Code of Ethics
Ethical Regulations
The editors of Warsaw Theological Studies apply the principles of publishing ethics counteracting unfair publishing practices, in accordance with the guidelines of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). The editors of Warsaw Theological Studies apply the principles of publishing ethics counteracting unfair publishing practices, in accordance with the guidelines of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).
By submitting the text to the editorial office of Warsaw Theological Studies, the author of the publication states that the submitted text is an original, thoroughly prepared work, which has not been published yet and is currently not subject to evaluation in another journal.
If you want to reprint an article published in the journal Warsaw Theological Studies, the author must obtain written permission to share the publication.
The text meets the bibliographical requirements regarding the construction of footnotes, in accordance with copyright law.
If the text is to be sent for review, it must meet the criteria listed above.
I. Editorial Responsibilities
Decision on publication: The editors are responsible for deciding whether to accept or reject a paper. The decision is based on the scientific value of the publication, its compliance with the topic presented in the journal, the originality of the treatment of the topic and transparency of the argument.
Impartiality: In the assessment of articles, the authors' nationality, gender, sexual orientation, religion, origin, citizenship or political beliefs are not taken into account. The works are evaluated only in terms of content.
Confidentiality: The editors do not disclose to unauthorized persons any information about the works submitted for publication. The persons authorized to have this information are: author, reviewers and editors.
Disclosure of information and conflict of interest: Unpublished papers may not be used by the editors or any other persons involved in the publishing process without the written permission of the authors.
Proceedings in situations violating the principles of editorial ethics: in case of discovering scientific misconduct, the Editorial Board follows the procedure recommended by COPE. The algorithm of conduct can be found here: https://publicationethics.org/guidance
II. Author's obligations
Scientific reliability: The author is required to accurately describe the research work carried out and an objective discussion of the results. The publication should contain information enabling identification of data sources. Presenting and interpreting test results in a dishonest or inaccurate manner is unacceptable and may result in the withdrawal of work.
Originality and plagiarism: The author may submit only his own original works for publication. The research and / or information from other academic used in the publication should be marked to indicate that it is a quotation. Plagiarism or falsification of data is unacceptable. The author should not send the same manuscript to more than one magazine.
Confirmation of sources: The author is obliged to mention in the bibliography publications that he used to create the text and should cite publications that are relevant to the presented topic.
Authorship of the work:
1. Authorship should be limited to people who have had a significant share in the creation, implementation, and interpretation of the work.
2. An author who submits a multi-author text for publication is required to disclose the contribution of individual authors to its creation (including the affiliation of the authors).
3. The author who submits a multi-author text for publication should ensure that all co-authors have been included in the text and that they have read and approved the final version of the paper before publication, and have agreed to submit it for publication.
4. Ghostwriting (hiding participation in the creation of publications other than officially appearing on the editorial page) and guest authorship (listing as co-authors of people who have not made any contribution to the publication) are a manifestation of scientific misconduct. Any detected misconduct should be unmasked, including notification of relevant entities, such as institutions employing the author, scientific societies, etc.
III. Reviewer's Responsibilities
Participation in editorial decision-making: Reviews help the editor-in-chief and the editorial board to make editorial decisions and authors to improve the quality of their work.
Double-blind review: The editors use the double-blind review model (double-blind review - the identity of the reviewers is not known to the authors, and the identity of the authors is not known to the reviewers). This solution ensures greater objectivity of assessment by excluding the potential bias of the reviewer to the authors. The publication is evaluated based on at least two independent reviews made by specialists from outside the academic department the author of the publication is affiliated to.
Punctuality: The reviewer is required to provide a review within the deadline. If for some reason he is unable to meet the deadline or undertake a review, he should immediately inform the Editorial Board and give the reason.
Confidentiality: All reviewed texts and their reviews are confidential. Disclosure of texts and / or third parties is unacceptable (except for persons who participate in the publishing process).
Anonymity: All reviews are done anonymously. The editors do not share the authors' data with reviewers.
Objectivity: The review should be objective and be a constructive assessment of the work. The subjective criticism of the author of the work is considered inappropriate. All comments of the reviewer should be properly argued.
Verification of originality of the text: The reviewer should identify published papers that were not cited by the author. The reviewer should inform the editorial office of violations of ethical standards by the author of the text (if any), including any significant similarity, partial overlapping of the content of the reviewed work with any other published and known work, or of suspected plagiarism or self-plagiarism.
Disclosure of information and conflict of interest: The reviewer may not use the reviewed work for his personal needs and benefits. Also, he should not evaluate the work if there may be a conflict of interest with the author.
