Principles of publishing ethics

Principles of publication ethics in force at the Scientific Publishing House of the Masovian Public University in Płock

 

Legal basis

  1. Article 267 para. 2 point 2 of the Act of July 20, 2018 – Law on Higher Education and Science (Journal of Laws of 2018, item 1668, as amended).
  2. § 2 sec. 1 of the Regulation of the Minister of Science and Higher Education of 7 November 2018 on the preparation of lists of scientific monographs and scientific journals and reviewed materials from international conferences (Journal of Laws of 2018, item 2152).

Chapter I.

General provisions

  1. The Scientific Publishing House of the Mazovian Public University in Płock, hereinafter referred to as the Publishing House, applies the rules of publishing ethics aimed at counteracting unfair publishing practices, in accordance with the guidelines of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).
  2. The rules of publishing ethics apply to all peer-reviewed scientific monographs or monographs edited by an academic, as well as scientific journals and reviewed materials from international conferences published by the Publishing House.
  3. All parties involved in the publication process (the publisher, editor of a peer-reviewed scientific monograph or a monograph edited by a scientific review, editor of a scientific journal, reviewer and author) are obliged to familiarize themselves with the standards of publishing ethics applied in the Publishing House.

Chapter II

Publisher and Editors’ Policy

  1. The publisher/editor is obliged to make every effort to maintain high scientific and ethical standards.
  2. The publisher/editor is responsible for adhering to the standards of the review procedure and all standards that are to guarantee the appropriate substantive quality of the publication, in particular for the appropriate selection of texts and activities aimed at improving the publication by authors.
  3. The publisher/editor takes all steps to counteract any breaches in the field of publishing ethics and eliminate cases of plagiarism, as well as activities in the field of guest authorship and ghost-writing.
  4. The publisher/editor takes decisions impartially, taking into account the principle of honesty and editorial independence.
  5. The publisher/editor is not involved in decisions about articles where there are conflicts of interest with the authors, for example if they work or have worked in the same institution and collaborated with the authors, or if they have a personal relationship with the authors.
  6. The publisher/editor applies the principle of confidentiality, which is reflected, inter alia, in not disclosing to unauthorized persons any information about the works submitted for publication.
  7. The publisher/editor may decide to withdraw the text from publication in the event of suspicion of using unfair practices such as plagiarism, falsification of research results, etc.
  8. The publisher/editor, in justified cases, decides to publish a correction, explanation or apology.

 

Chapter III

Reviewer Policy

  1. The reviewer should be competent to evaluate publications in a given scientific discipline and have the reputation of a reliable reviewer. The reviewer is obliged to carefully assess his substantive competences and practical possibilities of preparing a review within the prescribed time, and in case of doubts in this regard, not accept the work for review.
  2. The reviewer evaluates the publication while maintaining the standards of reliability and objectivity. The reviewer is obliged to carefully read the reviewed work (documentation) and make every effort to reliably and honestly assess its value.
  3. The review prepared by the reviewer should be logically coherent and to the point, it cannot be perfunctory, and its conclusions should be clear and unambiguous. The reviewer, when formulating accusations against the evaluated text, is obliged to justify them.
  4. In order to ensure the impartiality of the evaluation, the reviewer receives an anonymized text. The Publishing House uses the principle of double-blind review. In the case when the reviewer's use of knowledge about the author's previous research is necessary for a reliable evaluation of the text, the principle of single-blind review is applied.
  5. The reviewer is obliged to observe the confidentiality principle. Disclosing or discussing the content of documents sent for review to third parties is unacceptable, except for persons authorized to do so by the editor-in-chief of the Publishing House.
  6. The reviewer is not allowed to use the content of the reviewed papers for their scientific needs.
  7. The reviewer is not allowed to undertake the evaluation of the submitted works in the case of which there is a conflict of interest resulting from competition, cooperation or other relationship or affiliation with any of the authors, companies or institutions associated with the submitted articles.

 

Chapter IV
Author Policy

  1. The publication submitted by the author should be authorial, independent and not yet published.
  2. The publication submitted by the author cannot be considered by another publisher at the same time.
  3. The author is obliged to comply with the formal and technical requirements of the Publishing House.
  4. The author is obliged to correctly indicate the works of other authors used, through diligence in quoting quotations and preparing a bibliography.
  5. In the case of a publication with co-authors, the author shall specify the contribution of other people to the text.
  6. The author is obliged to provide information about the sources of research funding, other than the funds of the academic centre with which they are affiliated.
  7. The author should inform about the existence of a conflict of interest that may influence the content of the text.
  8. The author has the right to obtain information on the course of the review process and the approximate date of the publication of the article.
  9. After receiving the review, the author is obliged to introduce the suggested changes and corrections, otherwise the publisher may reject the text.
  10. In the event of detecting significant errors in an already published article, the author is obliged to send an appropriate correction.