academic quality of the articles published in Geoinformatica Polonica and is obligated to monitor ethical standards. Editors are familiar with the journal's operating principles, including the procedure in case of detecting unethical practices. The academic criterion is the sole determinant for the acceptance of an article by the Editorial Board.
If the Reviewers have indicated the need for corrections in the text, this information is conveyed to the Authors, who, after making the necessary revisions and addressing the questions raised in the review, return the text to the Editorial Board.
Based on the reviews, their own assessment, and the opinions of the Editors, the Editor-in-Chief makes decisions regarding the manuscript, including the final decision on which articles will be earmarked for publication.
The data of Authors and Reviewers remain confidential. In selecting Reviewers, the Editorial Board adheres to the principle of objectivity and strives to eliminate situations that could lead to a conflict of interest. Members of the Editorial Team or any other individuals involved in publishing procedures do not have the right to utilize unpublished articles without the written consent of the Authors.
In the event of complaints, grievances, or appeals, the journal's Editorial Board is obligated to record and archive them. The Editorial Board provides appropriate corrections and explanations in writing within 30 days from the date of receiving the application.
The Editorial Board may withdraw a submitted text if:
Withdrawn texts are not removed from the already published version of the journal.
The Editorial Board is obliged to document any instances of scientific misconduct, especially the infringement and violation of copyright laws. Any cases of violation of the aforementioned ethical principles constitute grounds for rejection of the article by the Editorial Board.
The Editorial Board requires Authors to provide information on the sources of funding for publication and institutional support for published research by organizations and other entities.
In its commitment to the scientific integrity of published texts, the Editorial Board conducts a selection of submitted articles in accordance with the principles of "ghost-writing" and "guest authorship" prevention.
In case of finding any research dishonesty (fabrication, plagiarism etc.), the Editors apply COPE Flowcharts.
Contact with the Editors:
Please send any doubts referring to scientific reliability to the following address: geoinfo.redakcja@pau.krakow.pl.
Discussions, comments and complaints should be sent to the following address: geoinfo.redakcja@pau.krakow.pl.
Questions and remarks referring to the ethical aspects of scientific research should be directed to the following address: geoinfo.redakcja@pau.krakow.pl.
A reviewer may be a person conducting research in the scientific disciplines associated with the journal, holding at least a doctoral degree. The reviewer's scientific experience should be documented by a publication record in the scope of the submitted work (according to Scopus, ORCID, Web of Science databases).
To avoid conflicts of interest between the Author and the Reviewer, the Editorial Board seeks to avoid situations where such a conflict may occur, such as:
If a member of the Editorial Board or Scientific Council submits a text to the journal, the Editorial Board maintains impartiality in the editorial and review processes, with another Editor of the journal overseeing these processes.
Geoinformatica Polonica requests invited Reviewers to accept or reject the invitation based on the title and abstract of the manuscript as quickly as possible. Any selected Reviewer who feels incompetent to review the research presented in the manuscript or knows that their prompt review will be impossible should notify the Editor and withdraw from the review process. If the invitation is declined, the Editorial Board may ask for suggestions for alternative Reviewers. The Editorial Board sets a review deadline of two weeks; however, if the Reviewer needs more time to provide a thorough opinion, they should inform the Editorial Board as soon as possible.
Geoinformatica Polonica conducts a double-blind peer review, meaning that the Author and Reviewer remain anonymous to each other. Reviews are conducted by completing a review form on the portal (link to Editorial Panel) within two weeks. The condition for accepting an article for publication is receiving two positive reviews. In the event of receiving one negative review, a third Reviewer is appointed.
The Reviewer is responsible for ensuring the integrity of the scientific achievement. Authors and the journal's Editorial Board expect the Reviewer to evaluate the manuscript in a timely, transparent, and ethical manner, following COPE guidelines. The only criterion for the Reviewer's assessment of the work should be the academic criterion. Reviews should be conducted objectively. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate. Reviewers should clearly express their views, providing arguments to support their opinion.
Reviewers are obligated to maintain the confidentiality of the manuscript content (including the abstract) and must not use reviewed works for their personal needs and benefits. Reviewers should also refrain from evaluating texts in case of a possible conflict of interest with the Authors. They should also ensure not to disclose their identity to the authors in comments or in the metadata of reports sent in Microsoft Word or PDF format.