The Rules of Publication Ethics in force in the journal in line with the guidelines of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), Code of Conduct and Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors [1] and Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing [2].

In cases which have not been included in these Rules of Publication Ethics, the Editorial Team uses adequate schemes of conduct prepared by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) [3].

The standards presented below refer to the ethical rules binding on the Authors, Editors, Reviewers and Scientific Council at each stage of the texts’ publication in the journal.

All articles sent for publication in the journal are reviewed in terms of their compliance with the ethics rules, integrity, transparency, value and scientific usability.


[1] 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: 14/02/2023.

[2] 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: 14/02/2023.

[3] COPE Council, Polish: all flowcharts, https://publicationethics.org/resources/flowcharts/polish-all-flowcharts, DOI: https://doi.org/10.24318/cope.2019.2.36, accessed: 14/02/2023.

Editorial Team Members consistently pay particular attention to the good composition of the journal, its coherence, regularity, availability and quality. They are guided by scholarly integrity and impartiality. The Editorial Team aims to raise scientific, editorial and ethical standards. Editors should be responsible for all the content published in the journal.

The Editorial Team consistently controls adherence to standards and ethics rules connected to the publication of scientific texts and counteracts the practices at variance with the established standards.

Texts sent for publication are evaluated by the Editorial Team, taking into consideration, first and foremost, their factual knowledge as well as formal and technical components. The decisions of the Editorial Team must be based on scientific values, and such issues as race, gender, faith, ethnic origin, nationality or political beliefs of the Authors must not, in any way, affect the evaluation of the articles [2].

The Editorial Team decides which materials are going to be published, and which are not. While taking the decision, the following criteria are of the utmost importance: the scientific value of work, originality of formulating the problem, clarity and compliance with the journal’s thematic remit, compliance with the ethics rules, compliance with guidelines regarding factual knowledge and formal components as described in the Guidelines for Authors and points indicated by the Reviewer in the process of peer review.

The journal's Editorial Team is bound to inform the Author(s) about the evaluation mark the sent text received in a peer review.

The Editorial Team Members abide by the confidentiality rule. Therefore, they do not share any information regarding the texts sent for publication with unauthorised persons. The only authorised persons who may obtain such information are the Authors themselves, selected Reviewers, authorised Editors and Scientific Council Members and Publisher.

Unpublished articles cannot be used by the Editorial Team Members or any other persons partaking in the publishing procedures unless written consent of the Authors is provided.

Appointing the Reviewer, the Editorial Team must observe the counteracting conflicts of interest rule.

In the case of the Reviewer, the conflict of interest may arise in circumstances when there are doubts regarding her or his impartiality or may affect her or his actions in the review process, e.g., business, financial, law affiliations, Reviewer’s opinions, scientific competition, and family ties.

If Editorial Team or Scientific Council Member sends a text for the journal, the Editorial Team devotes maximal effort to remain impartial in the process of editing and reviewing. Another Editor of the journal takes the responsibility of these processes, and the person who sends the text is excluded from these processes [4].

The Editorial Team informs the Reader about the sources of the publication's financing and institutional support or on the part of the organisations and other persons or subjects (financial disclosure) in the published research.

 

If any complaints or appeals are lodged, the journal’s Editorial Team is bound to register and archive them. The Editorial Team asks for describing the case in detail in the application form and indicating what kind of content or actions this application pertains to. The Editorial Team is obliged to maintain the anonymity of the personal data of the person lodging a complaint or an appeal unless this person expresses a desire to disclose her or his personal information independently. Persons authorised for possessing this information are: the Applicant, authorised Reviewers and Publisher. The Editorial Team is obliged to provide a reply in written form to the complaints and appeals lodged to the Editorial Team within a deadline not exceeding 30 days from the date when this document has been filed. The reply of the Editorial Team must include at least the evaluation of the case and a description of actions which the Editorial Team has undertaken or plans to undertake because of the case.

 

Editorial Team Members are obliged to take all actions possible to preserve the accuracy of the scholarly integrity of the texts published. In order to do so they can make necessary amendments as well as, in the case of suspecting unfair practices (plagiarism, falsifying research results etc.) or unethical actions, decide not to publish the text.

