Publishing Ethics

The Scientific Publishing House of the University in Siedlce adheres to the ethical principles and procedures recommended by COPE. The Publishing House makes every effort to prevent unacceptable publication practices, with particular emphasis on:

• duplicate publication,
• plagiarism,
• data fabrication,
• ghost authorship,
• guest authorship,
• conflict of interest in the review process.

Any such violations are considered an expression of scientific dishonesty and a breach of ethical principles. Publications submitted to the publishing house are verified for compliance with publishing ethics based on current knowledge using available tools.

COPE Procedures:

• publicationethics.org
• Procedures (PL) — PDF

Principles for Authors

1. Scientific Integrity. Authors of submitted texts are obliged to provide a careful description of the research work performed and an objective interpretation of the results. Studies should contain information allowing for the identification of data sources.
2. Originality of Work. Authors may submit only their own, original works for publication. In cases where they use research and/or words of others, they should use appropriate markings indicating citation. Plagiarism or data fabrication is unacceptable. It is also considered unethical to submit the same texts to more than one publishing house / journal.
3. Authorship. All persons who influenced the final shape of the text must be reported. The responsibility for ensuring that persons who contributed to the creation of the article accept its final form lies with the author submitting the text for publication.

Principles for Reviewers

1. Careful and objective assessment of the reviewed material (where possible, with an evaluation of its scientific reliability) and with appropriate justification of the submitted comments;
2. Maintaining confidentiality, consisting of disclosing works only to persons involved in the publishing process, and applying the fair play principle excluding personal criticism of the author(s);
3. Timely completion of the review or adopting another solution together with the Publisher in case of inability to meet this deadline;
4. Preparing reviews only in the absence of a conflict of interest.

Principles for the Publisher

1. The Publisher, making the final decision to accept a text for publication, is guided primarily by its substantive merits and consistency with the initial assumptions regarding the given publication. In the case of collective publications, the Publisher relies on the opinion of the scientific editor of the work and cooperates with them in the qualification process for printing. The parties involved in the decision process take into account the opinions of reviewers regarding the scientific value of a given work, its originality, and clarity of the argument.
2. The Publisher makes every effort to ensure that elements such as race, gender, religion, origin, citizenship, or political beliefs of authors do not influence the evaluation of texts in any way.
3. The Publisher does not disclose any information about works submitted for publication to unauthorized persons. Persons authorized to have this information are: the author, designated reviewers, editors, and other persons participating in the publishing process.
4. Unpublished texts are not made available to any persons who are not involved in the publishing process without the written consent of the authors.
5. The Publisher, in consultation with the scientific editor of the work or independently, may decide both to withdraw a text from publication (if data on its lack of reliability appeared, also as a result of unintended errors, features of plagiarism were recognized, or publishing ethics were violated), as well as on the need to introduce corrections to already published materials.

Reviewing Procedures

All publications of the Scientific Publishing House of UwS are subject to a publishing review process. The stage of qualifying a text for publication must end with obtaining a positive review. The review should be made in writing and end with an unambiguous conclusion regarding the admission of the text for publication, admission after meeting specific conditions, or its rejection. The reviewer's opinion should be prepared according to generally applicable publishing review standards.

The reviewer is obliged to disclose any suspicions of violation of publishing ethics.

Before proceeding to the substantive assessment of the text, the reviewer submits a declaration of no conflict of interest, concerning in particular: direct personal relations (kinship, legal ties, marriage) with the author, professional subordination, direct scientific cooperation (declaration to download).

If you need documents: go to the "Downloads" section.