The Media Biznes Kultura (Media Business Culture) journal employs the principles of publication ethics developed by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). 

By submitting the text to the editorial office of the Media Biznes Kultura journal the Author of the publication states that the sent text is an original and accurately developed work that has not been published so far and is currently not being evaluated in another journal.

Where an article published in Media Biznes Kultura is to be reprinted, the Author must obtain a written permission for making the paper available. 

The text meets the bibliographic and footnote-related requirements, in accordance with the copyright law.

If the text is to be submitted for peer review, it has to meet the criteria listed above.

RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE EDITORIAL OFFICE

1. Decision to publish: It is the Editorial Office’s responsibility to decide which of the submitted papers will be published. The decision to accept or reject a paper shall be based on its academic value,  compliance with the topics  presented in the journal, the originality of the approach to the subject and clarity of the argument.
   
   
2. Fair play rule:  When evaluating the papers,  the authors’  nationality, gender, sexual orientation, religion, origin, citizenship or political beliefs shall not be taken into account. Works shall be evaluated only in terms of content.
   
   
3. Confidentiality:  The editors shall not disclose to unauthorised persons any information about the papers submitted for publication. The persons authorised to have this information shall be: the author, reviewers, potential reviewers, editors.
   
   
4. Disclosure of information and conflict of interests:   Unpublished works may not be used by the editors or any other persons involved in the publishing process without the authors’ written permission.
   
   
5. Involvement and cooperation in investigations: The editors shall take appropriate action in case of suspicion or allegation of incorrect behaviour, both with regard to published and unpublished works.
   
   
6. Withdrawal of publication: The editors have the right to withdraw the paper after its release, if:
   • there is evidence that results of the research are not reliable and/or of data have been falsified , as well as in the case of unintentional errors (like methodological errors, calculation errors);
   • results of the research have previously been published elsewhere without a relevant reference, permit or justification;
   • the work has the characteristics of plagiarism or violates the rules of publishing ethics.
     
     
7. Notification of withdrawal should be announced at the place of the withdrawn article. It should be clearly stated  by whom the article is withdrawn  and for what reasons.    

RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE AUTHORS

1. Academic reliability: The author is obliged to accurately describe the research work carried out and to objectively discuss the results. The works should contain information enabling the identification of data sources, as well as repeating the research. Presenting and interpreting research results in an unfair or inaccurate manner is unacceptable and may result in the withdrawal of the work.
   
   
2. Originality and plagiarism: The author may only submit own original works for publication. The research and /or information of other researchers used in the publication should be marked in a way indicating that it is a quote. Plagiarism or data falsification are unacceptable. The author should not send the same manuscript to more than one journal.
   
   
3. Data sharing and storage:The author should keep an accurate record of the source data used at work, because he may be asked to provide access to this data for use in the publishing process.
   
   
4. Confirmation of sources:The author is obliged to list in the bibliography the publications used to create the text. Authors should cite publications that are relevant to the topic.
   
   
5. Work authorship:
   • Authorship should be limited to people who have had a significant share in the creation, implementation and interpretation of the work.
   • Authors that submit for publication texts developed by several authors are required to disclose the contribution of individual authors in their creation  (the affiliation of authors and information about the scope of their  responsibilities being stated).
   • The author submitting for publication a text developed by several authors   should ensure that all co-authors have been indicated in the text and that prior to the publication they have read and approved the final version of the work, and agreed to submit it for publication.
   • Ghostwriting and guest authorship are examples of academic misconduct and any detected cases should be unveiled, including their notification to relevant entities, such as institutions employing the author, academic societies, associations of scientific editors etc.
     
     
6. Errors in published works:  If the author discovers significant errors or inaccuracies in his or her text, he/she must immediately notify the editorial office about the same. In cooperation with the editor-in-chief an errata, annex, rectification of the paper  should be published or the publication should be withdrawn.

REVIEWERS’ RESPONSIBILITIES

1. Participation in making editorial decisions:  Reviews help the editor-in-chief in making editorial decisions, and the authors in improving the quality of their work.
   
   
2. Timeliness:  The reviewer shall provide the review within the set deadline. If, for some reason, he or she is unable to meet the deadline or undertake the review, he or she is obliged to immediately inform the  publisher  and give the reason.
   
   
3. Confidentiality: All reviewed texts and their reviews are confidential. The disclosure of texts and/or their reviews is unacceptable (except to the persons that participate in the publishing process).
   
   
4. Objectivity standards: The review should be objective and be a constructive assessment of the work. Subjective criticism of the author of the work shall be considered improper.  All comments from the reviewer should be properly argued.
   
   
5. Confirming the sources:  The reviewer should identify published works that have not been referenced by the author. The reviewer should indicate and report to the editor-in-chief all   relevant similarities of the reviewed work to other publications.
   
   
6. Disclosure of information and conflict of interests:  The reviewer must not use the reviewed work for his or her personal needs and benefits. In addition, he or she should not evaluate the work if there is a possible conflict of interests with the author.