Publication ethics and malpractice statement

ABOUT THE JOURNAL

1. Title:“Przegląd Socjologiczny”
2. Category: Social sciences
3. First edition of the journal: 1930
4. Current frequency (of issue) : quarterly
5. Country of publication: Poland
6. Language: Polish and English
7. Format status: electronic (e-ISSN 2450-9361) and print (ISSN 0033-2356)
8. Electronic link: journals.ltn.lodz.pl/PS
9. Access: Online: open access          Hardcopy: 31.50 PLN per issue;
10. Indexing: CEJSH, CEEOL, EBSCOhost, Proquest ERIH Plus, Index Copernicus, Google Scholar, PBN/POL-Index and Ministry of Science end Higher Education
11. Publisher: Łódzkie Towarzystwo Naukowe

The Statement of the “Przegląd Socjologiczny” regarding Publication Ethics and Publication Malpractice is based on the Code of Conduct and Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors developed by the Committee on Publications Ethics (COPE).

In order to provide the highest ethical standards in our publishing activity we are guided by the following principles.

ETHICAL OBLIGATIONS OF EDITORS:

1. The Journal has an Editorial Board (editor-in-chief and co-editors), composed of members who are experts in the field of social sciences and who actively contribute to the development and good management of the Journal. Their task is to search for the best Authors and reviewers and decide which of the articles submitted to the Journal should be published.
2. The Editorial Board takes full responsibility for the content of all published articles and other texts.
3. The Editorial Board gives unbiased consideration to all articles offered for publication, judging each paper exclusively on its academic merits, regardless of the Author’s gender, race, nationality, sexual orientation, religious belief, or institutional affiliation.
4. The final decision about accepting or rejecting the article for publication rests with the Editorial Board. Such decision is based on the paper’s importance, originality, and clarity, the study’s validity, and its relevance to the Journal’s profile. Should Authors decide to appeal against the decision concerning a rejection of the article , the final decision also rests with the Editorial Board. After consulting with the Editorial Board members and the reviewers, the Editorial Board may change the original decision.
5. The Authors are provided with full information about the editorial requirements and the description of the peer review process on the Journal’s website.
6. In the event of justified suspicion of the Author’s unethical behavior, which may take the form of copyright infringement, plagiarism, falsification of research results or other unethical actions, the Editorial Board is obliged to inform the relevant academic institutions or other appropriate body so that further investigation can be conducted.. The Editorial Board should publish corrections, clarifications and apologies and withdraw an article if its Author(s) have committed any unethical acts. *_PROCEDURES 
7. The Editorial Board and any other members of editorial staff must not disclose any information about a submitted article to anyone other than the corresponding author, reviewers, or other editorial advisers.
8. The Editorial Board should develop and maintain a database of suitable reviewers, updating it if necessary on the basis of reviewers’ performance, personal academic contacts, academic bibliographic database, etc. A list of reviewers of articles published during the year is included in the last issue of the journal issued in a given year.

 ETHICAL OBLIGATIONS OF REVIEWERS AND THE PEER-REVIEW PROCESS:

1. An article can be rejected by the Editorial Board without seeking the opinion of reviewers on the basis of an internal evaluation prepared by the relevant member(s) of the Editorial Board if it does not fit the profile of the Journal, does not meet minimum quality standards, or does not comply with the editorial requirements provided in the Instructions/Guidelines for Authors, available at the Journal’s website.
2. Articles are reviewed by two independent experts representing the same scholarly area to which the subject of the article relates. Reviewers should have significant scientific achievements in the subject area of the article. Reviewers are not part of the Journal’s editorial staff and are from outside the institution in which the Editor-in-chief of the Journal is affiliated.
3. The preferred way for reviewing the articles is the model of double-blind review process. Reviewers are unaware of the identity of the authors and vice versa – Authors are unaware of the  identity of reviewers. In any case, a reviewer is obliged to sign a declaration stating that there is no conflict of interest  A conflict of interest between the reviewer and the Author occurs if there: A) is a direct personal relationship (kinship, legal relationships, conflicts); B) exists a relationship of professional subordination; C) has been direct scientific cooperation in the past two years preceding the preparation of the review.
4. Reviews should be submitted according to a written format and should be prepared in an objective manner. Personal criticism of an Author is inappropriate. Reviewers ought to provide the Author with their clear, constructive, and detailed opinions in a way that allows the Author to respond to the comments contained in a review. A review should end with an explicit conclusion as to whether the article should be published in its original form, after taking into account suggested amendments, or should not be accepted for publication.
5. Reviewers should identify relevant published works that have not been cited by the Author. A reviewer should also call to the Editorial Board’s attention any substantial similarity or overlap between the reviewed article and any other published paper of which they have personal knowledge.
6. Where articles, according to the reviewers, require significant adjustments, reviewers should refer to the revised version of an article in order to make a recommendation to accept or reject it. In the case of conflicting assessments by appointed reviewers, the article is passed to a third party to review.
7. Any selected reviewer who feels unqualified to prepare an objective opinion or who does not have time to prepare a review within a specified time frame (two months following the day of taking up the task) should immediately inform the Editorial Board about that and excuse him/herself from the review process.
8. Each reviewed article is covered by the principle of confidentiality in relation to its entire content.

