The Code of Ethical Conduct
PWE S.A.
11.10.2018 r.
Polskie Wydawnictwo Ekonomiczne S.A.
The Code of Ethical Conduct
- The following principles of publishing ethics are valid for all publications, publishing series and journals published by the Polskie Wydawnictwo Ekonomiczne S.A. (“publisher”).
- The term “editors” shall refer to all editorial teams of journals, publishing series, and individual publishing items.
- The terms used in the singular shall refer to the plural when appropriate.
General Rules
1. The publisher ensures observance of publishing standards and principles of publishing ethics and counteracts any practices that are contrary to the accepted standards.
2. The publisher systematically monitors internationally accepted publishing ethical standards. In particular, it considers as a reference point the standards developed by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE, https://publicationethics.org).
3. The publisher publishes rules of conduct in the event of receiving allegations of actions contrary to the principles of publishing ethics. The publisher attends to allegations of misconduct that concern the publisher as well as any of the editors under its authority.
4. The publisher applies developed procedures for individual cases of violations of the principles of publishing ethics described in the "Procedures" section. In this respect it is influenced by the standards developed by the COPE.
5. The editors provide authors and reviewers with guidelines. These contain an explanation of editorial processes and inform about the rights and obligations of authors and reviewers.
6. The editors ensure the selection of appropriate reviewers for submitted works, being guided by the reviewers’ qualifications in a given research area.
7. The Publisher has the right to withdraw a paper after its publication if:
1) there is evidence that the data has been falsified as well as in the event of unintentional errors which have the effect of significantly lowering reliability of research;
2) a paper has characteristics of plagiarism or significantly violates the principles of publishing ethics.
Authorship Rules
8. The author is obliged to comply with standards of scientific reliability and to observe the principles of publishing ethics.
9. The author may submit for publication only original works of her/his own authorship. All references to works and studies of other authors should be provided with appropriate footnotes and should be disclosed in the bibliography. Failure to comply with the above rules is considered a manifestation of unethical conduct. In case of detected cases of such actions the editors notify relevant entities including institutions employing the author, scientific societies, associations of scientists and others, depending on circumstances.
10. The author may submit for publication only papers that are neither published nor submitted for publication in other publishing houses. Submission of a manuscript concurrently to more than one publisher is considered unethical.
11. The author is obliged to cooperate with the editors during the review process. In particular, at the request of the editor, the author should provide the data used as bases for results of the research, and provide appropriate explanations, if needed.
12. The author is obliged to provide access to the data to which she/he refers in her/his paper, also after its publication.
13. The author should disclose any conflicts of interest that might influence the results or their interpretation. Examples of potential conflicts of interest that should be disclosed are: honoraria, educational grants or other funding, membership in organizations and societies, employment, consultancies, stock ownership, or other equity interest, patent-licensing arrangements, as well as personal or professional relationships. All sources of financial support should be disclosed including the grant number or other reference number, if any.
14. In case of multi-author texts, the authors are required to disclose contributions of individual authors with an indication of the exact contribution of a given author to the overall work (authorship of the concept, conducting empirical research, editing etc.).
15. Ghost authorship, guest authorship, and gift authorship are considered manifestations of scientific misconduct and are not accepted by the publisher. In case of detected cases of such actions, the editors notify relevant entities including institutions employing the author, scientific societies, associations of scientists and others, depending on circumstances.
16. The author notifies the editors in case of observation of significant inaccuracies or errors in the published work of her/his authorship. The editors, depending on circumstances, take actions in the form of a clarification, erratum, or any other appropriate at the next issue or printout.
17. The editors of the joint publication ensure scientific reliability of the papers published therein. The editors may make appropriate amendments in order to guarantee it. In the event of suspicion of behavior incompatible with the principles of publishing ethics, they signal the issue to the publisher and decide to retract the paper.
18. The editors of the joint publication are required to ensure that all of the authors accept their contributions following the editorial process.
19. The editors take immediate action in the event of suspicion of non-compliance with the principles of publishing ethics by the author of a submitted manuscript or published article. The editors investigate each reported act of unethical behavior, even if detected long after the publication. In case of unethical behavior, the publisher publishes a correction, a note, retracts the paper or takes other action relevant to the circumstances.
