The Institute of Economic Research applies ethical standards and takes all possible measures to prevent abuse and scientific misconduct. The publishing house has adopted and applies the principles of publishing ethics in accordance with the guidelines of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) with regard to both published monographs and published scientific journals.
Publication ethics regarding scientific monographs
1. The author is obliged to provide information on the editorial page about all persons who in any way contributed to the preparation of the monograph. The publishing house does not accept the situation referred to as ghostwriting, which is identical with hiding the participation in the monograph of people other than those listed on the editorial page.
2. In the case of multi-author monographs or a chapter in a monograph prepared by more than one author, all authors are required to specify the percentage of the author's contribution.
3. Including in the list of co-authors people who have not contributed to the publication as co-authors is treated as guest authorship, which is a breach of good publishing practices and is not allowed by the Publisher.
4. Authors of monographs presenting research financed by third parties are required to provide information on the source of funding along with the grant number on the editorial page.
5. The responsibility for providing truthful information on the submitted monograph rests with the author, scientific editor of the monograph or author of the chapter in the monograph.
6. The originality of each monograph submitted for publication is verified using the anti-plagiarism system provided by Crossreff Smilairy Check powered by iThenticate.
7. The publishing house, in the case of discovering scientific misconduct, follows the procedure recommended by COPE (See algorithms for proceedings).
Monograph review procedure
1. All published monographs are assessed on the basis of at least two independent reviews carried out by specialists from outside the research unit affiliated by the author of the publication.
2. The reviewer should not evaluate the submitted text if there is a conflict of interest resulting from competition, cooperation or other relationship with the author, which is confirmed in writing by submitting an appropriate statement.
3. The author is obliged to notify the Publishing House in the event of the presence of potential reviewers known as specialists in a given field, where there is a justified risk of a conflict of interest.
4. From the extended list of reviewers (5 people) - experts in a given scientific field - developed by the Editorial Committee, composed of members of the Council of Experts of the Institute of Economic Research in a given field, the Publishing House selects two independent reviewers to whom it sends the manuscript for scientific review.
5. The extended list of reviewers is not known to the author of the monograph.
6. The final decision to publish a publication is made by the Editorial Committee of the Publishing House.
7. Scientific reviews are carried out on the basis of a specific work contract drawn up by the Publishing House.
8. The names and surnames of the reviewers are placed on the editorial page of the monograph.
Principles of publication ethics regarding scientific journals
Tasks and duties of editors
1. The journal's editorial team consists of scientists who are commonly considered as experts in a specific field. The names and affiliations of the members of the editorial team are published on the journal's website.
2. The current contact to the journal's editorial office is published on the journal's website.
3. The editor-in-chief is responsible for the selection of articles published in the journal. The selection is made on the basis of the content of the article without reference to the race, sexual orientation, religion, ethnic origin, nationality or political beliefs of the authors. The decision to publish an article is based on the importance of the topic, originality and clarity of the article and its compliance with the journal's scope.
4. The content of the article is subjected to a double-blind review process prior to publication. The process consists in obtaining feedback on each submitted article from a reviewers perceived as experts in a given field. This process is explained on the journal's website.
5. The article evaluation criteria are objective. The review form is available in the journal's websites (download materials).
6. The editorial team does not disclose information about the submitted articles to persons other than the author designated for correspondence, reviewers, potential reviewers and representatives of the publishing house.
7. The editorial office ensures that the submitted articles are covered by the confidentiality clause during the reviewing process.
8. The publisher and editorial team are responsible for detecting and preventing the publication of articles in which cases of scientific misconduct have been discovered.
9. In the event of receipt of information about scientific misconduct, the editorial office takes appropriate steps to eliminate them.
10. The journal on the website provides information on the rules for withdrawing an article from publication.
11. If necessary, the editorial board of the journal publishes corrections with an appropriate annotation.
12. The editorial office provides digital security of the journal by posting its content on the Economic Publishing Platform.
13. Information on the transfer of copyright and the license under which the articles are published is available on the journal's website.
14. Information about the publisher the journals, i.e. the Institute of Economic Research, is available on the journal's website.
15. The publisher does not use the names of organizations that could mislead potential authors and editors as to the nature of the journal owner.
16. The content of the journal's website reflects the editorial efforts to ensure high ethical and professional standards.
17. The frequency of the journal's appearance is clearly stated on the journal's website.
18. The name of the journal is unique and does not mislead potential readers as to the origin of the journal and its connections with other publishing series.
Authors' tasks and responsibilities
1. Any fees for submitting or publishing the article are available on the journal's website.
2. Journal offer access to content in the Open Access system under the terms of a non-exclusive Creative Commons (4.0) license. Readers do not pay any fees for accessing the content of the journals.
3. The submitted articles should be entirely original. In case of using works / words of other authors, appropriate citation should be used. Plagiarism is a manifestation of scientific misconduct and is unacceptable.
4. Authors are obliged to provide the following information: sources of funding for the article, names of people or institutions that had an impact on the creation of the article, and disclosure of whether the article was presented in a different form, e.g. an abstract / poster at a conference.
5. Authorship should be limited to people who have had a significant impact on: the concept and design of the article, data collection, data analysis and interpretation, the preparation of the draft article and a critical revision in terms of intellectual content.
6. Authors should disclose any conflicts of interest that could influence the results or interpretation of the article.
7. Authors should report any significant error found in the published article to the editor and cooperate in withdrawing or revising the article. If the editorial office or publisher of the journal receives information from third parties about a significant error in the published article, it is the author's responsibility to immediately withdraw, correct the article or provide evidence confirming the correctness of the submitted article.
Tasks and obligations of reviewers
1. Reviewers should report to the editor the fact that they feel the lack of appropriate qualifications, which prevents efficient review.
2. Articles under review are confidential, they may not be shown or discussed with other people, except for persons authorized by the editor. Information disclosed in the material sent for review may not be used in the reviewer's own research without the consent of the author.
3. Reviews should be made objectively. Reviewers should express their views clearly using constructive arguments.
4. Reviewers should indicate important publications that have not been cited by the author.
5. Reviewers should inform the editors of a significant similarity between the reviewed article and the published papers that are known to them.
6. Reviewers should not review articles where there is a conflict of interest arising from competitive, cooperative, professional, and other relationships.
In cases of alleged or proven scientific misconduct, fraudulent publication or plagiarism, the publisher, in close cooperation with the editor of the journal, will take all appropriate measures to clarify the situation and amend the specific article. This includes the prompt publication of errata or, where appropriate, full withdrawal of the work from the journal.