- Volume 27
- Number 3
Studia Europejskie –
Studies in European Affairs
Articles published in the journal are under a Creative Commons Attribution – Non Commercial – No Derivatives 4.0 International License
Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement
The scientific quarterly “Studia Europejskie – Studies in European Affairs” is determined to publish original works of value to the academic community in the best possible form and of the highest possible standards. We expect similar standards from our reviewers and authors. Honesty, originality, and fair dealings on the part of authors, and fairness, objectivity, and confidentiality on the part of editors and peer-reviewers are among the critical values that enable us to achieve our aim. The journal fully accepts and behaves according to the Core Practices established by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), and is available free of charge on its website. For all parties involved in the act of publishing (authors, journal editors, reviewers, and publishers), it is necessary to agree upon the standards of expected ethical behaviour. The “Studia Europejskie – Studies in European Affairs” ethics statements are based on COPE Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors.
The editor of a peer-reviewed journal is accountable for identifying which articles submitted to the journal need to be published and is accountable for the works in their entirety published in the journal, according to the legal stipulations concerning defamation, copyright laws, and plagiarism. The editor might also consult with different editors or reviewers while making publication selections. The editor must uphold the academic record’s integrity, prevent business motives from compromising ethical and intellectual principles, and be ready to publish corrections, clarifications, retractions, and apologies as and when necessary.
The editor should evaluate the articles for scientific content regardless of the author’s race, gender, sexual orientation, confessional allegiance, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political ideology. The editor will no longer discuss an article with anybody outside the author(s), peer-reviewers and potential peer-reviewers, and, in some cases, the editorial board members as necessary.
The corresponding author, peer-reviewers, potential peer-reviewers, other editorial consultants, and the publisher, where applicable, are the only parties to whom the editor and any editorial staff may disclose information on a submitted manuscript.
Disclosure, conflicts of interest, and other issues
When considering retracting, expressing concern, and issuing corrections concerning articles published in the “Studia Europejskie – Studies in European Affairs”, the editor may refer to COPE’s Guidelines for Retracting Articles as a guide.
Unpublished data disclosed in an article submission should no longer be used in the editor’s research without the article’s author’s explicit, written permission.
Confidential data or thoughts acquired via review have to be stored confidentially and not used for personal benefit.
The editor must ensure that marketing, reprint, or other commercial revenue has no impact or impact on editorial selections. The editor must seek to ensure an appropriate peer-review procedure. Editors must withdraw from considering manuscripts if they bear a conflict of interest with any of the authors, organisations, or (presumably) institutions involved in the articles due to any collaborative, competitive, or other relationships or connections they may have.
All authors should be required to disclose competing interests, and editors should publish corrections if any are discovered after an article has been published. Along with releasing a retraction or statement as regards a given situation, additional, appropriate action may be required.
Involvement and cooperation in investigations
Editors must protect the integrity of published material by pursuing any suspected or alleged research and publication wrongdoing and issuing corrections and retractions as and when necessary. Editors must investigate wrongdoing by peer-reviewers and editors. When ethical concerns are made about an article that has been submitted or an article that has been published, the editor must act reasonably quickly.
Contribution to editorial decisions
Peer-review helps the editor’s decision-making process and, through editorial correspondence with an author, can aid the author in improving an article’s text.
Any invited reviewer who feels unable/underqualified to evaluate an article, or is aware that a timely peer-review will not be possible, must immediately inform the editor so that other reviewers can be contacted.
Confidentiality and discretion
All peer-reviewed articles must, at all times, be treated as confidential files. They cannot be discussed or presented to anyone else without the editor’s permission.
Peer-reviews must adhere to strict standards of objectivity. It is forbidden to make personal remarks about the authors. Reviewers must honestly state their opinions and provide appropriate justification.
Attribution of sources
Reviewers must locate any relevant, published works that the authors have not cited. Any allegation that a statement, conclusion or line of reasoning has previously been stated must be accompanied by the proper citation. Reviewers must also draw the editor’s attention to any striking similarities or overlaps between an article under consideration and any other published materials they know firsthand.
Conflicts of interest and disclosure
Peer-reviewed material that contains private information, concepts or ideas should be kept secret and not used for personal advantage. Peer-reviewers can no longer consider evaluating articles with conflicts of interest because of collaborative, competitive, or other relationships or affiliations with any of the authors, businesses, or institutions associated with an article.
Authors who present original research findings should give a truthful assessment of the work done and an unbiased analysis of its relevance. The articles should appropriately reflect the underlying data and should have enough information and citations to allow others to replicate the work. False or deliberately inaccurate statements are inappropriate and represent unethical activity.
Originality and plagiarism
The authors must make sure that their articles are entirely original and that, if they have borrowed any ideas or words from others, they have correctly cited or noted the source.
Multiple, duplicate, or simultaneous publications
The authors cannot publish submissions presenting the same study in different journals or primary publications. The simultaneous submission of the same article to multiple journals is unacceptable and constitutes unethical publishing.
Acknowledgment of sources
The authors should cite publications that helped define the character of present research. Proper recognition should always be given to other authors’ contributions.
