Ethical rules

Economic and Political Thought Editorial Board strives to ensure high ethical standards. Articles submitted for publication in Ius Novum are assessed for their integrity, compliance with ethical standards and contribution to the development of scholarship.

The principles listed below are based on the COPE’s Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors.

 

Ethical guidelines for journal publication

 

Łazarski University Press as publisher of the journals takes its duties of guardianship over all stages of publishing extremely seriously and we recognize our ethical and other responsibilities.

 

The publication of an article in a double blind peer-reviewed journal Economic and Political Thought is an essential building block in the development of a coherent and respected network of knowledge. It is a direct reflection of the quality of the work of the authors and the institutions that support them. It is therefore important to agree upon standards of expected ethical behaviour for all parties involved in the act of publishing: the author, the journal editor, the peer reviewer, the publisher and the society.

 

We are committed to ensuring that advertising, reprint or other commercial revenue has no impact or influence on editorial decisions. In addition, Editor-in-chief, Editorial Staff, and Editorial Board will assist in communications with other journals and/or publishers where this is useful and necessary.

 

Publication decision

 

The Editor-in-Chief must obey laws on libel, copyright and plagiarism in their jurisdictions and is responsible for the decisions which of the submitted articles should be published. The Editor may consult with the Associate Editors and/or reviewers in making publication decisions. If necessary, the Advisory Board’s opinion is also taken into consideration. The decision to publish an article may be constrained by the risk of potential libel, copyright or other intellectual property infringement, plagiarism or self-plagiarism and doubts concerning authorship or co-authorship, i.e. the so-called ghost and guest authorship.

 

Conflict of interests and its disclosure

 

Unpublished articles or their fragments cannot be used in the Editorial Board staff’s or reviewers’ own research without an author’s explicit consent in writing. The Editor does not appoint reviewers who are authors’. subordinates or are in other direct personal relationships (if the Editor knows about them).

 

Duties of authors

 

Reporting standards

 

Authors of reports of original research should present an accurate account of the work performed as well as an objective discussion of its significance. Underlying data should be represented accurately in the paper. A paper should contain sufficient detail and references to permit others to replicate the work.

 

Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behaviour and are unacceptable.

 

Review and professional publication articles should also be accurate and objective, and editorial opinion works should be clearly identified as such.

 

Data access and retention

 

Authors may be asked to provide the raw data in connection with a paper for editorial review, and should be prepared to provide public access to such data, if practicable, and should in any event be prepared to retain such data for a reasonable time after publication.

 

Originality and plagiarism

 

The authors should ensure that they have written entirely original works, and if the authors have used the work and/or words of others, that this has been appropriately cited or quoted. Plagiarism takes many forms, from “passing off” another’s paper as the author’s own paper, to copying or paraphrasing substantial parts of another’s paper (without attribution), to claiming results from research conducted by others. Plagiarism in all its forms constitutes unethical publishing behaviour and is unacceptable.

 

Authors should make sure that the names of authors cited in the work and/or cited fragments of their works are properly acknowledged or referenced.

 

Multiple, redundant or concurrent publication

 

An author should not in general publish manuscripts describing essentially the same research in more than one journal or primary publication. Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal concurrently constitutes unethical publishing behaviour and is unacceptable. In general, an author should not submit for consideration in another journal a previously published paper. Publication of some kinds of articles (e.g. clinical guidelines, translations) in more than one journal is sometimes justifiable, provided certain conditions are met. The authors and editors of the journals concerned must agree to the secondary publication, which must reflect the same data and interpretation of the primary document. The primary reference must be cited in the secondary publication.

 

Acknowledgement of sources

 

Proper acknowledgment of the work of others must always be given. Authors should cite publications that have been influential in determining the nature of the reported work. Information obtained privately, as in conversation, correspondence, or discussion with third parties, must not be used or reported without explicit, written permission from the source. Information obtained in the course of confidential services, such as refereeing manuscripts or grant applications, must not be used without the explicit written permission of the author of the work involved in these services.

 

Authorship of the paper

 

Authorship should be limited to those who have made a significant contribution to the conception, design, execution, or interpretation of the reported study. All those who have made significant contributions should be listed as co-authors. Where there are others who have participated in certain substantive aspects of the research project, they should be acknowledged or listed as contributors. The corresponding author should ensure that all appropriate co-authors and no inappropriate co-authors are included on the paper, and that all co-authors have seen and approved the final version of the paper and have agreed to its submission for publication.

 

Disclosure and conflicts of interest

 

All authors should disclose in their manuscript any financial or other substantive conflict of interest that might be construed to influence the results or interpretation of their manuscript. All sources of financial support for the project should be disclosed. Examples of potential conflicts of interest which should be disclosed include employment, consultancies, stock ownership, honoraria, paid expert testimony, patent applications/registrations, and grants or other funding. Potential conflicts of interest should be disclosed at the earliest stage possible.

