Publication Ethics
The Editorial Board of Review of Historical Sciences [Przegląd Nauk Historycznych] is committed to provide the highest ethical standards at every stage of the publishing procedure. Review of Historical Sciences is a Committee on Publication Ethics member since 2018 and strictly follows the rules of that organisation. The review process in Review of Historical Sciences is arranged by double-blind system. Every text is subject to at least two reviews.
For further information, cf. the rules below and the sections: For Authors and About the Journal
Editorial procedure – schedule
Contributions to Review of Historical Sciences are accepted only via the Journals of the University of Lodz platform.
Immediately upon receiving a new submission, the Secretary of the Editorial Board sends it to the Editor in Chief as well as the other members of the Board. The Editor in Chief entrusts individual members of the Board with the task of a preliminary reading of the submission. The respective members of the Board carry out an initial evaluation of the text and verify that no circumstances colliding with the journal’s ethics (or any other premises making it impossible to accept the text for further procedure) exist.
At a meeting of the Editorial Board, the Editor in Chief and the remaining members of the Board discuss the received articles and decide whether to proceed with the respective submissions or to reject them. Each article accepted for further procedure is assigned two reviewers.
The Secretary is responsible for sending out review requests, collecting the reviews received, as well as informing the Editor in Chief and the Editorial Board about the ongoing progress of the review process.
After all reviews are received, they are read by the Editor in Chief as well as the other members of the Board. In case an article receives two negative reviews, the submission is rejected. In case a submission receives one positive and one negative review, a third reviewer is appointed.
The Secretary communicates the reviewers’ suggestions to the author; after a corrected version of the text is received, the Editor in Chief and the remaining members of the Board decide whether the author has implemented the reviewers’ recommendations in a satisfactory way.
The Secretary collects the accepted definitive versions of the submissions and prepares the final table of contents; after the entire issue has been accepted for publication by the Editor in Chief, the Secretary delivers it to the publisher.
After the printed version of the volume is published, the Editor in Chief and the Secretary ensure that the new issue is added to the relevant online repositories and directories in due time.
The following policy was created in accordance with COPE standards.
Policies and Guidelines for Authors
1. Authors submitting results of their original research in Review of Historical Sciences should present an accurate account of the work performed as well as an objective discussion of its significance in the field of history. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behaviour and are unacceptable.
2. Review of Historical Sciences publishes exclusively original research results. Authors should therefore ensure that they have written entirely original works and, if they have used the work and/or words of others, that this has been appropriately cited or quoted.
3. Manuscripts describing essentially the same or redundant research in more than one journal or primary publication generally should not be published. Parallel submission of the same paper to more than one journal constitutes unethical publishing behaviour and it will not be accepted in Review of Historical Sciences.
4. It is requested to limit the authorship only to those who have made a significant contribution to the conception, design, execution, or interpretation of the reported study. The corresponding author must ensure that all contributors are listed as co-authors (according to the above definition) and that no inappropriate names are included in the submitted authors list. Where there are others who have participated in certain substantive aspects of the research project, they should be named in an Acknowledgement section.
5. All co-authors should approve the final version of the paper and agree to its submission for publication in the Review of Historical Sciences.
6. The financial or other substantive conflicts of interest that might be construed to influence the results or their interpretation on the part of all of the co-authors should be made known in the manuscript submitted to Review of Historical Sciences. All sources of financial support for the project should also be disclosed.
7. When the authors discover a significant error or inaccuracy in their own published work, they are obligated to promptly notify the Review of Historical Sciences editorial team and collaborate with the editors and publisher to retract the paper or to issue an appropriate erratum.
8. To publish the research that contains personal data (including surveys and social media) in Review of Historical Sciences, the authors must obtain approval and a positive opinion from their institutional committee of ethics. Authors affiliated with the Univeristy of Lodz must obtain approval of the audit commission operating at the University of Lodz as a form of supervision to establish ethical standards and suggested forms (e.g., in the context of sensitive questions). The authors should provide the Editorial Board with proof that the research was conducted with the informed consent of respondents and in accordance with General Data Protection Regulation (Regulation 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 (EU) 2016/679, abbreviated GDPR).