All the indications of scientific misconduct, in particular, ghostwriting; guest authorship, plagiarism, data fabrication or falsification, data manipulation, Matilda effect, Matthew effect [5]; incorrect and negligent research performance and a breach of ethics rules in science are unacceptable and must be analysed immediately and investigated by the Editor in Chief and Scientific Council.

The journal’s Editorial Team is bound to register and archive such cases.

The Editorial Team makes a request to provide them with information in case of detecting such practices. It is suggested that the notification contains a detailed description of the case and an indication of the content it applies to.

After receiving a notification, the Editorial Team contacts the Author, and requests an explanation, collects and reviews the gathered and provided proof for scientific misconduct and then proclaims a decision to remove, place a disclaimer/amendment, and inform the bodies or institutions responsible.

 

Out of concern for scholarly integrity of the published texts, the Editorial Team conducts a selection of the sent articles in line with the rules of ghostwriting and guest authorship barriers. We speak about ghostwriting when someone made a significant contribution to the creation of the publication but their participation has not been indicated as one of the authors or their participation has not been mentioned in the acknowledgements section in the publication. Guest authorship (honorary authorship) is a case when someone, who played a minor part in the creation of the publication or had no part in it at all, had been indicated as an Author/Co-Author of the publication.

In order to prevent cases of ghostwriting and guest authorship, the journal’s Editorial Team establishes agreed procedures.

The Editorial Team requires the Authors and Co-Authors to provide statements [6], in particular the declaration regarding the type and scope of contribution (percentage) of respective Authors and Co-Authors in the creation of the work along with the data (name, surname, affiliation, ORCID).

Ghostwriting and guest authorship are signs of scientific misconduct, and any detected cases of such practices shall be revealed, including notifying the subjects responsible (institutions hiring the authors, scientific societies, scientific editors associations etc.).

The Editorial Team requires the information regarding the sources of the publication financing and institutional support of the published research via organisations and other subjects (financial disclosure).

 

The Editorial Team, Author(s) and Reviewers at the stage of the editing process (preceding the text publication) may hold a discussion resulting in proofreading the texts.

The Author may demand that the Editorial Team introduce the corrections required by her or him into the text.

The Editorial Team reserves the right to proofread the texts after they have been published without informing the Readers and Authors. It applies solely to what is referred to as minor changes. Minor changes include, e.g., formatting and spelling corrections. These are not significant corrections which influence the reception of the scope of the content presented.

Significant changes such as removal of the article due to an error, adding or removing the Author, and correction of data influencing the interpretation of research results after the publication may be implemented in line with the procedures outlined in COPE [3].

The Editorial Team invites all interested to participate in debates and discussions about the published content. The Editorial Team may publish the content of the debate in the journal, on the journal’s website or external site.

 

The Editorial Team may consider text removal if:

• there is tangible proof of a lack of credibility of research results, data fabrication and committing unintentional errors (e.g., counting errors, methodological errors);
• research results have been published earlier elsewhere without making an adequate reference to previous sources or revealing such a piece of information to the Editorial Team, without consent for re-publication or justification (cases of unnecessary publications);
• it contains materials or data without required consent for their use (e.g., the right to use an illustration, the right to use one’s image, other licences and sub-licences, including the incorrect scope of operation fields or time scope for such consents/licences);
• it breaches copyrights or related rights;
• the procedures of ethics have not been followed during research or the rules of international, national or institutional law have been violated;
• the lack of Authors’, Reviewers’ or Editorial Team’s conflicts of interest rule has been breached, which influences the interpretation of texts;
• the work bears signs of plagiarism, auto-plagiarism or breaches other ethics rules.

The notification about text removal must be presumed to be equivalent to article removal. Such a notification should contain the information about the person (the headline should include at least the title(s) and the work Author’s surname(s)) and reasons upon which the text has been removed (in order to distinguish between unintentional errors and purposeful malpractices). The removed texts are not deleted from the printed version of the journal, however, the very fact and reason for the removal shall be indicated in a clear manner. It does not apply to a situation in which the legitimate interest of the Author, Editorial Team, Publisher or third parties would be breached, as in such cases the text may be removed, and the Editorial Team is bound to publish an explanatory notice. The Author has a right to lodge an appeal against the Editorial Team's decision.

In other cases, the Editorial Team obeys the recommendations outlined in COPE Retraction Guidelines [7] and COPE Flowcharts [3].