Review Process Rules
20. The review process is subject to generally accepted academic standards of the double-blind peer review.
21. Rules of the review process are public. The editors justify each case of significant deviations from the rules.
22. Reviews are confidential and are made available only to those involved in the editorial process.
23. Reviewers and other persons involved in the editorial process may not use the research contained in unpublished manuscripts without the express prior consent of its author. Information obtained during the review process is treated as confidential and cannot serve personal benefits of participants of the editorial process.
24. Reviews are objective. Any comments from the reviewer should be substantively reasoned. In particular, remarks of personal provenience or based in dissent with the reviewer's scientific views are considered inadmissible.
25. In the event of noticing a possibility of a conflict of interest, the reviewer signals this fact to the editors and returns the manuscript being the subject of the review. The reviewer may also resign from reviewing the paper due to insufficient knowledge of the subject.
26. The reviewer cannot delegate the task of preparing a review to another reviewer without the express prior consent of the editors.
27. The reviewers and editors signal any instances of breaches regarding the unauthorized use of intellectual property. They also notify the publisher in case of suspicion of violation of the principles of publishing ethics.
Editorial Independence
28. Decisions on the publication of papers belong to the exclusive competence of the editors. Editors' decisions are made after taking into account the opinion of at least two independent reviewers who are experts in their scientific fields.
29. Positive decisions concerning publications of papers cannot be reversed unless serious problems are identified with the papers.
30. The editors evaluate submitted manuscripts exclusively on the basis of their substantial merit and its relevance to the journal’s scope, without regard to the authors’ race, gender, sexual orientation, ethnic origin, citizenship, religious belief, political philosophy, or institutional affiliation.
31. The editors do not disclose any information about the submitted manuscript to anyone other than the corresponding author, reviewers, other editorial advisers, and the publisher.
Procedures
32. 1. In case of suspicion of plagiarism in the submitted manuscript or published article, the editors gather full evidence and take further action depending on the validity and degree of violation.
32. 2. In case of plagiarism, the editors reject the submitted manuscript. If the paper has already been published, the editors publish information about the retraction of the paper and notify the author, editors and publisher of the plagiarized article or book. The editors notify relevant entities, including institutions employing the author, scientific societies, associations of scientists and others, depending on circumstances.
32. 3. In case of a minor extent of plagiarism, the editors contact the author and present their position. If the paper undergoes the review process, the editors ask for modifications of parts of the text that constitute copyright infringement. In case of an appropriate reaction of the author, the review process is continued. If the paper has already been published, the editors specify with the author the content of a correction which will be published in one of the following issues of the journal, or the content of a modification which will be included in the next edition of the book. Depending on circumstances, the editors consider publishing information on correction or modification on the website of the journal or publisher, in particular when the next edition of the book is not projected or if it is not possible to publish the correction in the journal.
32. 4. If the violation is not found, the editors inform a reviewer, a reader, or another person reporting suspicion of plagiarism, of a decision to not take further action in the matter.
32. 5. While making decisions during the investigation regarding the suspicion of plagiarism, the editors take into account readiness of the author to cooperate with the editors as regards submission of explanations and take into account the author's research experience.
33. 1. In the event of suspicion of a duplicate publication, the editors gather full evidence and take further action depending on the validity and degree of violation.
33. 2. In case of a significant degree of redundancy, the editors reject the submitted manuscript. If the paper has already been published, the editors publish information about the retraction of the paper or a statement on the overlap of the publication, and notify the editors and publisher of the duplicated article or book. The editors notify relevant entities, including institutions employing the author, scientific societies, associations of scientists and others, depending on circumstances.
33. 3. In case of a small degree of redundancy, legitimate overlap with the author's previous work, also in terms of methods adopted or re-analysis of research, the editors contact the author, present their position and ask for inserting relevant references to the original work or for removing the overlapped material. In case of a responsive and appropriate reaction of the author, the review process is continued. If the paper has already been published, the editors determine, along with the author, the content of the correction containing references to the original work which will be published in one of the following issues of the journal, or the content of modifications which will be included in the next edition of the book. Depending on circumstances, the editors consider publishing information on correction or modifications on the website of the journal or publisher, in particular when the next edition of the book is not projected or it is not possible to publish the correction in the journal.
33. 4. In the absence of a violation, the editors inform a reviewer, a reader, or another person reporting suspicion of a duplicate publication, of a decision to not take further action in the matter.
