1. Acta Iuris Stetinensis employs procedures to prevent scientific dishonesty, which is gross violation of standards of scientific and academic integrity thus striking at the author’s scientific reliability and independence.
2. To secure originality of scholarly publications, the editors use anti-plagiarism software Plagiat.pl.
3. The anti-plagiarism analysis allows the comparison of the manuscript with resources of the most robust database on the Polish market, which has access to on-line resources, an up-to-date database of legislative acts and RefBooks, which includes over a million documents mainly in English and in Polish addressing all fields of science and culture.
4. The results of the anti-plagiarism analysis are presented as a clear report that includes information on borrowings detected in the analysed text.
5. The anti-plagiarism system used in our journal meets all privacy and confidentiality standards under current law.
6. Gross violation of standards of scholarly and academic integrity that strikes at the author’s scholarly reliability and independence shall include in particular:
a. plagiarism - appropriation of authorship or misleading about authorship of the whole or part of somebody else’s work or artistic creation;
b. self-plagiarism - using information from one’s own previous publication without citing the source;
c. guest authorship - someone is named as author or co-author but in fact does not participate in the writing of the work or their contribution is negligent and insignificant;
d. ghost writing - someone brings in major contribution to the manuscript but does not receive a by-line and is not acknowledged in the paper as author or co-author.
These rules, drafted on the basis of the position expressed by the Association of University Presses on using generative artificial intelligence (GAI) in scholarly papers, lay down the rules for responsible use of AI tools in creating and publishing texts, graphic content, illustrations and charts. They aim to ensure scholarly reliability, transparency and respect for copyright.
1. Only a human being may be an author of a scholarly paper. AI tools (including chatbots such as ChatGTP) cannot be deemed authors/co-authors or quoted as authors since they do not meet fundamental criteria resulting from the definition of authorship; in particular, they may not be held responsible for reliability, integrity or originality of a paper. These tools do not have the capacity to perform acts in law, they cannot manage copyright, nor are they able to recognize the occurrence or lack of a conflict of interests. AI tools may support the Author in editing or translating the manuscript, in data analysis or preparation of graphical content, provided that they do not replace independent and creative scientific contribution.
2. Authors who use AI tools when writing their texts, gathering and analysing data or creating graphical elements are obliged to disclose, fairly and fully transparently, which AI tool they have used, how and to what extent, and how it has affected a given manuscript.
3. AI may be used to do language editing and to improve readability of a manuscript, but it cannot replace key creative processes, such as formulating scientific conclusions, elaborating observations or generating research results.
4. Authors bear full responsibility for the content of a submitted manuscript and for all fragments that have been created using IT tools and are thus responsible for any possible breaches of publishing ethics. Tools such as ChatGTP have limitations that must be taken account of. The following are important in particular:
a. hallucination, that is generating false information that sounds reliable and correct at the linguistics level,
b. plagiarism, direct citations or appropriation of an idea without crediting the author,
c. generating false bibliographical descriptions or even entire references.
5. Each use of IT tools should be disclosed in the content of the work (e.g. in a footnote, in the abstract, in the “Methods” or “Acknowledgments” sections) by providing:
a. the name of the tool used together with its version/model,
b. the extent to which it has been used (e.g. language editing, generating an illustration, data analysis) along with the commands (prompts) used or a brief description of how it was used (e.g. types of queries/commands).
6. Additionally, each author must submit to the Editors a relevant declaration on the use of AI-assisted tools in creating their work, including chatbots, large language models (LLM) or image generators, along with a detailed description of why, how and to what extent they have been used. A declaration template constitutes a schedule hereto (file to download).
7. Creation of images and videos by generative AI has caused infringements of copyright and principles reliability in research. In observing the copyright in force and best practices of the publishing ethics, the Editors do not allow the use of those materials in publications, unless they are the substance of research in a given paper. Such cases should each time be justified upon manuscript submission and are evaluated individually by editors and reviewers. The Editors allow the use of AI tools to prepare supporting illustrations and data visualizations, provided that:
a. sources of this data are reliable and documented,
b. the graphics do not infringe on copyright or licenses,
c. materials bear the label “Generated with the use of AI” (if applicable),
d. meet data transparency principles (FAIR Data Principles), if this is scientific data.
8. All materials sent to the journal’s Editors are subject to verification in an anti-plagiarism system that also detects the use of AI tools.
