Opuscula Sociologica adheres to the ethical principles compliant with the COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics) standards. These rules apply to all parties involved in the publishing proceedings, i.e. Editorial Staff, Authors, Reviewers and the Publisher. The journal functions in the spirit of these principles practically from the beginning of its existence. Each publication submitted to the journal is evaluated in respect of its consistency with the field of which the journal is dedicated, authenticity, substance, and compliance with ethical standards, including those regulated by COPE, as well as the Sociologist's Ethics Code http://pts.org.pl/wp-content /uploads/2016/04/kodeks.pdf .
Duties of the Editors
The editors monitor the ethical standards of the scientific publications and take all available measures to prevent an abuse.
Substantiveness. The submitted manuscripts are evaluated in terms of their cognitive value, regardless of race, gender, sexual orientation, political views, religious beliefs, citizenship of the Author, or other non-substantive matters.
Decisions on publishing made at the level of Editorial Board. The editor is responsible for making a decision which of the submitted articles should be published and which should not. The decision on the acceptance of an article for publication or the rejection is based on an assessment of its originality, transparency and compliance with the scope of the journal. The decision to reject the article is preceded by consultations within the editorial board and with the representatives of the Scientific Council.
The substantive content of the works unpublished/rejected by the editors cannot be used in any way by the persons participating in the review of the manuscript.
Confidentiality. During editorial work, the Editor and editorial staff must ensure that all materials submitted to the journal remain confidential. Aside from Authors, Editors and Reviewers, information about the submitted manuscript should not be disclosed to third parties.
Integrity of the published content. The editors will safeguard the integrity of the published content. If necessary, they undertake to issue emendations and, if possible, to correct errors.
Withdrawal of articles. The journal's editors will consider withdrawing the publication if:
- they have a clear indication that the results are unreliable, as a result of either improper behaviour (e.g. data creation) or a non-intentional error (e.g. an error in the calculation)
- findings have been previously published elsewhere, and the text lacks relevant information and/or justification for re-presenting them
- the article is a plagiarism or the editors received a credible information that the ethical standards regulated by the Sociologist's Code of Ethics were violated during the research.
Notification about the withdrawal of the article should specify the reasons for the Editors to withdraw the given publication.
The published works, which have been questioned by external subjects who are not involved in the preparation of the journal, and these doubts have been recognised as a result of a definite proceeding, must be marked as clearly as possible by the editors.
The editors also reserve the right to suspend publication until the settlement of the doubts about the originality of the work or the truth of the presented research results. At the same time, the Editors undertake that in the event of resolving the above doubts in favor of the Author, they will take action enabling the publication of the article in the closest possible issue, of which they will immediately inform the Author.
The editors are ready to withdraw from decisions made on the basis of erroneous premises, to provide explanations and to apologise if in the course of their activities goods of any of the parties have been violated.
Responsibilities of the Authors
Standards of reporting. Authors of an original research should present a detailed description of the research carried out and an objective discussion about its significance. The basic data should be exactly presented. The article should contain enough details and references to allow others to refer to the results obtained by the author or to repeat the tests. Producing false results and false or deliberately imprecise conclusions is an unethical behaviour and will result in the rejection of the manuscript or withdrawal of the published article.
Originality and plagiarism. Authors should make sure that they have written entirely original work, and if they have used the work or words of other persons, it must be marked accordingly with the requires of the Editors. Plagiarism and the use of dishonestly presented data are unacceptable.
Data preservation. Authors may be required to provide the Editors with data presented in the article and should be prepared to provide such data within a reasonable period of time after publication.
Duplicated or parallel publication. Authors should not publish a manuscript describing basically the same study in more than one journal. Submitting the same manuscript simultaneously to more than one journal is an unethical behaviour and is unacceptable.
Authorship of the manuscript. An authorship should be limited to those who have made a significant contribution to the concept, project, realisation or interpretation of the study and the development of a report. Similar requirements apply to the authorship in the case of a theoretical article. All contributors should be listed as co-authors.
The Responsible Author should ensure that all co-authors have seen and approved the final version of the article and agreed to submit it for publication.
Acknowledgement of sources. The authors are obliged to indicate publications that influenced the creation of their article, which should be marked by references and inclusion of the sources into the bibliography of the work.
Relevant errors in published works. If an Author discovers any essential errors or inaccuracies in his/her published work, he/she should immediately notify the Editors of the journal or the Publisher, and cooperate by making appropriate corrections in his/her work.
Responsibilities of the Reviewers
Impact on the Editorial Board's decisions. Scientific peer reviews, prepared by renowned specialists, are crucial for making editorial decisions, and can also help authors improve their manuscript.
Promptness. A Reviewer who has been presented with a review proposal and who does not feel sufficiently competent in issues raised in the manuscript or knows that a timely evaluation of the publication presented to him/her is impossible, should inform the Editor as soon as possible.
Confidentiality. All manuscripts received for the appraisal must be treated as confidential documents. They should not be shown or discussed with other people, except for persons authorised by the Editorial Board.
Standards of objectivity. Opinions should be of an objective nature, i.e. the Reviewer should be guided solely by scientific criteria, and his/her opinions should be supported by appropriate arguments. The Reviewer's personal views cannot affect the evaluation of the reviewed work. It is also unacceptable to criticise the very Author's person.
Recognition of sources. Reviewers should, if possible, identify the appropriate published works that have not been accounted by the Author. Any significant similarities or replications visible in the examined manuscript when juxtaposed with the other published document should be reported to the Editor.
Disclosure and a conflict of interest. Information or ideas obtained as a result of the assessment must be confidential and cannot be used for personal gains. Reviewers should not undertake the evaluation of manuscripts when there are conflicts of interest resulting from the competition, cooperation or other relationship with any of the authors, institutions, or other subjects involved in the creation of the article.