Principles of publishing ethics

The annual „Studia do dziejów architektury i urbanistyki w Polsce” adopts patterns of poresponding to the guidelines of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) available at www.publicationethics.org 

COPE.PDF 

Rules for authors:

  • Authors submitting a text shall ensure that the submitted article is their original work and that it does not infringe copyright, has not been published before and has not been submitted to another publication.
  • The authors, in an appropriate statement, identify their contribution to the article.
  • The authors bear full responsibility for the content presented in the submitted texts and the proper citation of the works of other authors. It is the authors' responsibility to list in the bibliography all works used in writing the article.
  • It is the authors' responsibility to mention all sources of funding and contributions from scientific and research institutions, associations and other entities in the body of the article.
  • The editors do not tolerate any manifestations of scientific dishonesty. All detected manifestations of scientific dishonesty will be exposed.
  • Authors are obliged to regulate the copyright of the illustrations they intend to publish in their article.
  • Authors who detect errors or manifestations of publishing ethics violations in a text already submitted for publication are obliged to notify the editors as soon as possible.
  • The submitter of an article bears primary responsibility for the accuracy of the material submitted, including information on the contribution of individual co-authors to the article.
  • Authors are required to co-operate with the editors in the process of preparing the text for publication.

 

Rules and responsibilities regarding the Academic Advisory Board and Editorial Board:

  • The Academic Advisory Board and the Editorial Board prevent practices that are not in line with current scientific standards.
  • The Academic Advisory Board shapes the programme profile of the journal, defines the directions of its development and consults on its content.
  • The Editorial Board decides whether to qualify an article for publication, taking into account the assessments of the reviewers and the opinion of the editorial team. The qualification process is guided by compliance with the thematic scope of the journal, the criteria for the substantive assessment of the article's value, the originality and logic of the argument and the scientific workshop of the authors.
  • The Editorial Board evaluates the article objectively, refraining from subjective and personal remarks.
  • The Editorial Board is obliged to respect the principles of confidentiality throughout the text evaluation process.
  • Changes made to the text at the stage of preparing the article for publication must not violate the authors' main idea. Any modifications of a substantive nature are consulted with them.
  • If a decision is made not to publish an article, it may not be used in any way by the publisher or participants in the publishing process.
  • The editors will notify the relevant parties (including the institution where the author is affiliated) of any scientific dishonesty detected during the pre-press process.

 

Rules applicable to reviewers:

  • Reviewers undertake to review an article only if they consider that:
    • they have sufficient knowledge in the specific field to evaluate the paper fairly;
    • they can meet the deadline set by the editors so as not to delay publication;
    • to the best of their knowledge, there is no conflict of interest with regard to the authors or the research presented in the article.
  • Reviewers are obliged to remain objective and refrain from personal criticism of the texts. Any comments on the article should be adequately justified.
  • Reviewers are obliged to maintain confidentiality. The texts and their reviews are confidential and their disclosure to outsiders is not permitted.
  • Reviewers should indicate important published works for the research results, which in their opinion should be cited in the assessed article.
  • Reviewers are required to inform the editors if they find a high level of overlap between the content of the reviewed paper and other published material or suspect other manifestations of scientific dishonesty.
  • Once the review has been completed, reviewers are not allowed to keep or use any of the materials sent to them by the editorial office.