 

ETHICAL OBLIGATIONS OF AUTHORS:

1. The authorship of a submitted article should be limited only to persons who have made a significant contribution to its writing. The names of Co-Authors and their affiliations should be listed in the heading of the article. In the case of co-authorship, the corresponding author must declare to the Editorial Board in sufficient detail the type and extent of the contribution of the each individual Co-Author to the content, assumptions, methods, design, execution, or interpretation of the reported study. The names of persons who have been engaged in the study but cannot be considered as Authors should be presented in the "Acknowledgement" section. The final version of the article should be approved by all Co-Authors who should agree to its submission for publication.
2. Authors should include in the article proper citations of all the publications that had a significant impact on the content of the article and other sources used during the preparation of the article. Where requested, the authors should provide the data source and research methods used in the article.
3. Authors should respond to the opinions of reviewers and can appeal editorial decisions. In the event they do not agree with the comments contained in the review, they should provide the Editorial Board with relevant comments and explanations.
4. All sources of financial funding of the research work presented in the article should be explicitly stated in the article.
5. Authors are required to provide the Editorial Board with a written statement that the article submitted for publication has not been previously published, either in printed or electronic form, nor submitted for publication in any other journals, and is not under consideration for publication in any other journals.
6. The Authors shall declare, in the Transfer of Copyright Agreement, that: A) the article is the Author’s original work; B) the article contains no material of an unlawful nature, does not in any way violate or infringe any rights of any third party, and that all necessary written permissions to reproduce other copyrighted sources have been obtained by the Author; C) they assign to the Lodz Society of Science a royalty-free worldwide license for an unlimited time to reproduce, distribute and sub-license the article in whole or in part, in any form including electronic, effective upon acceptance for publication.

 

* _{PROCEDURES IN CASES OF UNETHICAL PRACTICES BY AUTHORS}

_{1. The procedure to be followed in the case of suspected unnecessary (duplicate) publication in a submitted manuscript (so-called self-plagiarism)}

_{- notification of self-plagiarism by a reviewer or by a person from the editorial office in charge of internal assessment of the submitted manuscript results in checking the validity of such reservations (checking with an anti-plagiarism programme, reading the author's previous publications and qualitative assessment of their similarity);}

_{- information on checking the publication is passed on to the reviewer;}

_{- if the repetitions in the article are significant (e.g., it has been published significantly [based on the same data and identical or very similar results]) - The Author/Authors are informed that the journal only publishes original articles (as per the statement required of Authors) and are asked to explain the situation;}

_{- if the Author/Author provides an unsatisfactory explanation or admits fault, he/she is informed that the manuscript is rejected;}

_{- if the explanations are sufficient and the Author demonstrates the originality of the content, the Author is asked to make appropriate modifications to the article to emphasise this originality [similarly, if the degree of similarity noticed is insignificant, e.g., a similar method is used, there are references to previous publications, but the conclusions in the article are extended, addressed to a different audience]}

_{- if changes are made, the article is subjected to a further review procedure;}

_{- if the reviewer's or editorial board member's objections are not justified (no significant content coverage), the article goes through the further review process;}

_{- all parties to the above-mentioned situation are informed at each stage of the next steps to be taken and of the final outcome.}

 

_{2. Procedure in case of suspicion of unnecessary (duplicate) publication in a published article}

_{- if a reader reports a suspicion of so-called self-plagiarism in a published article, we thank the reader for bringing the issue to our attention and inform him/her that the article will be checked for the validity of these objections;}

_{- if the repetitions in the article are significant (e.g., it has been published significantly [based on the same data and identical or very similar results]) - The Author/Author(s) are informed that the journal only publishes original articles (as per the statement required of the Authors) and asked to clarify the situation;}

_{- if the Author/Author provides an unsatisfactory explanation or admits guilt, the Author/Author is informed that the article will be withdrawn from the electronic version of the journal, and a note of such a decision by the editors for a particular article appears in the next printed issue of the journal;}

_{- if the explanations are sufficient and the author demonstrates the originality of the content, the author is asked to make appropriate modifications to the article in order to emphasise this originality [similarly, if the degree of similarity noticed is insignificant, e.g., a similar method is used, there are references to previous publications, but the conclusions in the article are extended, addressed to a different audience];}