34. 1. In the event of suspicion of fabricated data, the editors gather evidence and analyze it, asking for the opinion of an additional reviewer, if necessary. The editors contact the author after the analysis of the evidence is done.
34. 2. In the event of the author's explanations being satisfactory, the editors thank the author for cooperation in clarifying the matter, apologize for inconvenience and inform the persons who reported suspicion about the status of the case. If suspicion arose during the review process, the editors undertake the suspended review process.
34. 3. In the event of the author's explanations being unsatisfactory, the editors contact the institutions where the author is affiliated, or those for which the study was conducted, or those financing the research, or supervising institutions, asking to investigate the matter. If the author is found guilty of a violation or admits guilt, the editors reject the submitted manuscript or retract the paper. If the fault of the author is not proven, the editors apologize to the author for inconvenience and undertake the suspended review process, if the suspicion arose during the review process. The editors inform the persons who reported suspicion about the status of the case.
35. 1. When receiving a request to add an author to the author list, the editors clarify reasons for the change and make sure that all authors agree to make the change. In case of finding the reason for the change unjustified, the editors may refuse to make the change, even if the will of all authors is consistent.
35. 2. In the event of the consent of all authors, the editors update the author list, after an additional author has completed the declaration of authorship, amend contributor details, and continue the editorial process or publish a correction if the paper has already been published.
35. 3. In the absence of the consent of all authors, the editors suspend the editorial process until the issue of authorship is resolved. If this is not possible, the editors will settle the dispute with the help of appropriate institutions. If the change is proved justified, the editors continue the editorial process or publish a correction if the paper has already been published.
36. 1. When receiving a request to remove an author from the author list, the editors clarify reasons for the change and make sure that all authors agree to make the change. In case of finding the reason for the change unjustified, the editors may refuse to make the change, even if the will of all authors is consistent.
36. 2. In the event of the consent of all authors, including the author being subject of the removal, the editors update the author list, amend contributor details and continue the editorial process or publish a correction if the paper has already been published.
36. 3. In the absence of the consent of all authors, the editors suspend the editorial process until the issue of authorship is resolved. If this is not possible, the editors will settle the dispute with the help of appropriate institutions. If the change on the author list concerns the published paper, and the lack of consensus among authors results from different interpretations of the conducted research, the editors make it possible for the authors to publish letters expressing their views on the matter.
37. 1. If the analysis of the submitted documents and the content of the manuscript raise doubts as to the actual composition of authors, the editors ask for additional information and explanations regarding the contributions of authors.
37. 2. If it is found that one of the listed authors does not meet the criteria for authorship, the editors ask for written permissions from all authors to remove a gift author or guest author from the author list. The editors also consider notifying the relevant entities, depending on circumstances.
37. 3. In case of finding that presented contributions are not sufficient to prepare the submitted paper, the editors suggest adding a ghost writer and ask for the written consent of all authors to make the change to the author list. The editors also consider notifying the relevant entities, depending on circumstances.
38. 1. In case of a notification that a reviewer has illegitimately used an author's work, the editors scrutinize the submitted manuscript along with the reviews.
38. 2. If the allegation concerns an actual reviewer, the editors collect and evaluate the evidence. If the doubts are justified, the editors ask the reviewer to clarify the matter. If the reviewer's explanations are satisfactory, the editors quash the investigation, after prior consultation with the author. If the reviewer's explanations are unsatisfactory, the editors in cooperation with the reviewer's institution determine the fault of the reviewer or lack thereof. During the course of the investigation, the editors suspend the reviewer in the rights of reviewer. If the reviewer is found guilty, the editors cease the cooperation with the reviewer and notify the relevant entities, including institutions employing the author, scientific societies, associations of scientists and others, depending on circumstances.
38. 3. If the allegation concerns a person who was not asked to prepare the review, the editors verify links between the accused person and the actual reviewers. In case of finding links between the above-mentioned, the editors make sure that the reviewers prepared the reviews themselves and did not provide information about the reviewed paper to third parties. During the investigation procedure, the editors, if justified by the circumstances of the case, ask the reviewer to submit relevant explanations. If the reviewer is found not guilty, the editors contact the author and present the results of the investigation. If the reviewer is found guilty, the editors cease the cooperation with the reviewer and notify the relevant entities, including institutions employing the author, scientific societies, associations of scientists and others, depending on circumstances.
39. While considering copyright infringement, the editors will use reliable anti-plagiarism software.