 

Fundamental errors in published works

 

When an author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in his/her own published work, it is the author’s obligation to promptly notify the journal editor or publisher and cooperate with the editor to retract or correct the paper. If the editor or the publisher learns from a third party that a published work contains a significant error, it is the obligation of the author to promptly retract or correct the paper or provide evidence to the editor of the correctness of the original paper.

 

Duties of the Editorial Board

 

Publication decisions

 

The editor-in-chief of a peer-reviewed journal is responsible for deciding which of the articles submitted to the journal should be published. The validation of the work in question and its importance to researchers and readers must always drive such decisions.

 

Fair play

 

An editor should evaluate manuscripts for their intellectual content without regard to race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy of the authors.

 

Confidentiality

 

The editor and any editorial staff must not disclose any information about a submitted manuscript to anyone other than the corresponding author, reviewers, potential reviewers, other editorial advisers, and the publisher, as appropriate. The Editor does not provide authors with the information about reviewers and vice versa.

 

 

 

Disclosure and conflicts of interest

 

Authors should disclose all sources of their projects funding, contribution of research institutions, societies and other entities as well as all other conflicts of interests that might affect the findings and their interpretation.

 

Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in an editor’s own research without the express written consent of the author.

 

•          Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage.

 

•          Editors should recuse themselves (i.e. should ask a co-editor, associate editor or other member of the editorial board instead to review and consider) from considering manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or (possibly) institutions connected to the papers.

 

•          Editors should require all contributors to disclose relevant competing interests and publish corrections if competing interests are revealed after publication. If needed, other appropriate action should be taken, such as the publication of a retraction or expression of concern.

 

•          It should be ensured that the peer-review process for sponsored supplements is the same as that used for the main journal. Items in sponsored supplements should be accepted solely on the basis of academic merit and interest to readers and not be influenced by commercial considerations.

 

•          Non-peer reviewed sections of the journal will be clearly identified.

 

Ghost/guest authorship

 

Ghost authorship is when someone makes a substantial contribution to a work but he/she is not listed as an author or his/her role in the publication is not acknowledged. Guest authorship takes place when someone’s contribution is very small or inexistent but his/her name is listed as an author.

 

Ghost and guest authorship are manifestations of a lack of scientific integrity and all such cases will be disclosed, involving a notification of component entities (institutions employing the authors, scientific societies, associations of editors etc.). The Editorial Board will document every instance of scientific dishonesty, especially the violation of the ethical principles binding in science.

 

In order to prevent ghost or guest authorship, authors are requested to provide declarations of authorship. 

 

Journal Self Citation 

 

An editor or reviewer never conducts any practice that obliges authors to cite his or her journal either as an implied or explicit condition of acceptance for publication.  Any recommendation regarding articles to be cited in a paper should be made on the basis of direct relevance to the author’s article, with the objective of improving the final published research.  Reviewers should direct authors to relevant literature as part of the peer review process, however this should never extend to blanket instructions to cite individual journals.

 

Involvement and cooperation in investigations

 

An editor should take reasonably responsive measures when ethical complaints have been presented concerning a submitted manuscript or published paper, in conjunction with the publisher (or society). Such measures will generally include contacting the author of the manuscript or paper and giving due consideration of the respective complaint or claims made, but may also include further communications to the relevant institutions and research bodies, and if the complaint is upheld, the publication of a correction, retraction, expression of concern, or other note, as may be relevant. Every reported act of unethical publishing behavior must be looked into, even if it is discovered years after publication.

 

Duties of reviewers

 

This journal applies a double blind review procedure. All reviews are made anonymously; neither does the Editor reveal information on authors to reviewers.

 

Contribution to editorial decisions

 

Peer review assists the editor in making editorial decisions and through the editorial communications with the author may also assist the author in improving the paper. Peer review is an essential component of formal scholarly communication, and lies at the heart of the scientific method. Elsevier shares the view of many that all scholars who wish to contribute to publications have an obligation to do a fair share of reviewing.

 

Promptness

 

Any selected referee who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should notify the editor and excuse himself from the review process.

 

Confidentiality

 

Any manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. They must not be shown to or discussed with others except as authorized by the editor.

 

Standards of objectivity

 

Reviews should be conducted objectively. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate. Referees should express their views clearly with supporting arguments. All doubts as well as critical and polemical comments should be included in the review.

 

Acknowledgement of sources

 

Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors. Any statement that an observation, derivation, or argument had been previously reported should be accompanied by the relevant citation. A reviewer should also call to the editor’s attention any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published paper of which they have personal knowledge.

 

Disclosure and conflict of interest

 

Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in a reviewer’s own research without the express written consent of the author. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage. Reviewers should not consider manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers.