Principles of publishing ethics

The annual „Studia do Dziejów Architektury i Urbanistyki w Polsce” („Studies on the History of Architecture and Urban Planning in Poland”) 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.
• Authors define their contribution to the development of the article.
• All individuals who have made a significant contribution to the concept, design, execution, or interpretation of the presented results must be listed as authors of the text.
• The submitting author bears primary responsibility for the integrity of the submitted material and declares that all appropriate co-authors have been included, no improper co-authors are listed, and that all co-authors have accepted the final version of the article, agreed to its submission for publication, and consented to the peer review process.
• Authors bear full responsibility for the content presented in their submitted texts and for the proper citation of other authors' works. They are required to list in the bibliography all sources used in writing the article.
• Authors are responsible for settling copyright issues for the illustrations they intend to publish in their article.
• Authors are required to cooperate with the editorial team in the process of preparing the text for publication.
• Authors must disclose all sources of funding and acknowledge the contributions of research institutions, associations, and other entities.
• Authors who detect errors or breaches of publishing ethics in a text already submitted for publication are obliged to notify the editorial team as soon as possible.

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.
• Members of the Editorial Board do not serve as reviewers for submitted articles.
• 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.
• Members of the Editorial Board are required to disclose any competing interests or potential conflicts of interest.
• Any instances of academic misconduct detected during the publication preparation process (such as data falsification and fabrication, plagiarism, self-plagiarism, ghostwriting, guest authorship/honorary authorship) will be reported by the Editorial Board to the appropriate entities, including the disciplinary bodies of the institution with which the author is affiliated.

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 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.

Procedure in Case of Scientific Misconduct

The Editorial Board of the journal adheres to international standards of publishing ethics and is committed to preventing all forms of scientific misconduct.

Scope and Definition of Scientific Misconduct:

Scientific misconduct includes actions such as:

• Falsification or fabrication of data;
• Plagiarism and self-plagiarism;
• Ghostwriting (omitting actual authors of a paper);
• Guest authorship/honorary authorship (attributing authorship to individuals without significant contribution to the publication);
• Concealment of conflicts of interest;
• Unethical use of research findings of other authors.

Reporting and Reviewing Cases of Misconduct:

• Suspicions of scientific misconduct may be reported by reviewers, members of the Editorial Board, the Scientific Council, and readers.
• Each report is reviewed by the Editorial Board with strict confidentiality;
• An author suspected of violating ethical principles is given the opportunity to provide an explanation;
• In justified cases, the Editorial Board may consult an independent expert or appoint a verification committee;
• Concerns regarding violations of publishing ethics can be reported to the editorial office at the address available on the journal's website.

Consequences of Confirmed Misconduct:

If a breach of ethical standards is confirmed, the Editorial Board may take the following actions:

• Reject the article before publication;
• Retract an already published article with an official notice;
• Report the case to the author's academic institution;
• Inform the relevant disciplinary authorities;
• Temporarily exclude the author from publishing in the journal.

In the case of minor errors identified in a published article, the Editorial Board may take the following actions:

• Publish a correction if the error is attributable to the author;
• Publish an erratum if the error is attributable to the editorial office.

In the case of theoretical and methodological remarks, the Editorial Board allows the publication of a polemical article presenting a different research perspective.