The editors of Studia Bobolanum apply the principles of publishing ethics counteracting unfair publishing practices, in accordance with the guidelines of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).The editors of Studio Bobolanum apply the principles of publishing ethics counteracting unfair publishing practices, in accordance with the guidelines of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).
By submitting the text to the editorial office of Studia Bobolanum, the author of the publication states that the submitted text is an original, thoroughly prepared work, which has not been published yet and is currently not subject to evaluation in another journal.
If you want to reprint an article published in the journal Studia Bobolanum, the author must obtain written permission to share the publication.
The text meets the bibliographical requirements regarding the construction of footnotes, in accordance with copyright law.
If the text is to be sent for review, it must meet the criteria listed above.
I. Editorial Responsibilities
Decision on publication: The editors are responsible for deciding whether to accept or reject a paper. The decision is based on the scientific value of the publication, its compliance with the topic presented in the journal, the originality of the treatment of the topic and transparency of the argument.
Impartiality: In the assessment of articles, the authors' nationality, gender, sexual orientation, religion, origin, citizenship or political beliefs are not taken into account. The works are evaluated only in terms of content.
Confidentiality: The editors do not disclose to unauthorized persons any information about the works submitted for publication. The persons authorized to have this information are: author, reviewers and editors.
Disclosure of information and conflict of interest: Unpublished papers may not be used by the editors or any other persons involved in the publishing process without the written permission of the authors.
Proceedings in situations violating the principles of editorial ethics: in case of discovering scientific misconduct, the Editorial Board follows the procedure recommended by COPE. The algorithm of conduct can be found here.
II. Author's obligations
Scientific reliability: The author is required to accurately describe the research work carried out and an objective discussion of the results. The publication should contain information enabling identification of data sources. Presenting and interpreting test results in a dishonest or inaccurate manner is unacceptable and may result in the withdrawal of work.
Originality and plagiarism: The author may submit only his own original works for publication. The research and / or information from other scientists used in the publication should be marked to indicate that it is a quotation. Plagiarism or falsification of data is unacceptable. The author should not send the same manuscript to more than one magazine.
Confirmation of sources: The author is obliged to mention in the bibliography publications that he used to create the text. Should cite publications that are relevant to the presented topic.
Authorship of the work:
1. Authorship should be limited to people who have had a significant share in the creation, implementation and interpretation of the work.
2. The author who submits a multi-author text for publication is required to disclose the contribution of individual authors to its creation (including the affiliation of the authors).
3. The author who submits a multi-author text for publication should ensure that all co-authors have been included in the text and that they have read and approved the final version of the paper before publication, and have agreed to submit it for publication.
4. Ghostwriting (hiding participation in the creation of publications other than officially appearing on the editorial page) and guest authorship (listing as co-authors of people who have not made any contribution to the publication) are a manifestation of scientific misconduct. Any detected misconduct should be unmasked, including notification of relevant entities, such as institutions employing the author, scientific societies, etc.
III. Reviewer's Responsibilities
Participation in editorial decision-making: Reviews help the editor-in-chief and the editorial board to make editorial decisions and authors to improve the quality of their work.
Double-blind review: The editors use the double-blind review model (double-blind review - the identity of the reviewers is not known to the authors, and the identity of the authors is not known to the reviewers). This solution ensures greater objectivity of assessment by excluding the potential bias of the reviewer to the authors. The publication is evaluated on the basis of at least two independent reviews made by specialists from outside the scientific unit affiliated by the author of the publication.
Timeliness: The reviewer is required to provide a review within the deadline. If for some reason he is unable to meet the deadline or undertake a review, he should immediately inform the Editorial Board and give the reason.
Confidentiality: All reviewed texts and their reviews are confidential. Disclosure of texts and / or third parties is unacceptable (except for persons who participate in the publishing process).
Anonymity: All reviews are done anonymously. The editors do not share the authors' data with reviewers.
Objectivity: The review should be objective and be a constructive assessment of the work. The subjective criticism of the author of the work is considered inappropriate. All comments of the reviewer should be properly argued.
Verification of originality of the text: The reviewer should identify published papers that were not cited by the author. The reviewer should inform the editorial office of violations of ethical standards by the author of the text (if any), including any significant similarity, partial overlapping of the content of the reviewed work with any other published and known work, or of suspected plagiarism or self-plagiarism.
Disclosure of information and conflict of interest: The reviewer may not use the reviewed work for his personal needs and benefits. Also, he should not evaluate the work if there may be a conflict of interest with the author.
List of reviewers: According to publishing practice, the names and surnames of the reviewers are placed on the editorial page of Studia Bobolanum.
Ethical standards in force in the journal Studia Bobolanum were developed on the basis of the following recommendations:
- Dobre praktyki w procedurach recenzyjnych w nauce, 2011 - Ministerstwo Nauki i Szkolnictwa Wyższego
- Code of Conduct and Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors, 2011 - Committee on Publication Ethics
- Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers, 2017 - Committee on Publication Ethics
- Best Practice Guidelines on Publishing Ethics: A Publisher’s Perspective, 2014 - John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
- Ethical Guidelindes for Journal Publication, 2017 - Elsevier
- Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers, 2017 - Committee on Publication Ethics
- Guidelines: A Short Guide to Ethical Editing for New Editors, 2019 - Committee on Publication Ethics
Obligations of Authors
The proof of the ethical editorial standards of the author as well as his/her social responsibility should be transparency about the entities that contribute to the formation of a scientific publication published on the pages of Studia Bobolanum (content, material, financial input). The authorship should be limited to those who have significantly contributed to the concept, design, implementation or interpretation of the published research results. As co-authors there should be listed all those who have participated in the creation of the work. For other people who have had an impact on significant aspects of the research article, they should be mentioned or shown as collaborators. The author should ensure that all contributors are listed in the work, have seen and approved of the final version of the work and agreed to submit it for publication.