_{- if changes are made, the article is published in a new version;}

_{- if the reader's objections are not justified (no significant coverage of the content), the article remains unchanged, and the reader is informed why the editors have taken this decision;}

_{- all parties to the above situation are informed at each stage of the next steps to be taken and of the final outcome.}

 

_{3. Procedure to be followed in the case of suspected plagiarism in a submitted manuscript}

_{- if plagiarism is suspected in the submitted manuscript, the reviewer or the editorial staff member responsible for the internal review of the submitted manuscript must check the validity of the suspected plagiarism (e.g., checking with an anti-plagiarism programme, qualitative checking of fragments identified as plagiarism).}

_{- information on checking the publication is passed on to the reviewer}

_{- if the article is evident plagiarism (e.g., use of large fragments of the text without acknowledging the authorship) - the Author/Author is informed that the journal publishes only original articles, being the property of the Author (in accordance with the statement required from the Authors), evidence of plagiarism is presented, and the Authors are asked to explain the situation;}

_{- if the Author(s) provide an unsatisfactory explanation or admit guilt, they are informed that the manuscript is rejected;}

_{- if the explanations are satisfactory, the Author informs about an unintentional error, or the author is a young researcher, the editors give the Author(s) the opportunity to revise the article and indicate how the authorship of the cited passages should be marked; a similar procedure is followed if the work has been copied in a minor way;}

_{- if the Author(s) provide unsatisfactory explanations or admit fault, they are informed that the manuscript is rejected}

_{- if the explanations are satisfactory, the Author informs about an unintentional error, or the author is a young researcher, the editors give the Author(s) the opportunity to revise the article and indicate how the authorship of the cited passages should be marked; a similar procedure is followed if the work has been slightly copied;}

_{- if changes are made, the article is subjected to a further review procedure}

_{- if the reviewer's or editorial board member's objections are not justified (no significant copying of content), the article goes through the further reviewing procedure}

_{- all parties to the above-mentioned situation are informed at each stage of the next steps to be taken and of the final outcome;}

_{- the editors will consider contacting the author's superiors in this situation;}

 

_{4. How to deal with suspected plagiarism in a published article}

_{- if a reader reports plagiarism, the legitimacy of such an allegation is checked (e.g., checking with an anti-plagiarism programme, qualitative checking of passages recognised as plagiarism)}

_{- information on checking the publication is passed on to the reader with thanks for the message}

_{- if the article is evident plagiarism (e.g., use of large excerpts from the text without acknowledging authorship) - the Author/Author is informed that the journal publishes only original articles owned by the Author (in accordance with the statement requested from the Authors), evidence of plagiarism is presented, and the Authors are asked to clarify the situation}

_{- if the Author(s) provide an unsatisfactory explanation or admit guilt, they are informed that the article is withdrawn from the electronic version of the journal, and a notice of the situation will be published in the next issue of the print journal;}

_{- if the explanations are sufficient, the author informs about the unintentional error, or the author is a young researcher, the editors give the author the opportunity to revise the article and indicate how the authorship of the cited passages should be marked; the same is done if the work has been copied in a minor way;}

_{- if changes are made, a revision of the article is published with appropriate commentary;}

_{- if the reader's objections are not justified (no significant copying of content), the article remains unchanged, and the reader is informed how the editors have checked the article;}

_{- all parties to the above-mentioned situation are informed at each stage of the next steps to be taken and of the final outcome;}

_{- The editors will consider contacting the author's superiors in this situation.}

 

_{5. Procedure to be followed in the case of suspected fabrication of data in a submitted manuscript}

_{- if a reviewer or an editorial staff member involved in the internal review of the submitted manuscript suspects that data in the manuscript have been falsified, the validity of the suspicion will be checked; the person raising the suspicion will be asked to provide evidence;}

_{- the editors will consider making a request to a second reviewer to assess the situation;}

_{- the editors contact the Author and inform him/her of the situation in a neutral way with a request to clarify the matter;}

_{- if the Author's explanation is unsatisfactory or the Author admits fault, the manuscript is rejected and the editors will consider informing the Author's immediate superiors of the situation;}

_{- if the explanation is satisfactory, the Author is apologised, the reviewer is informed of the outcome of the case, and the review process can continue}

_{- all parties to the above situation are informed at each stage of the next steps taken and the final outcome.}

 

_{6. How to deal with suspected fabrication of data in a published article}

_{- when a reader reports a suspicion of fabrication, the validity of such claims is checked; the person reporting the suspicion is asked to provide evidence;}

_{- the editors will consider making a request to a reviewer to assess the situation;}

_{- the editors contact the Author and inform them of the situation in a neutral way, asking them to clarify the matter;}

_{- if the Author's explanation is unsatisfactory or the Author admits fault, the article is withdrawn from the electronic version of the journal and the editors consider informing the Author's immediate superiors about the situation; a notice of the situation is published in the printed version of the journal;}