The Editorial Team, when needed, is always ready to publish required disclaimers, explanations or apologies. They will be published on the journal’s website and/or in the printed version of the journal.

In a case if – in line with these Rules of Publication Ethics or COPE recommendations, the text does not qualify for removal nor correction of minor changes, the Editorial Team allows to publish errata, supplements and/or disclaimers. Each supplement regarding significant changes (influencing the reception or the scope of presented contents and establishing the authorship) should be supplemented with the Editorial Team’s disclaimer indicating the scope of the supplement and the reason for its introduction.

The Editorial Team is obliged to analyse and document any indications of scientific misconduct.

Any detected and confirmed cases of scientific misconduct shall be revealed, including notifying the subjects responsible (institutions hiring the Authors, scientific societies, scientific editors associations etc.).

The Editorial Team supports the open access policy. The journal is published via Open Access, which means that all contents are available for users and institutions free of charge.

All texts are published in an electronic version. The Editorial Team aims to archive texts in various databases.

 

The Editorial Team encourages the Authors to archive research data in open research data repositories. The Editorial Team does not demand that the Authors attach research data. In selected cases the Editorial Team may, however, approach the Author and ask for providing research data (e.g., if the Editorial Team is notified of issues with the integrity of presented data or data duplication).

 

The Editorial Team accepts publishing only the following types of advertisements in the journal:

• scientific conferences, workshops, scholarly activity, business conferences and other events related to the subject matter of the journal;
• publishing activity of the journal’s Publisher;
• journal’s sponsors or partners.

Advertisement requests should be directed to the Editorial Team.

The Editorial Team indicated on the home page of the journal’s website whether it has a sponsor.

Publishing the advertisement of a partner or sponsor, the Editorial Team explicitly indicates their role on the journal’s website and/or the published version of the journal. The advertisement must be separated from the contents published in the journal.

Advertisements do not have any influence on making editorial decisions by the Editorial Team.

The journal’s Editorial Team informs that no article processing charges, submission fees, publication fees, review fees or processing fees are incurred and it does not pay remuneration.

Journal’s Editorial Team Contact Details:

Doubts regarding scientific misconduct should be addressed to: pjac@uj.edu.pl

Discussions and remarks should be addressed to: pjac@uj.edu.pl

Scientific research ethics – questions and notifications should be addressed to: pjac@uj.edu.pl

In cases which have not been described in these Rules of Publication Ethics, the Editorial Team abides by the guidelines outlined in COPE Retraction Guidelines [7] and COPE Flowcharts [3].

[1] 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: 14/02/2023.

[2] 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: 14/02/2023.

[3] COPE Council, Polish: all flowcharts, https://publicationethics.org/resources/flowcharts/polish-all-flowcharts, DOI: https://doi.org/10.24318/cope.2019.2.36, accessed: 14/02/2023.

[4] COPE Council, Editor as author in own journal, https://publicationethics.org/case/editor-author-own-journal, accessed: 14/02/2023.

[5] Examples of scientific misconduct:

• Plagiarism is “appropriating of the authorship, or providing misleading information as regards the authorship, of another person’s complete work or its part or artistic performance” ([Polish] Journal of Laws 2018, pos. 1668, art. 287).
• Auto-plagiarism is “creating a misleading impression as for the originality of one’s own work in relation to one’s former works, and in reality, copying these works” (J. Doliński, Autoplagiat, „Edukacja Prawnicza” 2012, no. 3 (132), https://www.edukacjaprawnicza.pl/autoplagiat/).
• Matilda Effect is a phenomenon of discriminating women in science (for more, see: A. Derra, Przemilczane i zapomniane. O zjawisku Matyldy, czyli systemowym umniejszaniu roli kobiet w nauce, „Ethos. Kwartalnik Instytutu Jana Pawła II KUL” 2016, Tom 29, nr 1 (113), s. 203–220, https://czasopisma.kul.pl/ethos/article/view/5314).
• Matthew Effect is when “certain psychosocial processes affect the allocation of rewards to scientists for their contributions – an allocation which in turn affects the flow of ideas and findings through the communication networks of science” (R.K. Merton, The Matthew effect in science: The reward and communication systems of science are considered, „Science” 1968, 159 (3810), p. 56, https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/1723414.pdf ).