Ghostwriting and guest authorship are the manifestation of a scientific misconduct. Ghostwriting means that someone has made a substantial contribution to the publication, without revealing his participation as one of the authors and his role in the acknowledgments in the publication is not mentioned. Guest authorship means that, despite making either a negligible contribution or none at all, one is listed as author/co-author of the publication.
The Editorial Board of Studia Bobolanum, to ensure scientific reliability introduces a ghostwriting and guest authorship bar. The authors are required to disclose the contribution of particular authors in the creation of the publications (including their affiliations and contributions, i.e. the information on the author of the concept, assumptions, methods used in the preparation of the publications), however the main responsibility remains with the author submitting the original version of the work.
The Editorial Board of Studia Bobolanum announces that all cases of scientific misconduct and dishonesty (ghostwriting and guest authorship), will be unmasked including notification of the relevant actors (authors' associations, scientific and academic associations, editors' associations). The Editors will also document all forms of scientific misconduct, especially violations of the rules of ethics applicable in science.
Disclosure and Conflict of Interest
The authors should disclose all sources of funding for projects in their work, the contribution of academic and scientific research institutions, associations and other entities and all material conflicts of interest that may affect its results or interpretation.
Articles submitted to the Studia Bobolanum quarterly can only be original works that do not violate the copyright of third parties, have not been published and have not been submitted in any publishing house. Providing false or knowingly false statements is unethical. The author should not publish materials describing the same research in more than one journal or original publication. Submission of the same work to more than one editorial board at the same time constitutes unethical behaviour and is thus not allowed. Submitting a research article, which is a translation of the text published or submitted to a different magazine is also considered unethical.
Access to Data and Maintenance of Data
The author should provide the raw data for the work submitted for review and should be ready to allow access to such data. The data should also be kept for one year from the date of publication.
Errors discovered after the submission of the text
If the author discovers an error or inaccuracy in the text after submission the Editor must be notified immediately.
Originality and Plagiarism
Only original work may be submitted to the Editor. The author should make sure that the names of the authors cited in the work and/or all quoted texts have been correctly cited or mentioned. Plagiarism is regarded as unethical and unacceptable.
Any violation of the above ethical principles render the article subject to rejection.
Obligations of Editor-in-Chief and Editorial Staff
Responsibility for Published Texts
The Editor-in-Chief has the obligation to comply with the current state of the law on defamation, copyright infringement and plagiarism and also bears the responsibility for decisions relating to the publication of the submitted publications. The decision to publish the article is based on the reviews, the opinion of the Theme Editor and the Editorial Board. The decision to publish is affected by the risk of an infringement of copyright and other intellectual property rights, plagiarism or autoplagiarism or questions relating to the authorship or co-authorship of the article.
In making their decision to accept or reject a scientific text, it is important for the Editors to approve it for its originality, scientific quality and consistency with the subject of the magazine, not the origin of the author, his/her nationality, ethnicity, political opinion, gender, race or religion. In order to prevent discrimination, the Editors respect the Constitution and the laws in force in the Polish Republic.
In order to ensure an objective and fair assessment, articles are reviewed according to the policy of double-blind review by two independent reviewers. The information obtained in the evaluation process of the publication, as well as the rejected articles, or parts thereof, cannot be used as research materials by members of the Editorial Staff or reviewers, without the express written consent of the author.
Avoiding Conflict of Interest
The Editorial Board of Studia Bobolanum do not appoint reviewers among people who are in direct subordination to or in other direct personal relationships with the authors of the texts.
Obligations of Reviewers
The reviewer supports the Editor-in-Chief, the Theme Editor and the Editorial Board in making editorial decisions. The reviewer evaluating the text publication fills in the review form. A review is an expression of opinion, which means that the final decision regarding the acceptance of the text for publication is made by the Editorial Board.
A reviewer who is unable to review the work within the prescribed time should inform the editorial board immediately.
Reviews should be done with objectivity, in accordance with ethical standards and on the basis of scientific arguments in order to ensure the scientific value of the text. Criticising the author personally is deemed inappropriate. Reviewers should express their views clearly, supporting them with appropriate arguments.
All the reviewed texts are treated as confidential documents. They may not be shown to third parties or talked about outside the Editorial Board. They may not be used by the reviewer to obtain any benefit.
All reviews are done anonymously. The Editorial Staff of Studia Bobolanum do not share authors' details with reviewers.
Conflict of Interest
Reviewers should not review a work in respect of which there is a conflict of interest owing to a relationship with the author, company or institution associated with the work.
Verification of Originality of Text
The reviewer should inform the Editorial Staff of any violations of ethical standards by the author of the text (if any), including any significant similarity to or partial overlapping of the content of the reviewed work with any other text published and known to him/her, or of suspected plagiarism.