9. Rules for Reviewers and Editors on using artificial intelligence (AI) tools:
a. Reviewers and Editors bear full responsibility for reliability, thoroughness and integrity of the review and editing process. They must ensure that no part of the work has been processed by AI without relevant consent from the Author or without disclosing this fact.
b. IA use transparency, confidentiality protection and responsibility for the content of the work are key principles that must be observed at each stage of the publishing process.
c. Manuscript confidentiality is a fundamental issue at each stage of the publishing process. All manuscripts and correspondence relating to publication are treated as confidential documents. Feeding them into AI tools without the Author’s consent is forbidden.
d. The journal’s Reviewers, Editors and the Editing Teams cannot use AI tools to assess submissions or to draft reviews. Assessment of a scholarly paper requires critical thinking and a thorough analysis that go beyond the capabilities of artificial intelligence and may be done only by a human.
The University of Szczecin Press, including the journal Acta Iuris Stetinensis, operates in accordance with recommendations of the Association of University Presses as its member: Stanowisko i rekomendacje Stowarzyszenia Wydawców Szkół Wyższych w kwestii stosowania narzędzi generatywnej sztucznej inteligencji (GAI) w pisaniu prac naukowych
1. Editors of Acta Iuris Stetinensis take action to maintain the high quality of published manuscripts and to support and disseminate scientific reliability.
2. The decision to publish a manuscript is based solely on its scientific value, regardless of authors’ race, nationality, religion, gender or sexual orientation.
3. The publication ethics applied in the journal follows from:
a. ethics principles and procedures recommended by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) - https://publicationethics.org/;
b. Code of Ethics for Researchers (download file) drawn up by the Polish Academy of Sciences.
4. If violation of ethics principles is suspected, the editors shall act according to procedures outlined in COPE flowcharts relevant for individual cases:
a. suspected redundant publication in a submitted manuscript (download file);
b. suspected plagiarism in a submitted manuscript (download file);
c. suspected fabricated data in a submitted manuscript (download file);
d. changes in authorship: addition of extra author – before publication (download file); Addition of extra author – after publication (download file); removal of author – before publication (download file); removal of author – after publication (download file);
e. suspected ghost, guest or gift authorship (download file);
f. if a reviewer suspects undisclosed conflict of interest (Col) in a submitted manuscript (download file);
g. if a reader suspects undisclosed conflict of interest (Col) in a submitted manuscript (download file);
h. if the editors suspect an ethical problem with a submitted manuscript (download file);
i. if the editors suspect a reviewer has appropriated an author’s ideas or data (download file).
The editors follow COPE’s rules for responding to persons raising concerns (Responding to whistleblowers when concerns are raised directly (download file); Responding to whistleblowers when concerns are raised via social media (download file)).
Proceedings in the event of violation of publishing ethics after publication
1. Where violations of the principles of publishing ethics are disclosed after the publication (in particular: plagiarism, self-plagiarism, data manipulation, unreliable authorship), the Editorial Board will take appropriate actions in accordance with COPE guidelines. At the same time, the Editorial Board will immediately ask the Author to take a position on the disclosed violation.
2. Electronic versions of the publication will be removed form the journal’s website and a note with reasons for the withdrawal will be posted.
3. For paper versions, the information about the violation will be published in the subsequent volume and posted on the journal’s website while a note with information on the reasons for the withdrawal will be attached to printed copies.
1. The editors take actions to ensure that the journal is published regularly, is accessible and of high quality and that the publication process runs smoothly.
2. The editors adhere to the adopted procedures of the publishing process, especially those relating to the review process (internal and external).
3. The editors are responsible for exercising the principle of scientific reliability, especially in counteracting scientific dishonesty, pursuant to the adopted publishing ethics, including COPE procedures and guidelines.
4. Should any errors be detected, the editors, ensuring consistency of published material, publish corrections, errata and emendations.
5. The editors may not in any way use a rejected manuscript without the author’s consent.
6. All manuscripts submitted to the editors and qualified for publication, pursuant to the principle of confidentiality, are subject to anonymous peer-review.
7. The editors inspect the observance of ethics standards and principles relevant to publishing scholarly texts.
8. The editors will take a decision to reject/withdraw a scholarly paper based on full documentation and evidence in the event:
a. if the author fabricates data in the submitted/published manuscript;
b. if research results have been previously published in another scholarly publication without an appropriate reference or justification (suspected redundant, duplicated publication);
c. of plagiarism involving the use of large fragments of text or data without attribution of authorship, presented as if they were authored by the plagiarist;
d. of reasonable ethics reservations to the manuscript (e.g. no consent of the ethics committee, reservations to patient’s consent or their protection, reservations relating to testing on animals).
9. In each case of detection of scientific dishonesty, the editors will notify author’s superiors or a person responsible for supervising the research about this and will also publish a statement about withdrawing the publication.
