PUBLISHING ETHICS

PUBLISHING ETHICS

Editorial Team

Prof. Monika Adamczyk-Garbowska
MSc Janina Hunek
MSc Łukasz Janicki
MSc Katarzyna Konopka
Prof. Lechosław Lameński
MSc Waldemar Michalski
Prof. Tadeusz Szkołut
MSc Jarosław Wach (Editorial Assistant)
PhD Bogusław Wróblewski (Editor-in-Chief)

Cooperating Editors:

Prof. Edward Balcerzan, Prof. Piotr Biłos (France, INALCO), Prof. Jarosław Cymerman, MSc Marek Danielkiewicz, MSc Tomasz Dostatni, PhD Ewa Dunaj, Prof. Józef Fert, PhD Anna Frajlich (USA, Columbia University), Anna Goławska, MSc Andrzej Goworski, MSc Magdalena Jankowska, MSc Tomasz Kłusek, PhD Alina Kochańczyk, Prof. István Kovács (Hungary, Hungarian Academy of Sciences), MSc Marek Kusiba (Canada, University of Toronto), Prof. Jerzy Kutnik, MSc Eliza Leszczyńska-Pieniak, Prof. Jacek Łukasiewicz, PhD Łukasz Marcińczak, PhD Anna Marcińczak, Prof. Leszek Mądzik, MSc Wacław Oszajca SJ, Prof. Mykoła Riabczuk (Ukraine), MSc Jarosław Sawic, MSc Sergiusz Sterna-Wachowiak, MSc Małgorzata Szlachetka, Prof. Jerzy Święch, MSc Wiesława Turżańska, Prof. Władysław Woś (Italy), PhD Aleksander Wójtowicz, PhD Aneta Wysocka, Bohdan Zadura

Editorial Board of “Akcent”

Prof. Jerzy Święch, Prof. István Kovács (Hungary, Hungarian Academy of Sciences), Prof. Józef Fert (KUL), Edward Balawejder (TWP), Zofia Kopel-Szulc (ZPAP), Prof. Jerzy Kutnik (UMCS)

Reviewers

Prof. Monika Adamczyk-Garbowska (UMCS, Lublin), Prof. Bogusław Bakuła (UAM, Poznań), Prof. Wojciech Ligęza (UJ, Kraków), Prof. Tadeusz Szkołut (UMCS, Lublin)

Declaration of publishing ethics and best practices

I Duties and responsibilities of the Editors

1. The editors of “Akcent” are accountable for the high quality of the journal’s content and make every effort to ensure that the published materials are presented in an exemplary manner.
2. The editors make sure that the principles of publishing ethics are observed and monitor the internationally agreed ethical standards regarding the publishing process, treating as a reference point the standards developed by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE, https://publicationethics.org/files/plagiarism%20A.pdf).
3. The editors make the rules of conduct publicly available in the event of receiving information about actions violating the principles of publishing ethics.
4. The editors apply special procedures in the event of violation of the standards of publishing ethics, presented in the section Procedures for dealing with potential violations, based on the standards developed by COPE.
5. The editor-in-chief together with the editors of individual sections ensure the scientific accuracy of articles published in the journal, making appropriate corrections. In the event of suspicion of non-compliance with the principles of publishing ethics, they strive to unequivocally clarify the matter, and, if necessary, withdraw the text from publication.
6. The editorial staff shall take immediate action in the event of any suspicion of non-compliance with the rules of publishing ethics by the author of the submitted or published article. The editors consider each reported act of unethical behavior, even if it is discovered long after the publication. In the event of unethical behavior, the editorial office publishes a correction note, withdraws the text from publication or takes other action appropriate to the circumstances.
7. The editors publish regular updates on submission guidelines and the duties and responsibilities of the authors.
8. The editors select appropriate reviewers and guarantee confidentiality during the review process.

II Duties and responsibilities of the Authors

1. The author is obliged to maintain the standards of scientific integrity and to observe the principles of publishing ethics.
2. The author may submit for publication only new and original work of their own authorship. All references to the work and research by other authors should be provided with appropriate footnotes and be included in the bibliography. Failure to comply with these rules is a manifestation of scientific misconduct. In the event of detection of such misconduct, the editorial office notifies the appropriate institutions, including the author’s employer.
3. The author may propose for publication the works which have not been published before and have not been submitted to other journals or publishers. Submitting the same manuscript to more than one publisher is considered unethical.
4. In the case of manuscripts written by several authors, they are obliged to disclose and precisely indicate the contribution of each of them (e.g. authorship of the concept, analysis of the material, formulation of conclusions, editing a specific part of the text).
5. Ghost authorship, guest authorship and gift authorship are considered scientific misconduct. In the event of detection of such misconduct, the editorial office notifies the appropriate institutions.
6. The author immediately notifies the editors in case of noticing significant errors in the published work of their authorship. The editorial office publishes the correction in the next issue of the journal.
7. The authors of the articles accepted for publication are required to provide a summary in Polish, which will be the basis for translation into English.