[6] The list of indispensable documents has been presented in the Rules for Authors point. Basic Formal Requirements Regarding the Publication

[7] COPE Council, COPE Guidelines: Retraction Guidelines, DOI: https://doi.org/10.24318/cope.2019.1.4 , accessed: 14/02/2023.

Authorship may relate to persons or groups who produce the idea or work on the publication popularising intellectual or creative work [2].

All persons named in the sent work as Authors must play an actual, significant part in the creation of the text (project, idea, planning, performance, results interpretation). Moreover, all persons, who had an impact on the final shape of the work should be named as Co-Authors. The Author who sends the text for publication has an obligation to make sure that persons having contributed to the creation of the article accept its final form.

The remaining persons to whom this condition of Authorship does not apply and whose contribution to text creation was insignificant (e.g., general mentoring, research coordination, data collection) may consent to be listed in the Acknowledgement section.

The order of Authors must be agreed upon and accepted by all the Authors of the text. The change of authorship or the order in unpublished texts requires the consent of all the text's Authors, Reviewers and Editor in Chief as well as providing an explanation for such changes. After the publication of the text, it is possible to implement the changes in the information about the Authors only in line with the procedures outlined by COPE [1].

The Editorial Team suggests using CRediT (Contributor Roles Taxonomy) [3] in determining Authors’ contributions.

The Editorial Team requires the Authors to issue statements [4], in particular, declarations regarding the type and scope of respective Authors’ contribution to the creation of work along with their data (name, surname, affiliation, ORCID).

Before the publication of the text, the Author(s) sign an appropriate contract with the Publisher and provide the Editorial Team with a Declaration of authorship confirming meeting the criteria of authorship outlined in these Rules of Publication Ethics. The contributions of respective Authors in the creation of the publication are presented; the statement of not having omitted any other persons deserving merits of authorship and the responsibility for the completeness and correctness of the statements made.

The Author, sending the text for publication, obliges to enter editorial corrections, respond to a review within a deadline set by the Editorial Team and declares that upon the Editorial Team’s appeal, she or he will accept the responsibility for replying to the initiated discussion or polemics.

The Author may demand that the Editorial Team introduce the corrections required by her or him into the text.

Only a human can be the author of scientific texts. AI tools cannot be recognized as the author or co-author.

 

Texts sent for publication are evaluated by the Editorial Team first and foremost in terms of their factual knowledge as well as formal and technical components. Decisions of the Editorial Team must be based on scientific values, and such issues as race, gender, faith, ethnic origin, nationality or political views of the Authors must not affect the evaluation of the articles in any way [2]. If the Author suspects that the fair play rule has been breached, she or he may lodge a complaint to the Editor in Chief of the journal. For more on this subject, please see the part: Rules for Editorial Team Members. Decisions Regarding Publication and Complaints and Appeals).

 

Authors of the texts sent for publication are obliged to describe the performed scientific research in a diligent way and interpret the results impartially. The works should contain as much information as possible to enable the identification of the sources of data and research repetition. Presentation and interpretation of data and research results which are inaccurate and inconsistent with the ethics rules are unacceptable and may result in text removal.

All the indications of scientific misconduct, in particular, ghostwriting; guest authorship, plagiarism, data fabrication or falsification, data manipulation, Matilda effect, Matthew Effect [6]; incorrect and negligent research performance and a breach of ethics rules in science are unacceptable and must be analysed immediately and investigated by the Editor in Chief and Scientific Council. The journal’s Editorial Team is bound to register and archive such cases.

Texts violating the rules of scholarly integrity shall not be accepted for publication. In a case when misconduct has been notified/noticed after the text has been published, the Editorial Team – after having received such a notification – contacts the Author and asks for an explanation, collects and reviews the gathered and provided proof for scientific misconduct and then gives the decision on removal, disclaimer/correction, informing the bodies and/or institution responsible. The Author has a right to lodge an appeal against the Editorial Team's decision.

The Authors of the sent works are always obliged to indicate publications and other sources which have been used by them during the creation of the article.

Authors can send only their own, original texts for publication. These texts cannot be simultaneously sent to another journal/publication nor constitute a part of a journal/publication which has already been published.

Only in exceptional and justified cases may the Editor in Chief give consent for another publication of a text which has been published previously. The text must contain a bibliographic reference to the text published initially.

