Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement
The Editorial Committee of the journal ”Prace Naukowe Uniwersytetu Ekonomicznego we Wrocławiu” makes every conceivable effort to ensure that each stage of the publishing process meets the highest ethical standards. The declarations and ethical principles concerning the publication of ”Prace Naukowe Uniwersytetu Ekonomicznego we Wrocławiu” result from the attained experience and the elaborated good practices, as well as being based on the directives of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors.
Publication policy of the journal ”Prace Naukowe Uniwersytetu Ekonomicznego we Wrocławiu” summary
- The Editorial Committee accepts only original scientific articles addressing the range of problems outlined in the section ”Aims and Scope”.
- Articles are submitted using the Open Journal Systems https://journals.ue.wroc.pl as described in the section ”Submissions”.
- The articles accepted for publication by the Committee are subject to the review procedure explained in the section ”Reviews”.
- The published articles can be accessed in accordance with the principles listed in the section ”Open Access”. The articles are available on the website of the Dolnośląska Biblioteka Cyfrowa based on the licence Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 (CC BY-SA 4.0). The open access policy has been noted in Sherpa Romeo
- The anti-plagiarism policy is applied as shown in the following flowchart. The submitted articles are verified using the iThenticate anti-plagiarism system. The manuscript is rejected if the similarity index exceeds 30%.
- The applied policy counteracts unacceptable authorship practices, such as: guest authorship, ghost authorship, anonymous authorship, piracy, reusing text from one’s own previous publications, in accordance with the following guidelines:
- The publisher follows the principles regarding the Protection of Personal Data – General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR)
- Detailed regulations concerning publication of a manuscript are described in the guidelines on the authorship and the protection of personal data.
Duties and responsibilities of the Publishers
- Publish and share information about the principles of cooperation with all the parties involved in the editorial process.
- Define the principles of cooperation with the Editorial Committee of the journal and support of the editorial process.
- Observe the rules connected with independence of the Editorial Committee of the journal, the ethics of the publishing process and the reliability of the reviews.
- Observe the ethical principles formulated by COPE for publishers and editors of academic journals.
- Publish the required and justified revisions, explanations and corrections.
- Comply with publication deadlines.
- Update the principles of the journal’s publication in response to ongoing changes in its environment.
In cases of suspected or proven scientific inaccuracy, dishonest publication and plagiarism, the Publisher, in close collaboration with the Editorial Committee, will undertake all appropriate actions in order to explain the arising situation and introduce necessary corrections into the given article. This involves an immediate publication of an erratum or, in extreme cases, withdrawing the problematic article from publication.
Duties and responsibilities of the Editors
- Members of the committee are competent in the fields of scientific research defined in the ”Aims and Scope” section of the journal.
- Information about the members of the Editorial Committee and the Scientific Council are available on the journal’s website under ”Editorial Team”.
- Members of the Editorial Committee make their independent decisions about the preliminary acceptance or rejection of the article in line with the rules listed in the section ”Submissions”.
- The Editorial Committee makes independent decisions about appointing reviewers in accordance with the rules described in the ”Reviews”.
- The Editorial Committee makes independent and final decisions about the article’s publication.
- The Editorial Committee follows the ethical rules formulated by COPE for publishers, editors, reviewers and authors.
- The Editorial Committee takes responsibility for the content published on the journal’s website and its updates.
The Editor of the journal is responsible for making a decision as to which submitted articles should be published, and moreover takes full responsibility for all the materials published in the journal. When making these decisions, the Editor acts in line with the publishing policy assumed by the Editorial Committee, as well as the legal requirements concerning libel, infringement of copyright and plagiarism. The Editor may consult other editors and reviewers when making the final decision about the publication of articles. The Editor should care about maintaining the reliability of scientific input, and prevent the infringement of intellectual and ethical standards due to business reasons. They should also facilitate the publication of corrections, explanations and apologies, should such need arise.
