Ethical rules

Ius Novum Editorial Board strives to ensure high ethical standards. Articles submitted for publication in Ius Novum are assessed for their integrity, compliance with ethical standards and contribution to the development of scholarship. 

The principles listed below are based on the COPE’s Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors.

Standards for editors

Decision on publication
The Editor-in-Chief must obey laws on libel, copyright and plagiarism in their jurisdictions and is responsible for the decisions which of the submitted articles should be published. The Editor may consult with the Associate Editors and/or reviewers in making publication decisions. If necessary, the Advisory Board’s opinion is also taken into consideration. The decision to publish an article may be constrained by the risk of potential libel, copyright or other intellectual property infringement, plagiarism or self-plagiarism and doubts concerning authorship or co-authorship, i.e. the so-called ghost and guest authorship. 

Confidentiality
No member of the Editorial Board is entitled to reveal information on a submitted work to any person other than the one authorised to be informed in the course of the editorial procedure, its author, reviewers, potential reviewers, editorial advisors or the Publisher. The Editor does not provide authors with the information about reviewers and vice versa.

Conflict of interests and its disclosure
Unpublished articles or their fragments cannot be used in the Editorial Board staff’s or reviewers’ own research without an author’s explicit consent in writing. The Editor does not appoint reviewers who are authors’. subordinates or are in other direct personal relationships (if the Editor knows about them).

Discrimination 
In order to prevent discrimination, the Editor complies with the principles of the Constitution of the Republic of Poland and the law in force in Poland.

Standards for authors

Authorship should reflect individuals’ contribution to the work concept, project, implementation or interpretation. All co-authors who contributed to the publication should be listed. Persons who are not authors but made substantial contributions to the article, should be listed in the acknowledgements section. The author should make sure that all co-authors have been listed, are familiar with and have accepted the final version of the article, and have given their consent for submitting the article for publication. Authors who publish the findings of their research should present the research methodology used, an objective discussion of the results and their importance for academic purposes and practice. The work should provide reference to all the sources used. Publishing false or intentionally untrue statements is unethical.

Conflict of interests and its disclosure
Authors should disclose all sources of their projects funding, contribution of research institutions, societies and other entities as well as all other conflicts of interests that might affect the findings and their interpretation.

Standards for reporting 
Authors of articles based on their own research should present detail of performed work and discuss its importance. Data the work is based on should be presented in details. Statements that are not true or intentionally inaccurate will be treated as unethical and prohibited conduct.

Access to data and their retention
Authors should provide unprocessed data regarding the work submitted for reviewing or should be prepared to ensure access to such data. Authors should retain the data for at least a year’s time from the publication.

Multiple, unnecessary or competing publications 
In general, authors should not publish materials describing the same research in more than one journal or primary publication. Submitting the same work to more than one editor concurrently is unethical and forbidden.

Confirming sources
Authors must only submit acknowledge and reference all publications that affected the submitted work and must acknowledge each instance of using other authors' work.

Substantial errors in the published work
If authors find substantial errors or inaccuracies in their work, they will be obliged to notify the Editorial Board Secretary without delay. In case the article has already been published, the author should cooperate with the Editor in order to retract the article or publish an adequate erratum.

Originality and plagiarism 
Authors must only submit original works. They should make sure that the names of authors cited in the work and/or cited fragments of their works are properly acknowledged or referenced.

Ghost/guest authorship
Ghost authorship is when someone makes a substantial contribution to a work but he/she is not listed as an author or his/her role in the publication is not acknowledged. Guest authorship takes place when someone’s contribution is very small or inexistent but his/her name is listed as an author.

Ghost and guest authorship are manifestations of a lack of scientific integrity and all such cases will be disclosed, involving a notification of component entities (institutions employing the authors, scientific societies, associations of editors etc.). The Editorial Board will document every instance of scientific dishonesty, especially the violation of the ethical principles binding in science.

In order to prevent ghost or guest authorship, authors are requested to provide declarations of authorship.

Standards for reviewers

Editorial decisions Reviewers should support the Editor-in-Chief in decision-making and authors in correcting errors.

Feedback
Reviewers who cannot review a work or know they will not be able to submit a review within an agreed time limit should inform the Editorial Board Secretary about that.

Confidentiality
All reviewed works should be treated as confidential documents. They cannot be shown to or discussed with third parties who are not authorised members of the Editorial Board.

Anonymity
All reviews are made anonymously; neither does the Editor reveal information on authors to reviewers.

Objectivity standards 
Reviews should be objective. Derogatory personal remarks are inappropriate. Reviewers should clearly express their opinions and provide adequate arguments. All doubts as well as critical and polemical comments should be included in the review.

Conflict of interests and its disclosure
Confidential information and ideas arising as a result of a review must be kept secret and cannot be used for personal benefits. Reviewers should not review works of authors if there is a conflict of interests resulting from their close relationship.

Confirmation of sources
Reviewers should enumerate publications that an author has not referred to. Whatever statements are made about observations, sources or arguments that had been previously discussed should be supported by an adequate citation. Reviewers should also inform the Editorial Board Secretary about any substantial similarities or partial overlaps noticed.