Ethical principles
Having regard to the high quality of scientific studies published in "Studies in Public Law", the editors of the journal ensure the following: the substantive and formal reliability of scientific content submitted for publication, compliance with intellectual property law and the ethical standards recommended by the COPE Committee on Publication Ethics, contained in the Code of Conduct and Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors, and COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers. For the purposes of the journal "Studies in Public Law", and with full acceptance of these recommendations, the principles of publishing ethics were implemented for each of the parties involved in the publication process, namely the editors, reviewers and authors.
Furthermore, the editorial board uses the Crossref Similarity Check anti-plagiarism system to ensure the originality of scientific publications.
EDITORS' DUTIES:
Decisionsrelated to publication- determining whether to accept a submitted manuscript. The decision in this respect is made by the journal's editor-in-chief, after consultation with the relevant member of the Editorial Board for the particular research area. In making the decision, the editor-in-chief is guided solely by the originality and transparency of the scientific value of the submitted manuscript and its congruity with the magazine's profile, taking into account the special role of reviewers. An assessment of any potential copyright infringement also influences the decision to publish.
The Editorial Board accepts only original unpublished manuscripts and texts submitted for publication, in whole or in part, in other journals. Duplications of previous articles are not accepted. Authors are expected to make an explicit statement that they have not consented and nor consent to their manuscript submitted to SPL being published by another journal. Should a false statement be made, the editor-in-chief reserves the right to refuse to publish the manuscript, and where possible, informs the journal receiving the same manuscript about this situation, as well as the organizational unit employing the author or with which they are associated.
Manuscript submission form and Declaration (PL)
Manuscript submission form and Declaration (EN)
Applying the fair play principle - based on an assessment of the submitted manuscript's value and scientific credibility, as well as its compliance with the profile of "Studies in Public Law", irrespective of the origin, religion, sexual orientation, gender, citizenship and worldview of the author.
Confidentiality – imposing an obligation on all journal employees involved in the editorial process to maintain the confidentiality of the information obtained at each stage of the publication process for submitted manuscripts (excluding information disclosed by SPL), including infomation attained in the process of reviewing scientific manuscripts.
Disclosure of information and conflict of interests – information obtained during the evaluation process may not be disclosed by the Editorial Board to any person not party to the publication process (author, reviewer, including potential reviewer), without the expressed written consent of the author. Moreover, without explicit written consent, no submitted manuscripts, fragments of them or rejected texts may be used by reviewers nor by members of the Editorial Board for their own research (for personal gain).
In every situation where a conflict of interest exists with the author, the editors shall withdraw the submitted manuscript from the editorial process.
Involvement and cooperation in investigations - the SPL Editorial Office takes appropriate action (explanatory, sanctioning) in the event of any suspicion or allegation of inappropriate behaviour, whether in relation to published and unpublished manuscripts, and articles submitted to the editors.
REVIEWERS' RESPONSIBILITIES:
Participation in editorial decision-making - of two-fold value. By assessing the reviewed text and qualifying it appropriately, the reviewer supports the editor-in-chief in making editorial decisions at subsequent stages of the publication process. To a great extent, this also helps authors refine and improve the scientific value of the papers they submit.
The reviewer should refrain from preparing a review for a paper that concerns scientific content beyond their scientific competence, and also when there is a conflict of interest between the author and the reviewer.
Timeliness - A reviewer with knowledge relevant to the subject matter of the submitted manuscript should agree to review it within a specified period. The review deadline (from 2 to 4 weeks) is set by the editor-in-chief. Where the selected reviewer is unable to review the paper, or knows that preparing a review within the proposed period is not possible, the editor-in-chief should be informed of this without undue delay.
Confidentiality - maintaining confidentiality is the responsibility of every reviewer. In this respect, the reviewer is not released from the obligation to keep both the review assessment and the manuscript secret, and especially not to use it for personal gain. The knowledge acquired may not be used as a basis for discussion with any third party other than the editor-in-chief as "Studies in Public Law" does not permit such a practice.
Objectivity standards - reviews should constitute an objective, clearly expressed assessment of the manuscript supported by factual arguments and excludes all forms of unscientific criticism. Resorting to offensive or degrading comments about authors is deemed unacceptable behaviour. The editor also considers personal criticism of an author to be inappropriate.