The Editor should evaluate manuscripts only from the viewpoint of their intellectual content, and not the race, gender, sexual orientation, religious beliefs, ethnic origins, citizenship or political preferences of the author/s. The Editor will not disclose any information about the submitted manuscript to any parties other than the author/s, reviewers and potential reviewers, and in some cases, also members of the respective Editorial Committee.
The Editor and the Editorial Committee can disclose information about the submitted article only to its author/s, reviewers and potential reviewers, other editorial consultants and the publisher, according to the specific case.
Disclosure of information, conflicts of interest, and other issues
The Editor will follow the COPE Guidelines when making decisions regarding the withdrawal of articles and introducing corrections in the articles published in the journal ”Prace Naukowe Uniwersytetu Ekonomicznego we Wrocławiu”. The unpublished material revealed in the submit-ted manuscript cannot be used for the purposes of the Editor’s own research without the explicit written consent of the author. Privileged information and ideas obtained in the way of mutual exchange must be treated as confidential and are not to be used for personal benefit.
The Editor guarantees that any advertisement, reprint and other commercial revenue will not influence editorial decisions made. The Editor should aim at providing an honest and appropriate reviewing process.
The Editors should abstain from considering manuscripts which create a conflict of interests resulting from competition, cooperation or any other relations and connections with any of the authors, companies or (possibly) institutions linked with the articles. In such cases they can ask another member of the Editorial Committee for their consideration of the manuscript. The Editors should request that all their collaborators disclose any relevant conflcts of interest, and publish corrections if any conflicting interest were revealed following the publication.Should this be required, other appropriate measures should be taken, such as rejecting the manuscript.
Engagement and research collaboration
The Editors should protect the integrity of the published text, and when necessary, introduce corrections or question any suspicious or alleged inappropriate conduct of research. They should also point out unreliable reviewers and editorial misdemeanors. The Editor should undertake the appropriate actions in cases of reported ethical complaints regarding a submitted manuscript or published article.
Duties and responsibilities of the Reviewers
The process of reviewing work for the journal ”Prace Naukowe Uniwersytetu Ekonomicznego we Wrocławiu” is carried out in the system of a double-blind review, and every submitted article is subject to at least two reviews.
Contribution to editorial decisions
By providing a review, the Reviewer makes an important contribution to the process of evaluating submitted material. A written review helps the Editor with making correct editorial decisions, and the author – through the editorial input – can improve the article. Mutual evaluation constitutes a vital element of formal scientific communication and provides the basis for a research method. Apart from the certain ethics-related duties described below, reviewers are generally asked to treat both the authors and their work in the same way as they would wish to be treated themselves, and observe the rules of good reviewing practices.
Professionalism and timeliness
COPE recommends that every invited reviewer who acknowledges not having the specialist knowledge necessary to review the subject matter presented in the manuscript, or is aware of being unable to meet the review deadline, should immediately notify the Editor in order that alternative reviewers can be found.
In cases when, due to changing circumstances, the reviewer is unable to meet the conditions of the original review contract or require an extension of the deadline for submitting the review, the Editorial Committee should be immediately informed. When refusing to review the article, the reviewer can suggest other persons for these purposes, on the basis of their professional knowledge and not any personal preferences.
All the manuscripts sent for review should be treated as private documents. Reviewers are not allowed to share reviews and any information about the article, nor directly contact the author/s without the Editor’s permission.
Any unpublished material disclosed in the submitted manuscript cannot be used by the reviewer in his/her own research without the clear written consent on the part of the author. Privileged information or ideas obtained in the way of a mutual assessment must be treated as confidential and cannot be used for personal gains.
Sensitivity on ethical issues
Reviewers should be sensitive to any potential ethical problems arising in the manuscript, and point them out to the Editor, including any relevant resemblance or duplication regarding the reviewed article and any other publications of which the reviewer has any personal knowledge. Each statement that an observation, education and argument had been previously reported, should be accompanied by an appropriate citation.
