Publication ethics

In their activities, the editorial offices of journals published by the University of Applied Sciences in Tarnow are guided by the principles and recommendations concerning core practices in publishing scientific texts, as defined by the Committee on Publication Ethics. The adopted rules of publishing ethics are posted on the journal websites in a way that allows all participants of the publishing process to become acquainted with them: authors, editors, reviewers, members of the programme council and readers. 

Principles of editorial publishing policy

1. The publishing policy adopted by the editorial office takes the assumptions of publishing ethics into account.
2. The editors are responsible for the content published in the journal.
3. The editors ensure the proper substantive level of the journal by publishing original, source-based articles whose subject matters correspond to the journal’s profile.
4. The editors ensure the published articles are of high editorial quality.
5. The editors determine transparent rules for accepting texts for publication and place these on the journal’s website.
6. The editors define and apply procedures to prevent conflicts of interest. All members of the editorial team submit declarations on any personal and professional, financial and non-financial relations that may affect the course of the publishing process.
7. The editors define and apply the rules for counteracting any discrimination against authors, editors and reviewers (fair play).
8. The editors define and apply procedures to counteract unfair practices, in particular those related to plagiarism and improperly defined authorship.
9. The editors define and apply procedures ensuring the confidentiality and security of the personal data of all persons involved in the publication process. 

Author policy

1. Originality of the work – a text submitted for publication should constitute the intellectual property of the author, be original, previously unpublished, and cannot infringe the copyrights of other people; it cannot be previously published in another journal, it cannot be a part of a published monograph or a collective work, and it cannot be submitted simultaneously to another publisher.
2. Appropriate designation of authorship – when submitting a text for publication, the list of authors should indicate all persons who have made a significant contribution to the creation of the work.
3. Reliability in research – the author is obliged to carefully conduct and document scientific research and to present the results objectively.
4. Reliability in quoting sources – the author is obliged to document the output of other authors presented in the work in accordance with the rules adopted by the editorial office.
5. Ethical supervision – if a text submitted for publication uses research that requires the consent of the bioethical committee, the author is obliged, at the request of the editorial office, to present the obtained consent or another document which allows the research to be carried out.
6. Data storage and sharing – the author is obliged, at the request of the editorial office, to present raw research data that have formed the basis of the text submitted for publication.
7. Counteracting a conflict of interest – the author is obliged to report all potential conflicts of interest that may affect the evaluation and publication of the text at every stage of the editorial process.
8. Correcting errors – the author is obliged to respond to all errors noticed in the publication, striving to correct them or to remove a part of or the whole text if it is impossible to introduce corrections.
9. Communication with the editorial office – the author is obliged to keep in touch with the editorial office and respond immediately to all comments and requests from the editors and reviewers. 

Reviewer policy

1. Communication with the editorial office – a reviewer invited to evaluate a text is obliged to respond to the invitation within the time limit set by the editors.
2. Timeliness – a reviewer who has undertaken the review is obliged to do so within the time limit set by the editors; the editors should be immediately informed about possible delays.
3. Reliability – if the substantive scope of the article exceeds the area of ​​specialisation (knowledge and competence) of a reviewer, they should refuse to carry out the review and immediately inform the editors.
4. Objectivity – a review should be objective and constructive; any reservations should be supported by substantive arguments; any personal comments about the author are unacceptable.
5. Verification of scientific integrity – a reviewer is obliged to reveal any doubts regarding the author’s scientific integrity, should indicate any perceived similarities to other publications, misinterpretation or suspicion of data manipulation, incorrect documentation and use of sources.
6. Confidentiality – all information regarding the reviewed work and review content are confidential and it is unacceptable to share this content with people who are not the editors and authors of the work. The reviewer must not use the reviewed texts for their own needs and benefits.
7. Counteracting a conflict of interest – if a reviewer suspects a conflict of interest with the author of the text, they should immediately report it to the editors and exclude themselves from the evaluation of the text. 

Rules for members of the editorial team

1. Responsibility – the members of the editorial team are responsible for the development of the journal, its content and editorial level. When deciding to publish articles, they assume responsibility for all content in the journal, are ready to publish corrections and to retract a text if necessary.
2. Objectivity (fair play) – the members of the editorial team process articles submitted by authors, taking account of their substantive value, regardless of the author’s country of origin, gender, race, political, social or religious views; they are not guided by personal preferences or benefits.
3. Confidentiality – all information regarding texts submitted for publication and documents related to the editorial process (including opinions of reviewers) are confidential and it is unacceptable to share the contents with people not directly involved in the publication process. The members of the editorial team must not use the texts submitted for publication for their own needs and benefits.
4. Scientific integrity – the members of the editorial team are obliged to ensure the scientific integrity of the published articles, applying the principles of counteracting unfair publishing practices adopted by the editorial board.
5. Preventing conflicts of interest – the members of the editorial team are obliged to respond to all reports of conflicts of interest and apply the principles of counteracting these adopted by the editorial board.
6. Handling complaints and appeals – the members of the editorial team are obliged to respond to complaints about the editors’ work, submitted by participants in the editorial process, as well as to readers’ complaints, and to consider them in the manner provided for in the publishing policy.
7. Enabling discussions – the members of the editorial team enable discussion between participants in the publication process: authors, editors and reviewers; they give the author the opportunity to provide explanations in the event of suspected unfair practices, as well as to respond to readers’ criticism. 

Publisher policy

1. Monitoring – the University of Applied Sciences in Tarnow, as a publisher of journals, monitors the adherence of the editorial team to the adopted rules of publishing ethics.
2. Protection of intellectual property – the publisher ensures compliance with the provisions of copyright law and supports authors whose rights have been infringed, taking appropriate action in relation to persons who infringe these in accordance with the applicable regulations. This enables the detection of plagiarism and supports the editorial offices in revealing unfair practices.
3. Handling complaints and grievances – the publisher accepts complaints about the work of the editorial team (including editors-in-chief), enables the accused to provide explanations and makes efforts to solve the problems.