Publishing Ethics Policy

Abiding by the requirements of good academic practice and aware of the scientific community’s social responsibility, ETYKA requires all authors, reviewers and editors to follow its ethics policy throughout the entire editorial process.

 

ETYKA’s publication process follows the guidelines of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

In particular:

  1. By submitting an article for publication in ETYKA, the Author claims it to be his or her own original work, unpublished before either as a whole or in significant parts, and not under consideration by any other journal.
  2. All persons stated as authors or co-authors should have made a significant contribution to the paper – we do not accept “guest authorship”. To be considered an author, the person needs to fulfil all three criteria listed below:
    1. They have made a significant contribution into the research project or the concept on which the project is based, or have gathered or analysed or interpreted data obtained in the research;
    2. They prepared the first draft of the text or played a significant part in its preparation, or provided critical examination of its intellectual content; and
    3. They have approved the final version of the article that has been submitted for publication.
  3. All persons who have contributed to the final version of the paper should be listed as co-authors (the paper is not a product of “ghost-writing”).
  4. The submitting Author takes responsibility for the veracity of their statements regarding the absence of ghost-writers and guest authors.
  5. The Authors disclose the sources of funding of research on which the submitted article is based and contributions made by scientific and research institutions, associations and other entities (financial disclosure).
  6. Articles submitted to ETYKA are subject to initial screening by the Editorial Team (or issue editor or guest editor).
  7. The articles are evaluated purely on the basis of professional and linguistic competence. Race, sex, sexual orientation, religious affiliation or lack thereof, national origin, citizenship status and political beliefs of the Authors play no part in the process of paper evaluation.
  8. Papers that passed the initial screening are evaluated by two external reviewers. The process is double-blind: the identity of authors is not known to the reviewers and vice versa.
  9. If two reviewers differ significantly in their evaluation, the paper may undergo evaluation by an additional reviewer.
  10. Based on the reviews, the Editors decide to either publish or reject the submission.
  11. The Editors may decide to publish the paper under the condition that the Author makes corrections suggested by the reviewers. The Author is required to provide a written explanation for their rejection of a reviewer’s suggestion.
  12. The evaluation of submissions includes: the significance of the issues discussed in the paper, originality of the proposed solutions, logical validity of arguments, clarity of presented theses, familiarity with the existing literature, soundness of empirical theses, as well as linguistic and stylistic correctness.
  13. All submissions are processed confidentially by the Editorial Team. In particular, no information related to the submitted papers is revealed to any person who is not taking part in the editorial process. Individuals authorised to access such information are: the Authors, the reviewers, the relevant Editors and the publishers.
  14. The Editorial Team reserves the right to make minor linguistic or stylistic corrections.
  15. In case of justified suspicions of scientific misconduct (plagiarism, unjustified duplication of articles or their fragments, false authorship attribution, non-attribution of due authorship, lack of transparency regarding a conflict of interest, falsification or fabrication of data) the Editorial Team will suspend publication or retract the already published article. Detailed procedures: COPE Flowcharts.
  16. All identified cases of scientific misconduct will be publicly exposed (this includes notification of the institution employing the author, relevant authorities and professional associations).
  17. Mistakes done by authors or editors will be corrected with publication of errata or corrigenda as apprioriate.