III Reviewing procedures and criteria for accepting or rejecting articles

1. The journal welcomes submissions of original monographic, review, polemical or critical studies as well as research articles on literature and other fields of art that provide insights into the latest achievements of the Polish and global Humanities. The submissions presenting the results of original empirical, theoretical or analytical research are accepted for publication only after prior approval by the reviewers. The manuscripts should contain: the title of the publication; the names and surnames of the authors; bibliographic information; current state of knowledge; research methodology; research process description; research results and conclusions; citations (in footnotes) and bibliography.
2. Only previously unpublished texts are accepted for publication.
3. In order to qualify for the review process, the manuscript must comply with the author guidelines required for the publications of the Akcent Eastern Cultural Foundation. The Guidelines for the Authors are available here.
4. Articles are assessed by at least two independent reviewers from research institutions other than the one that the author is affiliated with. The author(s) and reviewers do not know their identity (double-blind review process); in other cases, the reviewer must submit a declaration that there is no conflict of interest, while the conflict of interest is considered to be the direct personal relationship between the reviewer and the author (second degree relationship, legal relationships, marriage relationship), relationship of professional subordination or direct scientific cooperation in the past two years prior to the review preparation year.
5. Reviews are objective in nature. All comments of the reviewers should be substantively argued. In particular, personal comments or those based on differences with the scientific views of the author(s) are deemed unacceptable.
6. The review contains an unambiguous decision of the reviewer regarding the approval of the article for publication or its rejection; it is possible to make a provision for accepting the publication after taking into account the comments of the reviewer.
7. Reviews are confidential and are made available only to those involved in the editorial process. Information obtained during the review process is also treated as confidential and may not be used for the personal benefit of the participants.
8. The names of the reviewers of individual publications or issues of the journal are not disclosed; once a year, the journal publishes a list of cooperating reviewers.

IV Editorial independence

1. Decisions regarding the publication of the manuscripts are the sole responsibility of the editors. These decisions are made after considering the opinions of at least two external reviewers who are experts in their field.
2. The editors evaluate the submitted texts solely on the basis of their merit, regardless of the authors’ race, sex, sexual orientation, ethnic origin, citizenship, religious and political beliefs, and affiliation. Commercial considerations also have no bearing on the editorial decision to evaluate these materials.
3. Editors do not disclose any information about the submitted article to anyone other than the author, reviewers, and section editors.

V Procedures for dealing with potential violations

1. In the case of suspicion of plagiarism in the submitted or published article, the evidence is gathered and further action is taken depending on the degree of violation.

• If plagiarism is detected, the submitted article is rejected. If the text has already been published, the editors publish information about this event and notify the authors, editors and publishers of the plagiarized article or book. Relevant institutions are notified about the misconduct, including the author’s employer.
• In the case of insignificant duplication of someone else’s work, the editors contact the author and present their position. If the text is at the review stage, the author is asked to identify the original content in the fragments of the text in which the copyright has been infringed. After the corrections have been introduced, the peer-review process resumes. If the article has already been published, the editors and the author agree upon the content of the notification of the correction, which will appear in one of the forthcoming issues of the journal. In addition, the editorial team considers publishing the information about the correction or modification on the journal’s website.
• If no violation is found, the editors inform the reviewer, the reader, or another person reporting suspected plagiarism that the editorial team has not taken further action in the matter.
• When making decisions in the course of the proceedings concerning the suspicion of plagiarism, the editorial team takes into account the author’s readiness to cooperate with regard to submitting explanations and introducing appropriate corrections.

2. In the case of suspicion of duplicate publication, i.e. a copy of the author’s own work in the submitted or published article, the evidence is gathered and further action is taken depending on the degree of violation.

• In the event of a significant degree of unauthorized repetitions, the article is rejected. If the text has already been published, the editors publish information about this event and notify the editors and the publishers of the duplicate article or book. Relevant institutions are notified about the misconduct, including the author’s employer.
• In the case of a slight degree of unauthorized repetitions or clearly justified repetitions, the editors contact the author, present their position and ask for the insertion of appropriate references to the original work or for the removal of the copied material. After the corrections have been introduced, the peer-review process resumes. If the article has already been published, the editors and the author agree upon the content of the notification of the correction, which will appear in one of the forthcoming issues of the journal. In addition, the editorial team considers publishing the information about the correction or modification on the journal’s website.
• If no infringement is found, the editors inform the reviewer, the reader, or another person reporting suspected duplication that the editorial team has not taken further action in the matter.

3. In the case of suspicion of the fabrication of data, the editors collect and analyze evidence, asking for the opinion of an additional reviewer if necessary. After analyzing the evidence, the editorial team contacts the author.

