© 2020 Wszystkie prawa zastrzeżone. Realizacja: OPTeam S.A.
We encourage and ensure that our staff as well as authors follow
COPE Code of Conduct as described at http://publicationethics.org/
General statement
Publishers should:
Publishers should work with journal editors to:
The text submitted to publication shall have a title corresponding to the
content and abstract and belongs to one of three categories: research article,
scientific report or review article. In introduction the author/authors should
define the research subject. The abstract should contain not more than 200–250
words in homogenous text without subheadings.
Author/authors are obliged to indicate the financial sources of researches
discussed in the article and to state (in case of co-authors) the degree of
contribution of co-authors in preparation of the submitted scientific text.
It is not allowed to submit articles with more than 5 authors and including
persons who did not share in the submitted scientific text. Authorship of an
article shall not involve stylistic, but essential changes. In submitted texts
all authors have to be listed. In acknowledgements the author shall list all
persons who contributed into researches (after their agreement) who were
not recognized as co-authors.
The author is obliged to disclose all information associated with the conflict
of interests.
Using other work is allowed only with respect of copyright principles.
Data on which the article was based shall be gathered in honest way and
authors promise to store and share source data used in the article for a period
of 5 years from date of issue of the article.
The author shall submit an original text for publication, not published
earlier and during the editing process it may not be sent for publishing in
another periodical.
The authors do not use arguments criticizing other works and abide to
rules set by the periodical including those referring to text structure and
bibliography construction.
Texts submitted to publishing should be prepared in comprehensible way
avoiding rare terminology and contain all data allowing to understand the
text and information about all limitations associated with industrial propriety.
Additionally, the authors shall avoid citing works of limited range.
Articles submitted to publication shall be tested with anti-plagiarism
systems.
In case of suspicion about author/authors’ dishonesty in the submitted
text, in the first place, the author/authors will be requested to explain doubts.
Such action will be aimed at stating whether the allegation of misconduct is
entitled.
In case a detection of misconduct, especially plagiarism, the published
article will be removed from electronic version of the periodical and it will be
replaceed with detailed information about the kind of misconduct. Additionally,
legal steps provided by law will be undertaken.
Any kind of ghostwriting and guest authorship shall be treated by editorial
board as a manifestation of scientific misconduct, so detected events of such
activities will result in their disclosing and reporting to appropriate authorities.
We are committed to peer-review integrity and upholding the highest standards of review. Once your paper has been assessed for suitability by the editor, it will then be double blind peer-reviewed by independent, anonymous expert referees.
Reviewers are obliged each time before starting the reviewing process to
know the actual policy of the periodical.
Reviewers shall undertake evaluation of texts about which they possess
knowledge, competence and experience. Additionally, they promise not accepting
review of articles based on research similar to those within their
research interest.
The reviewers shall declare that the identity of article’s author is unknown
to them. If despite getting for reviewing an article which does not allow identification
of authorship definitely, the reviewer is able to recognize the author,
he is obliged to report this fact to the chief editor of the periodical, in such
case the article shall be directed to another reviewer.
The review shall be prepared in clear, essential and objective way and
finished with unequivocal recommendation.
The reviewer is obliged not to use texts which he was entrusted with. He
is obliged to prepare the review within the specified deadline and to inform
editors about delays in reviewing process.
It is not allowed to contact article authors without editor mediation.
1. All publications submitted undergo
review procedure by at least two independent reviewers outside the entity
where the author is affiliated.
2. The author/authors of the publication and reviewers do not know their
identities (double-blind review process).
3. If the reviewer knows the author’s identity, he is obliged to sign a declaration
of non-existence of the conflict of interests. The conflict of interests
exists when there are personal relations (marriage, second stage
affinity) professional dependence between the author and reviewer, or
direct scientific cooperation during last two years preceding the review
preparation.
4. The written review contains an unequivocal recommendation of the reviewer
concerning conditions of allowing the article to publication or its
refusal to publish.
5. Qualifying or refusing criteria with the review form are available on the
periodical website and in printed version in Appendices.
6. The names of reviewers of particular publications are not disclosed
THE ARTICLE REVIEW
I declare, that [mark one]:
I do not know the identity of the author of the reviewed article
I know the identity of the author, but there is no conflict of interests
for which it is considered:
RR direct personal relationships (kinship, legal, conflict)
RR employee relation
RR direct scientific cooperation in the past two years
Title: ……………………………………………….....................…………………………………....…….
I. Issue rating (the formulation of the research problem, the problem of
research on the background of current scientific achievements, innovation,
timeliness – at least 5 sentences, but not more than 10 sentences)
[place for text]
Number of points 0–20 [value]
II. Evaluation of the method (article layout, terminology, applied research
methods, the use of literature – at least 5 sentences, but not more than
10 sentences)
[place for text]
Number of points 0–20 [place for value]
III. Evaluation of substantive content (degree of pursuing the research,
originality ofresearch results, theimplications for scienceand practice – at
least 5 sentences, but not more than 10 sentences)
[place for text]
Number of points 0–50 [value]
IV. Evaluation of the work (languagestyle, technical side of the article – at
least 5 sentences, but not more than 10 sentences)
[place for text]
Number of points 0–10 [value]
Total number of points [value]
V. Final conclusion of the review
The article can be published
The article cannot be published
The article can be published after considering the comments submitted
below
Suggested changes and corrections
[place for text]
...............................................................................................................................................................
Name, title (academic degree)
Address ..............................................................................................................................................
Mobile ................................................................
E-mail .................................................................
.........................................................................
Signature of reviewer
The chief editor of the periodical checks brevity and informativity of
article’s title, abstract and text. In the texts submitted to publication special
attention shall be paid to usage of conventional symbols, abbreviations, and
unified bibliography description. Additionally, the chief editor checks whether
the author has defined its type.
The editors shall not block negative results of research under condition of
preparing the article with such researches in all published articles. In case of
critical articles it is allowed to publish substantive polemic on the published
article.
The periodical editors are allowed to disclose in written form all connections
with authors of articles submitted to publication. In case of reporting
of such connections, the editors shall not participate in editing process of the
authors connected in any way with the periodical editors. Special attention
should be paid to family, professional and social connections.
New editors of the periodical shall be familiar with the ethical code binding
for the periodical, especially with rules of conduct in case of detecting
dishonest practices.
The editor ensures the right choice of reviewers for evaluation of scientific
texts and maintain necessary care in ensuring correct reviewing process.
Special attention shall be paid to preparation of the review within specified
deadlines and if it is essential.
Decisions made the chief editor are independent of the editing office which
is also a subject which finances the periodical.
We ensure that our editors are familiar with COPE Code of Conduct and Best
Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors available here.
UWAGA! Niniejsza strona wykorzystuje pliki cookies. Informacje uzyskane za pomocą cookies wykorzystywane są głównie w celach statystycznych. Pozostając na stronie godzisz się na ich zapisywanie w Twojej przeglądarce.
Po więcej szczegółów odwiedź naszą "Politykę prywatności"