Authors, using the research or referring to data or words of other persons should use appropriate markers indicating citations. Plagiarism and data fabrication are unacceptable.

Unpublished articles cannot be used by the Editorial Team Members or any other persons participating in the publishing procedures without the written consent of the Authors.

Authors, sending the text, are provided with information regarding the sources of financing the publication and support of published research via institutions, organisations or other persons and subjects (financial disclosure).

Moreover, they issue a statement that no conflict of interest occurs [4,5].

The Editorial Team may ask the Authors to send them the text for publication in an anonymised form in order to preserve the confidentiality of data in the reviewing process.

Authors may be asked to present unprocessed research results, therefore, they should be prepared to provide access to these data. Attaching research data to articles is not required. It is allowed to archive these data in open repositories of research data [7], and then, enter the correct citation form in one's publications, providing a DOI number or another identification number.

If the Author detects significant errors or inaccuracies in her or his text, she or he is obliged to notify the journal's Editorial Team of this fact immediately in order to remove the text, prepare errata or correct the existing errors.

The Author, expressing a will to publish the article, declares, at the same time, that she or he will meet the obligation to respond to the Editorial Team's summons to provide explanations to possible complaints, appeals or charges of scientific misconduct applying to the published text.

 

The Author, the Editorial Team and the Reviewers at the stage of the editing process (preceding text publication) may hold a discussion resulting in proofreading the texts. The Author, sending the text for publication, obliges to actively participate in the discussions with the journal’s Editorial Team.

The Editorial Team reserves the right to correct the texts after publishing without informing the Authors of this fact. It applies solely to what is referred to as minor changes. Minor changes include, e.g., formatting and spelling corrections. These are not significant corrections which influence the reception of the scope of the content presented.

Significant changes such as the removal of the article due to an error, adding or removing the Author, and correction of data influencing the interpretation of research results after the publication may be implemented in line with the procedures outlined in COPE [1].

Authors are obliged to inform about all the noticed errors, inaccuracies or misleading statements immediately and correct them.

 

In line with these Rules of Publication Ethics, the Editorial Team encourages all interested to engage in a discussion regarding the published contents. The Editorial Team may publish the contents of the debate in the journal, on the journal’s website or external site.

The Author, expressing a will to publish the article, declares simultaneously that upon the summons of the Editorial Team, she or he shall respond to the ensuing discussion.

 

The Author has the right to remove the text sent to the Editorial Team in case of gross negligence of the Editorial Team during the editing process. In case of serious delays in the editing process, the Authors should be notified of the reason for the delay. The Editorial Team should pass the information of the maximum time of the article proceeding to the Author. Complaints about the Editorial Team's negligence and requests to remove the article should be addressed directly to the Editor in Chief.

 

If the text describes research performed on people, animals, embryos or dual-use products and if it contains confidential data or describes phenomena which may affect the environment and living creatures in a detrimental way, the Author is obliged to provide the Editorial Team with declarations and certificates of including any international, national and institutional procedures (e.g., NCN, CDBI – Steering Committee on Bioethics) in research.

In the case of processing personal data in the text for scientific reasons a provision of rights of a person to whom these data pertains needs to be provided or obtain consent for processing such data, in particular, having in mind international and national law, especially Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons 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 it is necessary, the Author should provide the Editorial Team with a contract of entrustment of personal data or adequate authorisations.

 

The Author sending the text for publication must declare that the article is original, does not breach the rights or personal goods of third parties and that she or he obtained consent from the persons whose images or words, visual or photographic works have been recorded/used in the work, for their use in the text and sharing on the Internet and in print.

 

The Author, sending the text for publication, obliges in particular to provide the documents and statements required by the Editorial Team and/or the Publisher. Prior to the publication of the text, the Authors:

• sign the contract with the Publisher (the obligation is imposed on all the Authors of the article);
• send a statement of the authorship to the Editorial Team, in which the following factors are indicated:
  • contribution of respective Authors in the creation of the publication;
  • meeting the authorship criteria as described in these Rules of Publication Ethics;
  • not having omitted any other persons deserving authorship;
  • responsibility for the integrity and completeness of the information contained in the statement;
• provision of a declaration of the lack of conflict of interest (this obligation is imposed on all the Authors of the article);
• provision of a statement of the originality of the work;
• provision of information about the sources of publication’s financing and institutional support of the published research by organisations and other persons and bodies (financial disclosure);
• provision of appropriate declarations, licences, sub-licences, consent or contracts required by law (e.g., consent for illustrations’ use, statement of the right to use one's image);
• provision of other declarations and certificates required, including ones stating that ethical procedures have been employed in research.

