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. 

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Unpublished articles or their fragments cannot be used in the Editorial Board staff’s or reviewers’ own research without an author’s explicit consent in writing.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).

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.

Journal Self Citation
An editor or reviewer never conducts any practice that obliges authors to cite his or her journal either as an implied or explicit condition of acceptance for publication.  Any recommendation regarding articles to be cited in a paper should be made on the basis of direct relevance to the author’s article, with the objective of improving the final published research.  Reviewers should direct authors to relevant literature as part of the peer review process, however this should never extend to blanket instructions to cite individual journals.

Involvement and cooperation in investigations
An editor should take reasonably responsive measures when ethical complaints have been presented concerning a submitted manuscript or published paper, in conjunction with the publisher (or society). Such measures will generally include contacting the author of the manuscript or paper and giving due consideration of the respective complaint or claims made, but may also include further communications to the relevant institutions and research bodies, and if the complaint is upheld, the publication of a correction, retraction, expression of concern, or other note, as may be relevant. Every reported act of unethical publishing behavior must be looked into, even if it is discovered years after publication.

Duties of the Editorial Board

Publication decisions
The editor-in-chief of a peer-reviewed journal is responsible for deciding which of the articles submitted to the journal should be published. The validation of the work in question and its importance to researchers and readers must always drive such decisions.

Fair play
An editor should evaluate manuscripts for their intellectual content without regard to race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy of the authors.

The editor and any editorial staff must not disclose any information about a submitted manuscript to anyone other than the corresponding author, reviewers, potential reviewers, other editorial advisers, and the publisher, as appropriate. The Editor does not provide authors with the information about reviewers and vice versa.

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.

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.

Contribution to editorial decisions
Peer review assists the editor in making editorial decisions and through the editorial communications with the author may also assist the author in improving the paper. Peer review is an essential component of formal scholarly communication, and lies at the heart of the scientific method. Elsevier shares the view of many that all scholars who wish to contribute to publications have an obligation to do a fair share of reviewing.

Any selected referee who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should notify the editor and excuse himself from the review proces.

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.

All reviews are made anonymously; neither does the Editor reveal information on authors to reviewers (double blind peer review).

Objectivity standards 
Reviews should be conducted objectively. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate. Referees should express their views clearly with supporting arguments. All doubts as well as critical and polemical comments should be included in the review.

Disclosure and conflict of interest
Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in a reviewer’s own research without the express written consent of the author. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage. Reviewers should not consider manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers.

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.

Acknowledgement of sources
Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors. Any statement that an observation, derivation, or argument had been previously reported should be accompanied by the relevant citation. A reviewer should also call to the editor’s attention any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published paper of which they have personal knowledge.