Ethical principles

The ethics of activities in Management are based on:
  • Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) guidelines, which are available at:
  • recommendations of the Ministry of Science and Higher Education in the form of a brochure entitled „Good practices in review procedures in Science” (Warsaw, 2011)
  • ethical principles applicable to other scientific journals.
  1. Shall make every effort to continuously improve the journal publishing process.
  2. Decide on the acceptance or rejection of a reviewed scientific text based on the compatibility of the content of the article with the thematic scope (profile) of the journal, and not by reference to the origin of the author of the work, its affiliation, nationality, ethnicity, political views, gender, race or religion.
  3. Act in accordance with the established reviewing procedure, i.e.:

    3.1. Appoint two reviewers to evaluate each publication. Do not send articles to reviewers with the same affiliation as given by the author(s) of the publication.

    3.2. The author(s) and reviewers do not know each other's identity (the so-called "double-blind review process"), which means that the article sent to reviewers does not contain personal data of the author(s) of the publication and the author(s) is not given information about the person of the reviewers. The list of reviewers cooperating with the journal's editorial office is published on the journal's website after the second issue of a given year is printed.

    3.3. The review shall be in a written form. The review form is on the website of the journal.

    3.4. The result of the review is the opinion of the reviewer informing about:
    1. rejecting the article,
    2. qualifying the article for publication without corrections,
    3. acceptance for publication after making additions, corrections indicated by the reviewer,
    4. necessity of making substantial changes and repeated reviewing.
  4. The number of points (min. 60 points) is decisive in qualifying the article for publication. In the case of 3.4.c. and having received at least 60 points, the article is sent to the author(s) for appropriate corrections/amendments indicated by reviewers.
  5. After receiving the article, the editor-in-chief, in consultation with the reviewers, reviews it and qualifies it for publication.
  6. The editor-in-chief shall take action in the event of receiving information about violation of ethical standards (such as duplicate publication, plagiarism, fabrication of data, false list of authors, ghost authorship) by the author of the text. These actions include:
    • rejection of the article,
    • gathering full documentation with evidence,
    • informing the author about the outcome of the proceedings and the actions of the editorial team,
    • contacting the author's institution and informing their superiors and/or other persons responsible for supervising the research,
    • informing the reviewers of the action taken.
  7. Comply with the current legal status regarding defamation, copyright infringement and plagiarism.
  1. Prepare reviews on the review formular adopted by the journal.
  2. Thoroughly examine the content of the article and make every effort to reliably and fairly assess its value, according to the accepted assessment criteria and the current state of the discipline of science they represent
  3. In the event of a decision to reject an article, they shall justify it clearly, presenting scientific arguments
  4. They may not undertake a review, if they judge that they are not prepared substantively to assess the article or suspect a conflict of interest.
  5. They treat the reviewed articles as a confidential document, which means that:
    - do not show it or share its contents with anyone outside the editorial team.
    - do not use it for personal gain (such as using the materials for their own research purposes without the express consent of the authors)
  6. Prepare reviews without knowledge of the author's details (anonymously).
  7. Support authors in improving the text and writing workshop by formulating tips, suggestions in a clear and lucid manner.
  8. Support the quality of the journal by providing:
    • suggestions concerning the reviewing process;
    • assistance in the decision to accept a text for publication;
    • information about violations of ethical rules by the author of the text, including suspicion of significant similarity of the content of the reviewed work with any other published and known work, suspicion of plagiarism or false list of authors.
  1. Sign a statement, thereby accepting the journal's publication policy.
  2. Prepare the publication in accordance with the guidelines for authors.
  3. Submit an article that represents original work and is authored by the authors, meaning that each author has made a significant contribution to the publication and that the author list provided is accurate.
    A false author list occurs when the name of a researcher who has made a significant contribution to the publication is not mentioned, or is not included in the acknowledgements in the publication
  4. Shall indicate the contribution of each author to the text (as against ghostwriting and guest authorship).
    The first means making a significant contribution to the publication without disclosing participation as a co-author or indicating a role in the acknowledgements included in the publication. The second occurs when the author's contribution is negligible or has not taken place at all, but is nevertheless an author/co-author of the publication
  5. Confirm that submitting an article to the editor means that it has not been published or is not subject to a review/evaluation process at another publication
  6. Are obliged to respect the copyright of others. They shall take care to record correctly the names of authors quoted in the article and the manner of describing works cited
  7. Keep a record of source data related to the publication, which they will make available to the editor upon request in connection with the publishing process.
  8. Shall indicate the sources of funding for the article, as well as the contributions of other parties (scientific research institutions, associations, etc.) and report any relevant conflicts of interest that may affect the results or interpretation.
  9. Undertake to inform the editor of the journal if they detect errors or inaccuracies in the manuscript and cooperate to correct them.
  10. Reliably make the corrections indicated by the reviewers and/or respond to the reviews.
  11. Make sure that all authors of the article have accepted the final version of the text.
  12. It is the responsibility of the author submitting the article to contact the editor and to be aware of the obligations described in the above points.
  13. Act ethically and take care of scientific integrity, knowing that the editorial board considers such actions as: duplicate publication, plagiarism, fabrication of data, false list of authors, ghost authorship, conflict of interest as a sign of scientific dishonesty and breach of ethical principles
  14. Any violation of the ethical rules indicated above is a reason to reject the article.
  15. Authors may suggest external reviewers that are qualified to peer review the manuscript, provided that they have not collaborated closely in the near past and that they are not from the same institution. Authors may also identify peer reviewers who they would not prefer to review their articles. While the authors suggestions are taken into account, the editorial team reserves the right to handle double blind peer review at its discretion. Any manuscripts received for review will be treated as confidential documents.
Research ethics
In the case of research involving human subjects, the editorial board suggest contacting the Ethics Committee and obtaining the applicable confirmation of the research being conducted
ISSN:1429-9321 (1997-2019)
Journals System - logo
Scroll to top