Publication ethics

The ethics statements for our journal are based on the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors. For all parties involved in the act of publishing (the journal editor(s), the author, the peer reviewer and the publisher) should become familiar with the standards of ethical behavior used in journal published by the Institute of Art History at University of Wrocław

BEHALF OF EDITORIAL BOARD
EDITOR-IN-CHIEF: dr hab. Romuald Kaczmarek, prof. UWr.
DEPUTY EDITOR-IN-CHIEF: dr Agnieszka Patała
EDITORIAL SECRETARY: – Adam Szeląg

Publication ethics

Editorial board

1) The editor of a peer-reviewed journal is responsible for deciding which articles submitted to the journal should be published, and, moreover, is accountable for everything published in the journal. In making these decisions, the editor may be guided by the policies of the journal’s editorial board as well as by legal requirements regarding libel, copyright infringement and plagiarism. The editor may confer with other editors or reviewers when making publication decisions. The editor should maintain the integrity of the academic standards, preclude business needs from compromising intellectual and ethical standards, and always be willing to publish corrections, clarifications, retractions and apologies when needed.

2) The editor should evaluate manuscripts for intellectual content without regard to race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy of the author(s). The editor will not disclose any information about a manuscript under consideration to anyone other than the author(s), reviewers and potential reviewers, and in some instances the editorial board members, as appropriate.

3) 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.

4) The editor should seek so ensure a fair and appropriate peer review process. Editors should refrain (i.e. should ask a co-editor, associate editor or other member of the editorial board instead to review and consider) from considering manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or (possibly) institutions connected to the papers. Editors should require all contributors to disclose relevant competing interests and publish corrections if competing interests are revealed after publication. If needed, other appropriate action should be taken, such as the publication of a retraction or expression of concern.

Authors

1) Authorship credit should be based on: substantial contributions to conception or analysis and interpretation of data; drafting the manuscript or revising it critically for important intellectual content; and final approval of the version to be published. In case of a discovered misconduct on the author’s part, such as plagiarism, falsifying data or double publication, the journal Editorial Team will call for explanation and then undertake appropriate steps by following the COPE flowcharts. This may eventually include notification of authorities at the author’s institution, withdrawal of the article in question and exclusion of any further submissions by the same author from being processed by the journal.

2) The following authorship problems should be prevented before submitting a paper: “ghostwriting” and “guest authorship”. “Ghostwriting” refers to a case when a person who made substantial contributions to a publication is not credited as an author or, in the case of purely technical support insufficient for authorship, the person is not acknowledged in a publication. “Guest authorship” is the opposite situation, when a person appears in the publication as an author despite insignificant contribution or even absence from the scientific process.

3) In case of more than one author contributing to the research, individual contributions (substantial, not percentage) of each author must be specified in the manuscript (e.g. “Particular authors’ contribution: DF is responsible for the ideas in the research; BK collected the examples. Both authors participated in drafting the manuscript”; or: “The following declarations about the particular authors’ contributions to the research have been made: concept of the study: first author; data analyses: second author; writing the manuscript: first and second author”). This information will be published in the article.

4) In accordance with the COPE guidelines, any changes in authorship require written consent of all authors sent individually via direct email to the Editor-in-Chief. Each of them must issue a statement on the acceptance of the proposed changes in the authorship of submitted manuscripts or published articles. The corresponding author takes responsibility for providing clear reason for the change(s) and should coordinate interaction between the authors and the Editor-in-Chief. If no satisfactory agreement can be reached among the authors, they must contact their parent institution(s) for a final decision; the editors take no responsibility to resolve such disagreements. If a change in authorship pertains to an already published paper, it will be executed by publishing a correction article.

Reviewers

1) Peer review assists the editor in making editorial decisions and, through the editorial communication with the author, may also assist the author in improving the manuscript.

2) Reviews should be conducted objectively. Personal criticism of the author is inacceptable. Reviewers should express their views clearly with appropriate supporting arguments.

3) Any invited reviewer who feels unqualified to review an article, or cannot do on time should immediately notify the editor so that alternative reviewers can be contacted.

4) Any manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. They must not be shown to or discussed with others except if authorized by the editor.

Competing interests

A conflict of interest exists when an author (or the author’s institution), reviewer, or editor has financial or personal relationships that inappropriately influence his or her actions. Such relationships are also known as dual commitments, competing interests, or competing loyalties. These range from those with negligible potential to those with great potential to influence scientific judgment. Competing interests may exist regardless of whether an individual is aware of it. Financial relationships, such as employment, consultancies, honoraria, paid expert opinions are the most easily identifiable conflicts of interest and ones most likely to undermine the credibility of the journal, the authors, and science itself. However, conflicts may occur for other reasons, such as personal relationships, academic competition, and political and intellectual passion. If any conflict of interest exists, it is obligatory that each author and reviewer declare it.

Publisher’s confirmation

In cases of alleged or proven scientific misconduct, fraudulent publication or plagiarism the publisher, in close collaboration with the editors, will take all appropriate measures to clarify the situation and to amend the article in question. This includes the prompt publication of an erratum or, in the most severe cases, the complete retraction of the affected work.