• If the author’s explanations are convincing, the editors thank the author for his or her cooperation in clarifying the matter, apologize for the inconvenience and inform the persons who reported the suspicion about the status of the case. If the suspicion arose at the stage of preparing the review, the editors undertake a suspended review process.
• If the author’s explanations are not convincing, the editorial team contacts the institutions employing the author, asking them to investigate the matter. If the author is found guilty of infringement or pleads guilty, the submitted article is rejected. If it is proved that the author is not guilty, the editorial team apologizes to the author for the inconvenience and undertakes a suspended review process if the suspicion arose at the stage of preparing the review. The persons who reported the suspicion are informed about the status of the case.

4. In the case of receiving a request to add an author to the list of authors, the editorial team investigates the reason for the change and makes sure that all authors agree to the modification. Demonstrating that the reason for the change is unjustified gives the editorial team the right to refuse the change, even if all authors agree.

• After obtaining the consent of all authors, the editors update the list of authors and continue the editing process or add the notification of the correction if the text has already been published.
• In the event of the lack of consent on the part of some authors, the editorial process is suspended until the authorship issue is resolved by the authors. If this is not possible, the dispute shall be settled through the institution appropriate to the case. If it is demonstrated that the change is justified, the editorial team continues the editing process or adds the notification of the correction if the text has already been published.

5. In the case of receiving a request to remove an author from the list of authors, the editorial team investigates the reason for the change and makes sure that all authors agree to the modification. Demonstrating that the reason for the change is unjustified gives the editorial team the right to refuse the change, even if all authors agree.

• After obtaining the consent of all authors, including the author whose request for removal relates to, the editors update the list of authors and continue the editing process or add the notification of the correction if the text has already been published.
• In the event of the lack of consent on the part of some authors, the editorial process is suspended until the authorship issue is resolved by the authors. If this is not possible, the dispute shall be settled through the institution appropriate to the case. If a change in the list of authors concerns the published text, and the lack of consensus among the authors results from a different interpretation of their research, the authors are offered the possibility of publishing polemical letters.

6. If the analysis of the submitted documents and the content of the article raise doubts as to the existing list of authors, the editors ask for additional information and explanations regarding the participation of individual authors.

• If it is proven that one of the authors does not meet the authorship criteria, the editorial team asks for the written consent of all authors to remove the courtesy author or guest author from the list of authors. Editors also consider notifying the relevant institutions, depending on the circumstances.
• If it is proven that one of the persons who is deemed essential to draft the submitted text is missing from the list of authors, the editorial team suggests adding a ghost author and asks for the written consent of all authors to update the list of authors. Editors also consider notifying the relevant institutions, depending on the circumstances.

7. In the event of an allegation that the reviewer has used the author’s work in an unauthorized manner, the editors examine the submitted article together with its reviews.

• If the allegation concerns a current reviewer, the editorial team collects and assesses the evidence. If the doubts are justified, the reviewer is asked for an explanation. If the reviewer’s explanations are convincing, the procedure is discontinued after prior consultation with the author. If the reviewer’s explanations are not convincing, the editors, in cooperation with the reviewer’s institution, determine if the reviewer is guilty or not guilty. During the investigation process, the reviewer is suspended in his duties. If the reviewer is found guilty, the cooperation with the reviewer shall terminate and the relevant institutions shall be informed about the misconduct, including the institutions employing the author and the reviewer.
• If the allegation concerns a person who was not asked to prepare a review, the connections between the accused person and the actual reviewers are verified. If the relations between the above-mentioned parties are confirmed, the editorial team makes sure that the reviewers have prepared the reviews themselves and have not passed information about the reviewed text to other people. During the explanatory proceedings, if it is justified by the circumstances of the case, the reviewer is asked to provide relevant explanations. If the reviewer is declared innocent, the editorial team contacts the author and presents the results of the procedure. If the reviewer is found guilty, the cooperation with the reviewer shall terminate and the relevant institutions shall be informed about the misconduct, including the institutions employing the author and the reviewer.

8. The editors use all possible means to detect plagiarism.

The procedure securing the originality of the publication (ghostwriting firewall)

For the sake of transparency and scientific integrity, with respect to the high level of the quarterly, and in compliance with the standards set by the Ministry of Science and Higher Education, the authors of “Akcent” are required to disclose all information about the entities (scientific and research institutions, associations, etc.) contributing to the creation of a given article (substantive, material, financial contribution, etc.). The readers of “Akcent” should have no doubt that the authors present the results of their own original research. However, if the authors used the help of a specialized entity (natural or legal person), they should immediately report this fact, i.e. disclose the contribution of individual authors to the publication (indicating their affiliation and information on the authorship of the concept, assumptions and methods used in the preparation of the text), with the author submitting the manuscript being primarily responsible for its content. Obviously, ghostwriting (concealed authorship) and guest authorship (fake authorship) are manifestations of scientific misconduct and all detected cases will be disclosed, resulting in the notification of relevant entities (academic societies, institutions employing authors, associations of scientific editors). The displays of such infringements will be documented by the editorial staff of “Akcent”, and special attention will be given to those types of malpractice which violate the rules of ethics in academia.