_{- if the explanation is satisfactory, a correction may be published if the error was unintentional; if the error is not found, the Author is apologised and the reader is informed of the outcome of the case;}

_{- all parties to the above-mentioned situation are informed at each stage of the next steps taken and of the final outcome;}

 

_{7. Changes to the list of authors (a) Corresponding author asks to add another author before publication}

_{- if the corresponding author asks to add another author to the article, he/she is asked to explain the reasons for this request and the editors check whether all the authors agree to add another author;}

_{- if all authors agree, the new author is asked to complete an author statement and the review and publication process can continue;}

_{- if not all authors agree, then the review/publication process of the text is halted until the authorship issue is clarified.}

 

_{8. Changes to the list of authors (b) Corresponding author asks for removal of author before publication}

_{- if a correspondent author requests the removal of one of the authors of an article, he/she is asked to explain the reasons for this request and the editors check whether all authors agree to the removal of this author;}

_{- if all authors agree, the author list is revised and the review and publication process can continue;}

_{- if not all authors agree, then the review/publication process of the text is halted until the authorship issue is clarified; the excluded author should be informed that if he or she objects to this decision, he or she should contact the co-authors or their institution, not the editor;}

 

_{9. Changes to the list of authors (c) Request to add another author after publication}

_{- if a corresponding author requests to add another author to an article after publication, the author is asked to explain the reasons for this request and why this author was not included earlier, and the editors check whether all authors agree to add another author;}

_{- if all authors agree, the new author is asked to complete an author statement, and a correction to the list of authors is published electronically and a correction notice is published in the next printed issue of the journal;}

_{- if not all authors agree, then no changes are made until the authorship issue is resolved;}

_{- it may be necessary to contact the institution where the authors are affiliated to request clarification of authorship.}

 

_{10. Changes to the list of authors (d) Request for removal of an author after publication}

_{- if a corresponding author requests the removal of one of the authors of an article after publication, the author is asked to explain the reasons for this request and why this author was included earlier, and the editors check whether all authors agree to the removal of this author;}

_{- if all authors agree, a correction to the list of authors is published electronically and information about the correction is published in the next printed issue of the journal;}

_{- if not all authors agree, then no changes are made until the authorship issue is resolved;}

_{- it may be necessary to contact the institution where the authors are affiliated to request clarification of authorship.}

 

_{11. What to do if the editor suspects an ethical problem with a submitted manuscript}

_{- if a reviewer or a member of the editorial board raises an ethical problem with a manuscript during an internal editorial review, the validity of such concerns is checked; the editorial office thanks the person raising the problem;}

_{- if the editors consider it helpful, they may advise a social research ethics expert on the matter;}

_{- the editors contact the Author of the manuscript and inform them of the situation, asking them to provide relevant documents or to explain why the Author has acted in a certain way;}

_{- if the Author provides a satisfactory response, the review process continues and the reviewer or a member of the editorial board is informed;}

_{- if the response is unsatisfactory, the review process is halted until the matter is clarified, the Author is informed, and objections are directed to the Author's immediate supervisor;}

_{- if the matter is not clarified in this way, the manuscript will not be considered further;}

 

_{12. How to deal with suspicions that a reviewer has misappropriated the author's ideas or data}

_{- An author reporting reviewer misconduct is assured that the editors will investigate the matter}

_{- the journal has double blind reviews, so it is important to check that the Author has correctly identified the reviewer;}

_{- if the case involves the actual reviewer, the Author is asked to provide evidence on the case, which is then checked; if the allegations are confirmed, the reviewer is contacted and asked to explain the case;}

_{- if the explanation is satisfactory, the Author is informed; if it is unsatisfactory (or the reviewer does not respond), the reviewer's superior institution should be contacted and asked to clarify the matter}

_{- the editors will consider removing the reviewer from the reviewer database;}

_{- if the case does not involve the actual reviewer, check the links between the reviewer and the person suspected of misconduct; the actual reviewer may be contacted and asked if he or she has spoken to anyone about the article under review and if he or she has prepared the review independently; the author should be informed that his or her concerns do not relate to the reviewer of the article (you may consider disclosing the name of the reviewer if the reviewer agrees);}

 

_{13. How to respond to whistleblowers who have raised objections directly / How to respond to whistleblowers who have raised objections via social media}

_{- objections raised directly or via e.g., social media (anonymously or non-anonymously) will be considered by the editors if they contain specific, detailed, factual objections to the article;}

_{- if these details are missing, the submitter will be asked to provide them, as without them the editors will not be able to investigate the matter;}

_{- if the objections appear to be justified, consideration may be given to correcting the article, withdrawing it, publishing a notice that an error has been made; if the objections appear to be unfounded, substantive arguments should be provided as to why the editors will not take action on the matter.}