Standards of objectivity and conflicting interests
Reviewing should be performed in an objective way. Reviewers should be aware of any possible personal bias, and bear it in mind when reviewing the manuscript. It is inappropriate to express any personal criticism of the author/s. Reviewers should clearly state their opinions, justifying them with appropriate arguments.
Reviewers should consult the Editor before agreeing to review an article containing a potential conflict of interests resulting from competition, collaboration or any other connections with any authors, companies, and institutions linked with the manuscripts.
If a reviewer suggest to the author to include citations from their own ( or collaborators’) works, it has to be due to authentic scientific reasons and not related to a wish to increase the reviewer’s number of citations or increasing the public visibility of their (or collaborators’) work.
Acknowledgement of sources
Reviewers should identify the respective published works which were not cited by the author/s. Any statement that an observation, deduction or argument had been previously reported should be accompanied by the relevant citation. The reviewer should also draw the Editor’s attention to any significant similarities or duplication of the reviewed manuscript and any other published data of which they has have knowledge.
Disclosure and conflict of interests
Privileged information and concepts obtained in the way of mutual assessment have to be treated as confidential and must not be used for personal gains. Reviewers should not undertake a review of manuscripts in relation to which exists a conflict of interests related to competition, collaboration or any other links, or connections with any of the authors, companies and institutions related to the submission. According to the COPE guidelines, in cases of suspected undisclosed conflict of interests in the submitted manuscript, a reviewer is obliged to inform the editors about this fact. It is necessary to obtain a reviewer’s declaration about the absence of the conflict of interests before the publication of the article.
According to the COPE guidelines, in cases of the suspicion of a redundant (duplicated) publication or a suspected plagiarism, as well as a suspected fabrication of data in the submitted manuscript, the reviewer has the duty to inform the Editor about this fact.
The reviewers are obliged to address specifically the following questions:
- Has the author published this study before?
- Did they commit plagiarism in respect of another publication?
- Was the research ethical and were the relevant permissions obtained?
- Does any premise exist to indicate that the data were fabricated or manipulated in any inappropriate manner?
- Did the authors declare all the significant conflicts of interests?
- Is there a conflict of interests present?
Duties and responsibilities of the Authors
Originality and plagiarism
Authors ought to ensure that their work is entirely unique, and if the work and/or expressions of others had been used, these were appropriately cited.
Authors reporting results of their own unique research should provide a detailed description of the study they carried out, together with an objective assessment of its importance. The base data should be presented correctly in the manuscript. The article should contain a sufficient number of details and references to enable others to obtain the same result. Any false or deliberately imprecise declarations are considered unethical and are unacceptable.
Multiple, redundant and simultaneous publication
Generally, authors should not publish manuscripts presenting essentially the same research results in more than one journal or primary publication. The simultaneous submission of the same manuscript in more than one journal constitutes unethical publishing behaviour and is considered unacceptable.
Acknowledgement of sources
Works by other authors ought to be always acknowledged appropriately. Authors should also cite publications which influenced the nature of the submitted manuscript.
Authorship of the manuscript
Authorship should be limited to persons who made a significant contribution to the concept, project, execution and interpretation of the submitted study. All those who made a significant contribution should be named as co-authors. If there are any other persons who participated in certain substantive aspects of the research project, they should be thanked in the section ”Acknowledgemets”.
The corresponding author should ascertain that the list of the authors of the manuscript includes the names of all the relevant co-authors (in line with the above definition), and that all of them had seen and approved the final version of the manuscript and consented to be submitted for publication.
Threats to persons and animals
Should the manuscript describe procedures and/or equipment which may be connected with any unusual risk related to their use, the authors are obliged to state this clearly in their manuscript.
Disclosure and conflict of interests
All authors should reveal in their manuscripts any financial or other relevant conflict of interest, which could be viewed as having an impact on the results and on their interpretation presented in the manuscript. Any sources of financial support of the project must be disclosed.
Substantial errors in published works
Should the author discover any significant error or omission in their published article, it is his/her duty to notify immediately the Editor or the Publisher of the journal, and collaborate with them in withdrawing the article or publishing a suitable erratum.