10. If the scientific dishonesty takes the form of plagiarism, the editors will inform the Editor-in-Chief of another journal implicated in the case or the publisher of the plagiarised monograph.
11. The editors will take action to expand their knowledge on misuse and irregularities in publication activity to effectively counteract practices that are contrary to ethical publication standards.
12. The editors have the obligation to inform the author about the result of the editorial assessment of a submitted manuscript and the assessment resulting from the review procedure.
13. In taking a decision to publish a text, the editors rely on the content of the reviews and look at the originality and transparency of the manuscript submitted and at its compliance with the journal’s thematic scope.
Conflict of interest between the Author and a member of the Editorial Board
1. Members of the Editorial Board are obliged to disclose any potential conflicts of interest related to the evaluated scientific publication, in particular those concerning personal relations, work relations or scholarly cooperation with the Author within the last two years counted from the moment of submitting the text for publication.
2. In the event of disclosure of a conflict of interest, a member of the Editorial Board will be subject to mandatory exclusion from the evaluation procedure of a given scientific publication and the decision-making process on its publication.
3. In a situation described in point 2. the Editor-in-Chief will appoint another independent member of the Editorial Board, who will take over the duties related to the evaluation of the publication.
4. Failure to disclose a conflict of interest is a violation of the principles of publication ethics and may result in the Editorial Board taking further investigative or disciplinary actions against the member concerned.
1. The Scientific Board supervises observance of ethics rules relevant to publishing scholarly texts in the journal and counteracts practices that are contrary to the ethics standards adopted.
2. The Scientific Board ensures reliability of the research.
3. The Scientific Board safeguards the development of knowledge and enhancement of awareness of the significance of the principles of publishing ethics.
1. Authors are obliged to follow Instructions for authors.
2. Authors must submit original texts (that have not been published anywhere else before) and demonstrate appropriate citations. The work must not be plagiarised or self-plagiarised and must not include false information (Principle of originality).
3. Authors must not submit their texts to different journals at the same time.
4. Authors must name persons who have brought in significant substantive contribution to the creation of the manuscript (in its concept, implementation or interpretation of results). Where this contribution is modest the contributors should be named in Acknowledgements along with the description of the role of the supporting persons. Ghost and guest authorship is inadmissible (Principle of authorship).
5. When multiple authors work on the paper, the corresponding author informs of the contribution of individual authors in the making of the manuscript.
6. Authors must observe scientific reliability, including reliability in citing sources used in their research.
7. Should the author notice any errors or irregularities in the text they must notify the editors immediately and cooperate with the Editorial team to remove or correct such an article.
8. Authors must identify the sources of financing of their publication or contribution of the institution (organization) in the research (financial disclosure).
9. Authors must identify real and potential conflicts of interests (financial or non-financial).
10. Authors should not publish texts that duplicate their own previously published research as literal or partial repetition.
11. The same rule applies to texts published earlier in a different language.
12. Authors must submit a statement on full originality of their texts and on not infringing on the copyright of third persons.
1. In drafting reviews, reviewers observe the principles of publishing ethics in place in the journal, act according to the principles of peer-review, use a review form, and most of all observe the following:
a. the principle of objectivity and reliability of review;
b. the principle of timeliness;
c. the principle of confidentiality;
d. the principle of preventing conflicts of interests.
2. The assessment of a paper should be justified and based on the reviewer’s own arguments.
3. In the event that the reviewer suspects author’s scientific dishonesty, especially plagiarism, the reviewer is obliged to notify Editor-in-Chief.
4. A review must be submitted within the time limit set by the Editorial team; should a reviewer be unable to provide a review, they must inform the editorial team of it as soon as possible.
5. Reviews are drawn up anonymously, i.e. the author does not know reviewers’ surnames and reviewers do not know authors’ surnames (double-blind peer review).
6. Manuscripts reviewed are confidential documents which means that the reviewer is not allowed to make it available to third persons except persons authorized by the editor.
7. The reviewer will not review a manuscript if there is a conflict of interest between the reviewer and the author resulting from them working together or from any other relationship between them.
8. The reviewer may not use a rejected manuscript without the author’s consent.
9. Each scholarly text is assessed by a minimum of two independent reviewers in the review process.
10. Surnames of reviewers of individual texts are not revealed in the issue in which the texts are published. The editors post the list collaborating reviewers once a year, publically, on-line.
11. The editors pick as a reviewer for a particular text a person who has research interests, scholarly achievements and competences in the field of science the text belongs to.
12. Text assessment criteria in the review process are provided in the review form.