Confirmation of sources- Reviewers should not refrain from indicating publications which the author has not cited if they notice such a gap. Likewise, reviewers are also not exempt from informing the editor-in-chief about any significant similarities to other publications known to them, nor from informing the journal about suspected plagiarism and self-plagiarism.
Disclosure of information and conflict of interest – it is the responsibility of the reviewers to disclose to the editor-in-chief information that does not require anonymity and inform about any potential conflict of interest between the reviewer and author due to kinship or proximity, business relationships, personal relationships or a conflict of professional interests. In each case of a potential breach of this standard, the reviewer is obliged to inform the editor-in-chief of "Studies in Public Law".
AUTHORS' RESPONSIBILITIES – these set out ethical standards governing the following:
Access and data storage - "Studies in Public Law" is addressed to academic staff of universities and scientific institutes who hold an academic title or degree, as well as to doctoral students, practitioners and university graduates. It is good practice for authors to retain a record of the source data for studies submitted to SPL.
Originality and plagiarism - An author submitting a manuscript for publication in SPL provides a written statement confirming that the study is original, previously unpublished and not evaluated. Any content quoting another author should be cited in the appropriate way. Other parts of the article (e.g. tables, charts) subject to copyright require permission to be acquired. The editors do not verify citations, bibliographic data, etc. It is also inappropriate for the author to reproduce their own previously published content. The journal rejects manuscripts containing another author's content that are not properly cited or plagiarized, or which are self-plagiarized.
Repeated, unnecessary or parallel publications - to ensure that authors do not duplicate the same content sent to SPL, the editors require each author to confirm by means of the Declaration contained in the submission form and the publishing agreement that the manuscript submitted for publication has not been published nor subjected to the publication process in another journal or publishing house. Submitting the same publication to more than one journal, as well as copying and pasting the primary text of one article into a subsequent manuscript with only minor changes constitutes is unethical behaviour and is not accepted by SPL.
Confirmation of sources - the editors expect the author to cite any published content that contributed to the writing of a manuscript submitted to SPL for publication, to source each quote and to compile a summary bibliography. The author's use of internet sources is permissible where up-to-date content along with the date of access is indicated. Any information obtained privately by the author cannot be used without the expressed written consent of the author.
Authorship of the work - the rule is that SPL's editorial staff accept manuscripts written by a single author. An exception to this rule can be made, provided that the authorship of the text in the version submitted is limited to those persons who made a significant contribution to the creation of the manuscript. The author is required to indicate in the Application Form and Declaration these contributions to the publication, expressed as a percentage and by indicating the number of pages or subheadings. The editors expect this information from each co-author of the same manuscript. This means that SPL does not accept a situation where one author submits a manuscript with the purported acceptance of co-authors without explicit consent being given by said co-authors, confirmed by their submitting a written Declaration regarding joint authorship. Any other persons who are not the co-authors of the final manuscript can only be mentioned in an acknowledgement in the Introduction or footnote.
SPP also does not accept the co-authorship of a person whose contribution to the creation of a manuscript did not take place or is insignificant (honorary authorship), or of a person making a significant contribution to the creation of a paper and not disclosing his participation as one of the co-authors (ghostwriting). In each of these cases, authorship is considered to be scientific misconduct, and when it is noticed, the editors notify the relevant entities, including the institution employing the author.
Each of the authors is responsible for the originality and current legal validity of the content of the manuscript submitted, the provisions cited, case law and doctrine, excluding the editorial office's responsibility in this respect.
Each of the authors is obliged to cooperate with the SPL's editorial office in exchanging information, from the stage of verifying the submitted text, receiving the review through to editorial correction.
The submitted manuscript is published on the basis of the author's publishing agreement, which is available on the Adam Mickiewicz University Press website.
Disclosure of information and conflict of interest - The SPL's editors expect authorship of a submitted manuscript and details of its previous publication to be disclosed, regardless of whether the work is a reprint in whole or in part.
The author should disclose the source of funding for the paper (national and international grants, subsidies, etc., along with the reference number of the source of funding).
Authors are expected to disclose information regarding any potential conflict of interest arising during the process of reviewing and editing the submitted manuscript.
Fundamental errors in published papers - Authors should notify the editor-in-chief immediately of any significant errors they notice in their publication. In cooperation with the editor-in-chief and the publisher, an errata, annex or correction should be published, or the publication withdrawn.