Only those who contributed significantly to the idea, concept, implementation, or interpretation of research findings should be allowed to write it. All those who have contributed significantly ought to be listed as co-authors. An acknowledgment section must list the names of other people who contributed significantly to an article’s composition.
The corresponding author must ensure that all competent co-authors are listed in an article’s author listing, that none are unnecessary, and that all co-authors have approved the submission of an article for publication after having seen the final draft and given their permission.
Editors are allowed to publish their own articles, but they are not permitted to participate in the editing process for their own academic work. Submissions authored by editors will be assigned to at least two independent outside reviewers. Decisions will be made by other editorial board members who do not have any conflicts of interest with the author/s.
Disclosure and conflicts of interest
Any financial or other significant conflicts of interest that could be taken to have an impact on the findings or how they are interpreted in the publication should be disclosed by all authors. The disclosure of all funding sources for a project is required.
An author must contact the journal’s editor or publisher as soon as he or she becomes aware of a significant error or inaccuracy in his/her published article and work with them to either retract the article or publish an appropriate erratum.
In an alleged or established fraudulent publication, scientific misconduct, plagiarism, or duplication, the publisher will closely work with the editors and take all necessary steps to clarify and correct the problematic article. In the worst scenarios, the affected article may be completely retracted. This case includes the quick release of an erratum.
COMPLIANCE WITH ETHICAL STANDARDS:
The authors should include informed consent if the research involved humans and a statement on the welfare of animals if the research involved animals to ensure objectivity and transparency in the research, and that accepted principles of ethical and professional conduct have been followed. When submitting an article, the authors must add the statements (if appropriate) in a separate “Compliance with Ethical Standards” section before the References section.
If a waiver was obtained for the research, the authors must expressly state that fact, along with the justification for the waiver. They must attest that the research was carried out following the Declaration of Helsinki and any later revisions or comparable ethical guidelines.
Everyone who helped create an article’s content but did not satisfy the criteria for authorship should be acknowledged, including those who gave technical support, institutional or department chiefs who offered general encouragement
It is essential to disclose all funding sources for one’s research and their involvement in a study’s design, data collection, analysis, and interpretation, as well as the article’s authorship. Along with the grant numbers, one is to provide the name of the financing entity or agencies. The journal expects authors to include this part before the References section and to write: “not applicable” if the research received no funding.
APPEALS AND COMPLAINTS
Policy and Process
The procedure below applies to appeals to editorial decisions, complaints regarding the failure of processes such as long delays in handling papers and complaints about publication ethics. The complaint should, in the first instance, be handled by the Editor-in-Chief responsible for our quarterly.
Complaints regarding scientific content, e.g., an appeal against rejection –
The Editor-in-Chief considers an author’s argument, and the reviewer reports and decides whether:
– The decision to reject should stand;
– Another independent opinion is required;
– The appeal should be considered.
The complainant is informed of the decision with an explanation if appropriate. Decisions on appeals are final and new submissions take priority over appeals.
Complaint about processes, e.g., the time taken to review –
The Editor-in-Chief, together with the Deputy Editor-in-Chief (where appropriate), and/or in-house contact (where appropriate), will investigate the matter. The complainant will be given appropriate feedback. Feedback is provided to relevant stakeholders to improve processes and procedures.
Complaint about publication ethics, e.g., researcher’s, author’s, or reviewer’s conduct –
The Editor-in-Chief or Deputy Editor-in-Chief follows the guidelines published by the Committee on Publication Ethics. The Editor-in-Chief or Deputy Editor-in-Chief may ask the publisher via their in-house contact for advice on difficult or complicated cases. The Editor-in-Chief or Deputy Editor-in-Chief decides on a course of action and provides feedback to the complainant. If the complainant remains dissatisfied with the handling of their complaint, he or she can submit the complaint to the Committee on Publication Ethics. More information can be found here.
Conflict of Interest
A competing interest — often called a conflict of interest — exists when professional judgement concerning a primary interest (such as patient welfare or the validity of research) may be influenced by a secondary interest (such as financial gain or personal rivalry). It may arise for the authors of an article in our quarterly when they have a financial interest that may influence, probably without their knowing, their interpretation of their results or those of others.
We believe that, to make the best decision on how to deal with an article, we should know about any competing interests that authors may have, and that if we publish their articles, our readers should know about those competing interests, too.
Post-Publication Discussions and Corrections
The scientific quarterly “Studia Europejskie – Studies in European Affairs” encourages debate post-publication by submitting a letter to the editor. Post-publication corrections will be published alongside the original article.
Corrected manuscripts will be published alongside original manuscripts, so readers can always find the most up-to-date version. All versions will be permanently available and linked to the same DOI.
The scientific quarterly “Studia Europejskie – Studies in European Affairs” will be guided by the COPE guidelines when handling corrections, revisions or the retraction of articles after publication.
The editors of the journal “Studia Europejskie – Studies in European Affairs” do not charge authors for the submission of manuscripts, editorial work on the texts, or for their publication. Access to archived issues of our quarterly is also free of charge.
Access to content
Access to archived content is free of charge and means free access for the reader under the “Creative Commons Attribution – Non Commercial – No Derivatives 4.0” license.
Information on the financing of individual issues of the quarterly is available on the editorial page of each issue of the journal.