THE ETHICS STATEMENT OF IUS NOVUM

1. Introduction

1.1. The Editorial Board of Ius Novum strives to ensure the highest ethical standards in the publication process. Submitted articles are evaluated for scientific integrity, compliance with ethical standards, and contribution to the advancement of knowledge.

1.2. The editorial policy is based on the recommendations of COPE – the Committee on Publication Ethics:
- COPE Core Practices
https://publicationethics.org/guidance/guideline/principles-transparency-and-best-practice-scholarly-publishing
- COPE Guidelines on Retraction / Corrections / Expressions of Concern
https://publicationethics.org/guidance/guideline/retraction-guidelines

1.3. The Editorial Board also takes into account current standards of research ethics, including standards for research involving human participants.

2. Standards for Editors

2.1. Publication Decisions
2.1.1. The Editor-in-Chief makes decisions based on the scientific significance of the article, originality, clarity, and compliance with ethical principles.
2.1.2. Decisions must not be influenced by personal, financial, or institutional interests.
2.1.3. The Editorial Board does not accept manuscripts that raise concerns about plagiarism, self-plagiarism, ghostwriting, or honorary authorship.
2.1.4. In the decision-making process, the  Editorial Board may refer to COPE guidelines on disputes, appeals, and retractions: https://publicationethics.org/guidance/guideline/retraction-guidelines

2.2. Confidentiality
2.2.1. Information regarding submitted manuscripts may only be disclosed to the author(s), reviewers, Editorial Board members, and the publisher.
2.2.2. The Editorial Board uses a double-blind review system.

2.3. Conflict of Interest
2.3.1. Editors and reviewers must disclose any potential conflicts of interest (financial, personal, institutional).
2.3.2. Individuals involved in the editorial process must not use unpublished material for their own research.

2.4. Addressing Misconduct
2.4.1. The Editorial Board responds to all reports of scientific misconduct, including plagiarism, data fabrication, result manipulation, and unethical authorship.
2.4.2. When necessary, corrections, errata, or retractions are published in accordance with COPE retraction guidelines.
2.4.3. Each case is documented and managed with transparency.

3. Standards for Authors

3.1. Authorship and Responsibility
3.1.1. Authorship must reflect actual contributions to the work (concept, research, analysis, interpretation).
3.1.2. All co-authors must approve the final version of the article.
3.1.3. Authors are required to submit a statement of authorship and disclose sources of funding and institutional support.

3.2. Originality and Integrity
3.2.1. Submitted manuscripts must be original, not previously published, and not under consideration by other journals.
3.2.2. Data must be presented honestly and without manipulation.

3.3. Use of Generative AI Tools (Gen AI)
3.3.1. Authors must disclose any use of generative AI tools in the preparation of manuscripts.
3.3.2. All content generated with AI must be original, accurate, and comply with standards of scholarly integrity. AI tools must not replace independent scholarly work or misrepresent authorship or sources of data.
3.3.3. The Editorial Board monitors the use of AI and, in case of violations, may take appropriate actions, including rejection of the manuscript or publication of a correction.

3.4. Research Involving Human Participants
3.4.1. In research involving human participants, authors are obliged to:
- obtain approval from the appropriate ethics or institutional committee, if required by the nature of the study,
- ensure informed and voluntary consent from participants, documented in writing or another justified form,
- maintain confidentiality and protect participants’ personal data, including anonymization,
- uphold the principle that the well-being of participants takes precedence over scientific interests,
- minimize risks associated with participation and implement appropriate data and participant safety procedures.

3.5. Data and Transparency
3.5.1. Authors should provide source data (or appropriate metadata) upon request from the Editorial Board and retain them for at least five years (or in accordance with funding institution requirements).
3.5.2. Authors should provide detailed information on sources of funding and any potential conflicts of interest.
3.5.3. Authors who have prepared articles based on their own research should, where possible, make available the necessary materials and information to allow verification and reproduction of the study’s results.

4. Standards for Reviewers

4.1. Reviewers support the Editorial Board in making decisions and help authors improve their work.

4.2. Each review must be objective, constructive, and submitted in a timely manner.

4.3. Reviewers must not use unpublished materials for their own research.

4.4. The confidentiality and anonymity of the review process (double-blind) must be maintained.

4.5. Reviewers should pay attention to missing citations, similarities to other publications, conflicts of interest, and potential misconduct.

5. Final Provisions

5.1. Each case of ethical misconduct will be examined individually and may result in rejection of the manuscript, notification of the author’s home institution, and, if necessary, publication of a retraction notice, correction, or explanatory statement in accordance with COPE guidelines.

5.2. Editorial Board of Ius Novum promotes a culture of scientific integrity, transparency, and respect for authors, and supports the advancement of knowledge in accordance with the highest ethical standards.