All required documents in downloadable versions are available on the journal’s website.

In cases which have not been described in these Rules of Publication Ethics, the Editorial Team abides by the guidelines outlined in COPE Retraction Guidelines [8] and COPE Flowcharts [1].

 

[1] COPE Council, Polish: all flowcharts, https://publicationethics.org/resources/flowcharts/polish-all-flowcharts, DOI: https://doi.org/10.24318/cope.2019.2.36, accessed: 14/02/2023.

[2] COPE, Authorship, https://publicationethics.org/resources/discussion-documents/what-constitutes-authorship-english-june-2014, access: 14/02/2023.

[3] CRediT, https://credit.niso.org/, accessed: 14/02/2023.

[4] Essential documents have been described in the Rules for Authors. Basic Formal Requirements Regarding the Publication.

[5] “Any financial interests or connections, direct or indirect, or other situations that might raise the question of bias in the work reported or the conclusions, implications or opinions stated – including pertinent commercial or other sources of funding for the individual author(s) or for the associated department(s) or organization(s), personal relationships, or direct academic competition”. As cited in: Oxford Academic, Conflicts of interest, https://academic.oup.com/pages/authoring/journals/preparing_your_manuscript/conflicts_of_interest, accessed 03/04/2023.

[6] Examples of scientific misconduct:

• Plagiarism is “appropriating of the authorship, or providing misleading information as regards the authorship, of another person’s complete work or its part or artistic performance” ([Polish] Journal of Laws 2018, pos. 1668, art. 287).
• Auto-plagiarism is “creating a misleading impression as for the originality of one’s own work in relation to one’s former works, and in reality, copying these works” (J. Doliński, Autoplagiat, „Edukacja Prawnicza” 2012, no. 3 (132), https://www.edukacjaprawnicza.pl/autoplagiat/).
• Matilda Effect is a phenomenon of discriminating women in science (for more, see: A. Derra, Przemilczane i zapomniane. O zjawisku Matyldy, czyli systemowym umniejszaniu roli kobiet w nauce, „Ethos. Kwartalnik Instytutu Jana Pawła II KUL” 2016, Tom 29, nr 1 (113), s. 203–220, https://czasopisma.kul.pl/ethos/article/view/5314).
• Matthew Effect is when “certain psychosocial processes affect the allocation of rewards to scientists for their contributions – an allocation which in turn affects the flow of ideas and findings through the communication networks of science” (R.K. Merton, The Matthew effect in science: The reward and communication systems of science are considered, „Science” 1968, 159 (3810), p. 56, https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/1723414.pdf ).

[7] We encourage the Authors to archive research data in open repositories of research data:

• RODBUK Cracow Open Research Data Repository: https://rodbuk.pl/.
• Open Research Data Catalogue, Bridge of Knowledge: https://mostwiedzy.pl/pl/open-research-data/catalog.
• Repository of Open Research Data: https://repod.icm.edu.pl/info/.
• Zenodo: https://zenodo.org/.
• Figshare: https://figshare.com/.
• Mendeley Data: https://data.mendeley.com/.

[8] COPE Council, COPE Guidelines: Retraction Guidelines, DOI: https://doi.org/10.24318/cope.2019.1.4 , accessed: 14/02/2023.

Reviewers participate in the works of the Editorial Team and have an influence on the decisions made by the Editorial Team. They can also, upon the consensus with the Authors, influence the final shape and polishing of the published works.

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 Authors are not known to the Reviewer, but they are known to the Editorial Team.

The surnames of the Reviewers of the respective issues are not published in a given number of the journal. Once a year the journal publishes the list of collaborating Reviewers.

All scientific texts are reviewed (it does not apply to non-scientific reviews, reports, announcements, popular science articles, editorial versions).

The Review takes place before the text publication after the text has been sent by the Author for the Editorial Team's evaluation.

The Editorial Team employs at least two independent Reviewers for evaluation of each publication from outside the scientific unit affiliated with the publication’s Author (external reviews). Texts in foreign languages are evaluated by at least one affiliated Reviewer from a foreign institution other than the Author of the work under review.

