In order to ensure the high substantive value of the published papers and scientific credibility, the Editorial Team of the journal pays particular attention to the necessity to apply ethical principles by all participants of the publication process: authors, editors, reviewers, and publishers. The Editorial Team takes all possible steps to prevent practices incompatible with these principles.

In order to ensure the originality of the texts, the Editorial Team relies on an the Crossref Similarity Check anti-plagiarism system which uses the iThenticate software. The system allows to check the alleged similarity of the text with 60+ billions of Internet sources and texts deposited by over 800 scientific publishers.

The ethical principles applied by the Editorial Team have been prepared on the basis of the recommendations by the  COPE Committee on Publication Ethics contained in:

• Code of Conduct and Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors,
• COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers,
• “Good Practices in Scientific Reviews” created by the Ministry of Science and Higher Education.

In cases of alleged or confirmed scientific misconduct, dishonest publications or plagiarism, the publisher, in cooperation with the Editorial Team, takes all possible steps to clarify the situation and to correct the article.

1. Responsibility for published texts
   The chief editor is responsible for all papers published in “Krakowski Rocznik Archiwalny” as well as for decisions to publish or resign from the publication of submitted papers. The decision to publish a paper is taken based on the reviews, the opinion of the Scientific Council and the other members of the Editorial Team, taking into consideration the legal requirements regarding copyright issues and other intellectual property matters, plagiarism or duplicate publication, as well as the settlement of disputes regarding the authorship or co-authorship of the paper.
   
   
2. Impartiality and fair play
   The chief editor assesses the submitted papers in terms of the substantive content, originality, transparency of the argument, scientific value as well as coherency with the subject of the journal, regardless of the origin, nationality, race, ethnic group, gender, sexual orientation, religious beliefs or political views of the author.
   
   
3. Confidentiality
   The Editorial Team maintains the confidentiality of all information obtained at each stage of the publication process, and in particular does not reveal the personal data of authors to reviewers or vice versa.
   
   Information about a submitted paper is not disclosed by the Editorial Team to anyone except the author, reviewers, potential reviewers, other editorial consultants (e.g. translators or proofreaders) and the publisher. Information obtained during the evaluation of the publication can not be used by members of the Editorial Team or reviewers, without the written consent of the author. This also applies to rejected papers and their fragments.
   
   
4. Prevention of conflicts of interest
   The Editorial Team attempts to ensure fair and substantive reviews. Therefore, it does not designate reviews to people who are in direct professional relationships or other direct relationships with the authors of texts.
   
   
5. Prevention of misuse and cooperation in enquiries
   The Editorial Team takes all possible steps to prevent dishonest practices (plagiarism, misuse, and falsification of results). In addition, it acts against other irregularities, such as ghostwriting, and guest/honorary authorship. When there is a suspicion or knowledge of ethical violations in relation to the submitted papers, the Editorial Team takes suitable steps. This applies to papers accepted for publication as well as those that have been rejected.
   
   
6. Scientific integrity
   The Editorial Team acts as a guardian of the integrity of the journal, taking all possible steps to eliminate errors and mistakes, editorial shortcomings, or irregularities in reviews. With this in mind, it can introduce changes or modifications in the text of papers. Each time it does so, however, it informs the author about this and they agree the range of necessary changes together. It also presents the author with a version of the text after the scientific team has edited it for the author to accept.

All cases of authors violating their duties in the range of the ethical principles indicated below lead to a rejection of the paper by the Editorial Team.

1. 1. Authorship of the paper
   Authorship should be limited to people who provided a significant input to the concept and realisation of the research as well as the interpretation of the results. In connection with this, those who significantly contributed to the creation of the paper must appear as co-authors. However, those who helped the author in the research work should be mentioned in the acknowledgements (see below – Acknowledgements). Suitable entries in this area are found in the publishing agreement entered into with the author.
   
   Before submitting a paper to the Editorial Team, the author should ensure that all co-authors have been indicated, they have accepted the final version of the paper and have given their consent for the paper to be published.
   
   Dishonest practices concerning authorship represent scientific misconduct and the violation of ethical principles. These include:
   
   • ghostwriting – a situation in which a person who has contributed a significant input into the text is not revealed or that person’s role has not been defined in the acknowledgements placed in the paper,
   • guest or honorary authorship – a situation in which a person whose participation in the creation of the publication was not significant or did not take place at all appears as the author or co-author of the publication.
     
     
2. Disclosure of data and conflict of interest
   The author should disclose all sources of financing for the project in which the work was created. Similarly, the author should disclose the input of scientific-research institutions, associations or other bodies. All relevant conflicts of interest that may influence the results of the work conducted or their interpretation should also be disclosed.
   
   
3. Standards concerning texts
   Papers submitted for publication can only be original works that have not been published previously. They can not submitted at the same time for publication in other publishing houses. In addition, their content can not infringe on the copyright of third parties.
   
   
4. Originality and disclosure of information sources, plagiarism
   The author provides the Editorial Team with work that is completely original. In addition, the duties of the author include reliable and accurate reference to the names of authors of the works used and suitable citation or reference to fragments of their work. Plagiarism (including duplicate publication) is unethical and will not be accepted.
   
   
5. Scientific integrity
   The duty of the author is reliable description of the conducted research work and the objective interpretation of the research results. The paper should contain information concerning the sources on which the research was based as well as the data allowing the research to be conducted again.
   
   
6. Acknowledgements
   In the contents of the paper, the author should acknowledge the people or institutions that helped during the research work.
   
   
7. Errors noticed after submitting the text
   In the event of significant errors or inconsistencies being noticed after the paper has been submitted, the author has the duty to immediately inform the Editorial Team of this fact. Thanks to this, it will be possible to suitably modify the text.

1. Cooperation in editorial decisions
   The reviewer supports the chief editor in taking decisions of an editorial character. In addition, through the Editorial Team, the reviewer helps the author to eliminate mistakes from the work.
   
   
2. Punctuality
   Reviewers only agree to review papers concerning subjects in which they have suitable knowledge that allows them to prepare reviews in the term designated by the Editorial Team. If these conditions can not be met, reviewers should inform the Editorial Team as quickly as possible.
   
   
3. Confidentiality
   All reviewed papers are treated as confidential. The reviewer can not discuss the paper and can not provide access to it to people outside the Editorial Team and the Scientific Council of “Krakowski Rocznik Archiwalny”.
   
   
4. Objectivity
   Reviews should be prepared objectively, based on scientific arguments and in accordance with ethical standards. Reviewers should express their opinion in a clear and understandable manner, referring to suitable arguments. The exclusive goal of reviews is to raise the  scientific value of the text. Personal criticism of the author is unsuitable and will not be accepted.
   
   
5. Anonymity
   All reviews are performed anonymously. The Editorial Team does not provide reviewers with information concerning the authors.
   
   
6. Verification of originality
   If the reviewer suspects the violation of ethical standards by the author, the Editorial Team should be informed immediately. This concerns, in particular, the suspicion of data falsification and plagiarism, including significant similarities or partial overlapping of the reviewed paper with other published works known to the reviewer.
   
   
7. Disclosure of data and conflict of interest
   Information or ideas obtained by reviewers during the paper review process should be treated as confidential. The reviewer can not use them for personal gain. Reviewers should not assess papers when there is a conflict of interest, resulting from competition, cooperation or other relationships and links with the author. Such types of relationships are described in the section Review procedure.