No forms of plagiarism are tolerated, including the appropriation of other author/s work, terminology, data, theoretical concepts and conclusions, or autoplagiarism involving repeated publication of fragments of the author’s own work published earlier and presented as new. The simultaneous submission of the same manuscript to more than one journal is considered unethical and reprehensible.
The work and statements of other authors should be cited in an appropriate way. Authors are also expected to indicate any sources of inspiration, including publications, which contributed to the creation of their manuscript.
Authorship of a manuscript
According to the recommendations of ICMJE, a person can be acknowledged as the author when they:
- made a significant contribution to the concept or work project, or at least obtained, analysed or interpreted data used in that work,
- prepared a preliminary outline of an article or carried out its critical assessment from the subtantive viewpoint,
- approved the final version for publication,
- took responsibility for all aspects of the work, ensuring that all the issues concerning accuracy and integrity of all its parts have been examined and explained
The input of individual authors in creating the article should be stated in the author’s declaration enclosed with the manuscript.
Authorship and AI tools
According to the COPE recommendations, AI tools cannot be named as the author of the article, because they are unable to:
- take responsibility for the submitted work,
- state the existence or the lack of conflict of interest,
- manage the copyright and licence contracts.
Authors making use of AI tools when writing their manuscripts, creating images and graphic elements of the work, and when collecting and analysing data, must reveal this in a clear way in the section ”Materials and Methods” (or such like) of the article the way in which an AI tool was used, and what tool was applied.
Change of authorship
In accordance with the COPE guidelines, the Editorial Committee of the journal ”Prace Naukowe Uniwersytetu Ekonomicznego we Wrocławiu” requires the written permission from all involved authors regarding any proposed changes to the authorship of the articles submitted for publication and already published. This refers to adding, removing, changing the order of appearance of the authors’ names, or changes in the description of their input. Such an agreement should be sent by every author via email to email@example.com. The corresponding author is obliged to obtain the consent of all the involved authors to the proposed changes. In cases when disagreement between authors connected with the authorship cannot be satisfactorily resolved, the dispute should be settled by the institutions employing the authors. The settlement of such authorship disputes is not part of the duties of the Editorial Committee. Any changes regarding the authorship of a published article can be affected only by means of an erratum.
Authors are obliged to present their work results in a clear, reliable and honest way – the submitted manuscripts can contain only data, statistical analyses and results deemed accurate. The deliberate publication of manipulated, untrue or not verfied results is considered unethical and unacceptable. Authors should clealy state the sources of the presented data and provide references in their articles to all relevant reports. They are also obliged to disclose information about any possible sources of financing their publications, and contributions from any research and science institutions, associations and other entities. The main responsibility for the correctness of this information rests with the author submitting the manuscript (the corresponding author).
The authors should treat communication with the Editorial Committee as confidential: any correspondence with the Editors of the journal ”Prace Naukowe UEW”, reports from the reviewing evaluations and other private materials should not published on the website or become publically available in any other way without prior consent of the Editors, whether the submitted article is published or not.
The discovery of any infringement of ethical principles applied in the journal ”Prace Naukowe Uniwersytetu Ekonomicznego we Wrocławiu” on the part of the author, will result in undertaking appropriate steps aimed at explaining the arising circumstances, and the process of reviewing and/or publication will be suspended. On the satisfactory explanation of the ensuing doubts, the publication procedures will be continued. In the case of an unsatisfactory outcome, the Editors will inform about this, the institution/s employing the author and/or other relevant authorities.
- Cambridge Core Ethical Standards
- Plagiarism In a Submitted Manuscipt COPE flowcharts
- Expert Journals – Responsibilities of the Publisher in the Relationship with Journal Editors
- GDPR Personal Data
Committee of Publication Ethics (COPE)
- COPE Guidelines
- Complete set of COPE flowcharts in English
- Complete set of COPE flowcharts in Polish
- COPE position on authorship and AI tools