The Editorial Team is responsible for the selection of the Reviewers, having in mind in particular research interests, scientific achievements and competencies of the Reviewer in the field of knowledge to which the text in question pertains.

The Reviewer may refuse to conduct a review due to formal (e.g., conflict of interests, lack of possibility to meet the deadlines for carrying out a review) or informal reasons (scientific interests are not in line with the text’s subject matter). In such a case, the Reviewer is obliged to inform the Editorial Team of this fact immediately.

It is unacceptable to employ the Editorial Team Member or Scientific Council Member as a Reviewer.

The Editorial Team does not use reviews from other journals, commercial reviewing platforms, Internet forums etc.

If the Editorial Team Member or the Scientific Council Member is the Author of a text, the selection of the Reviewer is the responsibility of another member of the Editorial Team other than the Author. The rules and obligations of the Author apply to such a person, whereas, the privileges for the Editorial Team Member or Scientific Council Member connected to participation in editorial work, reviewing process and making decisions about this text are not granted to such a person.

The Review must be in the written form. The Reviewer may send a review form or complete the review using a suitable online form. The Review must contain an explicit evaluation regarding accepting the text for publication or its dismissal.

Only texts which have undergone the review process and received two positive reviews can be accepted for publication by the Editorial Team.

Texts which received one negative review in relation to which the Reviewer sees a possibility for accepting the text for publication after the text is corrected may be sent to the Author along with recommendations. The Author enters the adequate corrections, and then the text is sent for another review (the second round of review). Texts which have obtained one negative review may be dismissed by the Editorial Team without conducting the second round of review.

Criteria taken into account during the review process are indicated in the reviewing form.

The Editorial Team sends the Reviewer the reviewing form, which is the basic document in which the Reviewer may include her or his conclusions. The Reviewer may additionally attach other materials to the review form (e.g., written remarks, the text along with comments).

The content of the Review is not publicised. Review reports may be made available to the Authors (after the anonymisation process.) Review reports are available to the Editors.

Any interaction between Authors and Reviewers is unacceptable. Their contact is anonymised. Conclusions and review reports as well as Author’s replies are sent via the Editorial Team or using the right system allowing for data anonymisation in the double-blind review mode.

 

All reviewed works are confidential, which means that disclosing them to third parties is unacceptable (except for authorised persons).

The Reviewers are committed to meeting the highest standards and ethics rules regarding the publication of scientific text and preventing practices that counteract the established standards. In order to do that they may enter adequate corrections, and also, in the case of suspicion of dishonest practices (plagiarism, falsifying research results etc.) or unethical actions, take a decision not to publish the text.

The Reviewers, if need be, should cite reference works not included by the Author. Any significant similarities to other works should also be indicated and the Editorial Team should be notified about them.

Issues such as race, gender, faith, origin, nationality or political beliefs of the Authors must not, in any way, affect the result of the review Texts sent for publication are evaluated first and foremost in terms of their factual knowledge as well as formal and technical components. Decisions of the Reviewers must be based upon scientific values [1].

The Reviewer must not use the reviewed works for her or his personal needs and merits. They cannot evaluate texts in whose case there may be a conflict of interest with its Author/Authors.

In the case of the Reviewer a conflict of interest may arise in circumstances where there are any doubts regarding her or his impartiality or her or his actions may be in any way influenced during the reviewing process, e.g., business, financial, legal affiliations; Reviewer’s opinions, scientific competition, and family relations.

 

The Reviewers are obliged to provide the review by a set deadline. If for some reason (factual knowledge, lack of time) they are unable to meet the deadline or review the article, they should immediately inform the Editorial Team of this fact.

In cases which have not been described in these Rules of Publication Ethics, the Editorial Team abides by the guidelines outlined in COPE Retraction Guidelines [2] and COPE Flowcharts [3].

[1] COPE Council, Code of Conduct and Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors, https://publicationethics.org/files/Code_of_conduct_for_journal_editors_Mar11.pdf, acessed: 14.02.2023.

[2] COPE Council, COPE Guidelines: Retraction Guidelines, DOI: https://doi.org/10.24318/cope.2019.1.4, acessed: 14.02.2023

[3] COPE Council, Polish: all flowcharts, https://publicationethics.org/resources/flowcharts/polish-all-flowcharts, DOI: https://doi.org/10.24318/cope.2019.2.36, acessed: 14.02.2023.

