Publication ethics

The Scientific Publishing House of Siedlce University follows the ethical principles and procedures recommended by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). The Publishing House aims to counteract 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 regarded as an act of scientific misconduct and a violation of ethical principles. In accordance with the available information, publications submitted to the Publishing House are verified with available tools in terms of publishing ethics principles.

COPE procedures:

• publicationethics.org
• procedures for dealing with suspected scientific misconduct

Policy concerning authorship:

1. Scientific integrity. Authors of papers submitted for publication are obliged to carefully describe their research and objectively interpret the results. The works should contain information enabling identification of data sources.
2.  Originality of work. Authors may submit only their own, original works  for publication. When they use research and/or the words of others, they should use proper citation techniques. Plagiarism or fabrication of data is unacceptable. It is also considered unethical to submit the same texts to more than one publishing house/journal.
3. Authorship. All people who influenced the final shape of the work should be listed. The obligation to ensure that persons contributing to the paper accept its final form lies with the author submitting the text for publication.

Reviewer Policy:

1. Careful and objective evaluation of works, with an assessment, as far as possible, of its scientific reliability, and with appropriate justification of the comments;
2. Confidentiality consisting in disclosing works only to persons involved in the publishing process, with the principle of fair play and without personal criticism of the author(s);
3. Following time limits for the review, or adoption, together with the Publisher, of a different solution in the event of inability to meet the deadline.
4. Conducting a review only if there is no conflict of interest.

Rules applicable to the Publisher:

1. Making the final decision to accept the work for publication, the Publisher is guided primarily by its substantive values and compliance with the initial assumptions regarding the publication. In the case of joint publications, the Publisher relies on the opinion of the scientific editor and cooperates with him/her in the process of qualification for publishing. The parties involved in the decision take into account the opinions of reviewers regarding the scientific value of the work, its originality and clarity of arguments.
2. The Publisher aims to ensure that such elements as race, gender, religion, origin, citizenship or political beliefs of the authors do not affect the evaluation of the works in any way.
3. The Publisher does not disclose any information to unauthorized persons about the works submitted for publication. Those authorized to have access to such information are: the author, reviewers, editors and other persons involved in the publishing process.
4. Unpublished works are not made available to any persons who are not involved in the publishing process without the written consent of the authors.
5. In consultation with the scientific editor of the work, or independently, the publisher may decide both to make corrections to materials already published or to withdraw the work from publication (based on its lack of credibility or as a result of unintentional errors, plagiarism or violation of publishing ethics principles).

Review procedures

All publications of the Scientific Publishing House of Siedlce University are subject to the review process. The qualification of works for publication must end with a positive review. The review should be made in writing, with an unequivocal conclusion whether or not the work is allowed to be published, in particular cases after meeting certain conditions. The reviewer's opinion should be prepared in accordance with the generally applicable standards.

The reviewer is obliged to disclose any suspicions of violation of publishing ethics (see: Publishing ethics above).

Before proceeding with the substantive assessment of the text, the reviewer submits a statement of absence of a conflict of interest, concerning in particular: direct personal relations (kinship, legal relationships, marriage) with the author, relationship of professional subordination, or direct scientific cooperation.