The Scientific Council Members should be recognised experts in the field of knowledge which is in line with the subject matter of the journal.

Names, surnames and affiliations of the Scientific Council Members are published on the journal’s website. The Editorial Team is obliged to update the information on the composition of the Scientific Council immediately.

 

The obligations of the Scientific Council Members include:

• Caring for maintaining the standards and obeying the ethical rules for the Authors, Editors and Reviewers at each stage of the publication of the texts in the journal, especially, scientific accuracy, procedures transparency, aiming at presenting valuable and useful scientific texts.
• Establishing goals and the journal's mission, updating them and supervision of realisation of the journal’s mission.
• Aiming at implementing the best good practices, following the recommendations and requirements from the scope of editorial works and scientific information.
• Identification and selection of the Editorial Team Members and verification of the Editorial Team's actions.
• Defining the group of journal recipients.
• Promotion of the journal.
• Periodical verification of the solutions and practices employed by the journal.
• Encouraging the Authors and Reviewers to cooperate with the journal.
• Cooperation with other members of the Scientific Council.
• Mentoring, outlining the policy of journal’s development.
• Cooperation with the journal’s Editorial Team and the Publisher.
• Arbitrating the disputes and arguments, contacting external bodies (e.g., COPE).
• Supporting, upon the Editorial Team’s request, its actions, in particular, in the case of any breaches.

I. Open Access

The journal is published within open access, which means, that all its contents are available to users and institutions free of charge at a selected time and place.

Access to contents published online in the journal does not require being signed in.

All texts published in a journal are available in an electronic version under Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 Generic Licence (CC BY 4.0), which means that material may be copied and distributed in any medium and format, changed, remixed and adapted (for more, please see: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/deed.pl).

The Editorial Team encourages all interested to engage in a discussion regarding the published materials. The Editorial Team may publish the contents of the debate in the journal, journal’s website or external site.

The Editorial Team requests the information in case of detecting any signs of scientific misconduct, in particular, ghostwriting; guest authorship, plagiarism, data fabrication or falsification, data manipulation, Matilda effect, Matthew effect [1], incorrect and negligent research performance and a breach of ethics rules in science. The journal’s Editorial Team is bound to register and archive such cases. It is suggested that the notification contains a detailed description of the case and an indication of the content it applies to.

Such notifications must be analysed and verified immediately by the Editor in Chief and Scientific Council.

The Editorial Team, after having received the notification, contacts the Author and requests an explanation and reviews the gathered and provided proof for scientific misconduct, and then announces the decision on removal, disclaimer/correction, or notifies the bodies and/or institutions responsible. The Editorial Team contacts the person who has notified them about the breach and/or announces the decision publicly.

The Journal's Editorial Team’s Contact Details:

Doubts regarding scholarly integrity should be addressed to: ______________. Discussions and remarks should be addressed to: ______________

[5] Examples of scientific misconduct:

• Plagiarism is “appropriating of the authorship, or providing misleading information as regards the authorship, of another person’s complete work or its part or artistic performance” ([Polish] Journal of Laws 2018, pos. 1668, art. 287).
• Auto-plagiarism is “creating a misleading impression as for the originality of one’s own work in relation to one’s former works, and in reality, copying these works” (J. Doliński, Autoplagiat, „Edukacja Prawnicza” 2012, no. 3 (132), https://www.edukacjaprawnicza.pl/autoplagiat/).
• Matilda Effect is a phenomenon of discriminating women in science (for more, see: A. Derra, Przemilczane i zapomniane. O zjawisku Matyldy, czyli systemowym umniejszaniu roli kobiet w nauce, „Ethos. Kwartalnik Instytutu Jana Pawła II KUL” 2016, Tom 29, nr 1 (113), s. 203–220, https://czasopisma.kul.pl/ethos/article/view/5314).
• Matthew Effect is when “certain psychosocial processes affect the allocation of rewards to scientists for their contributions – an allocation which in turn affects the flow of ideas and findings through the communication networks of science” (R.K. Merton, The Matthew effect in science: The reward and communication systems of science are considered, „Science” 1968, 159 (3810), p. 56, https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/1723414.pdf ).