9. Publishing the photographic image of people performing public functions who are not widely known and who were not presented against the background of the landscape or immortalized among other people during a public event requires obtaining their consent for the dissemination of the image and the processing of personal data (GPRD - obligation to provide information about personal data protection).
10. The submission must not violate the rights of third parties, in particular other copyrights, and all necessary permissions regarding the use of copyrighted materials have been obtained by the Author(s) and submitted to the Editor.
Policies and Guidelines for Editors
Editorial Team of Review of Historical Sciences
1. The editor of Review of Historical Sciences 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, they may be guided by the policies of the journal’s editorial team as well as by legal requirements regarding libel, copyright infringement and plagiarism.
2. When making publication decisions the editors may confer with each other or with the reviewers.
3. The editor should maintain the integrity of the academic record, preclude business needs from compromising intellectual and ethical standards, and always be willing to publish corrections, clarifications, retractions, errata and apologies when needed.
4. The editor of Review of Historical Sciences 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).
5. Any information about a manuscript under consideration is confidential and should not be disclosed to anyone other than the author(s), reviewers and potential reviewers, and in some instances the editorial team members, as appropriate.
6. The editors cannot use unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript in their own research without the express written consent of the authors.
7. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage.
8. The editors of the Review of Historical Sciences should ensure a fair and appropriate peer review process.
9. The editors should withdraw from the editorial process for the manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships and connections with any of the authors, companies, or (possibly) institutions connected to the submitted research; i.e. they should ask co-editor, associate editor or another member of the editorial team to replace them in reviewing the submission.
10. Those who submit complaints and appeals (whistleblowers) are kindly requested to help the editors of Review of Historical Sciences to record and document the claim (e.g. data manipulation or fabrication, text recycling, plagiarism, research misconduct). The report should include:
– specific information about the case (who, what, when, where, why),
– in case of plagiarism and text recycling, details should be given about the relevant texts/articles.
11. The editors should take reasonably responsive measures when ethical complaints about both the submitted manuscript and published paper have been presented.
When considering retracting, issuing expressions of concern and corrections pertaining to articles that have been published in Review of Historical Sciences the editors will be guided by COPE’s Guidelines for Retracting Articles.
12. The editors should guard the integrity of the content published in the Review of Historical Sciences by issuing corrections and retractions when needed.
13. If competing interests of any of the contributors are revealed after publication, the editors should ensure that relevant information will be disclosed and issue erratum. If needed, other appropriate action should be taken, such as the publication of a retraction or expression of concern.
14. The editors should investigate and pursue suspected or alleged research and publication misconduct as well as reviewer and editorial misconduct.
15. The editor is obliged to inform other members of the editorial team about any ethical concerns with the submitted manuscripts (lack of consent or reservations of the ethical committee regarding the protection of image, personal data). In such a situation, the editor is obliged to ask the author to provide relevant certificates and documents. When the answer is satisfactory, the publishing process could be resumed, in the absence of clarification or in case of any objections – the review of the manuscript should be suspended, and the misconduct – reported to COPE and/or persons responsible for supervision over the research in the appropriate institution. If the matter has not been clarified after 3 to 6 months, it should be reported to other authorities (i.e. ethics committee, disciplinary spokesman of the university where the author is affiliated).
16. In the case of texts submitted for publication by the members of the Editorial Board, the reviewers are selected by the Scientific Council.
Policies and Guidelines for Reviewers
The peer review process in Review of Historical Sciences is arranged by a double-blind system. Every text is subject to at least two reviews.
1. The reviewers assist the editor in making editorial decisions and, through the editorial communication with the author, may also assist the author in improving the manuscript.
2. If the researchers invited to peer review the manuscript feel unqualified or know that its timely review will be impossible, they should immediately notify the Review of Historical Sciences editors so that alternative reviewers can be contacted.
3. The referees are kindly requested to treat any manuscripts received for review as confidential documents. They must not be shown to or discussed with others except if authorized by the editors of Review of Historical Sciences.
4. The review process should be conducted with objectivity. Personal criticism of the author is unacceptable. The opinions and recommendations should be expressed clearly with appropriate supporting arguments.
5. The 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 a suitable citation.
6. The reviewers should also call to the editor’s attention any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published data of which they have personal knowledge.
7. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage.
8. The reviewers should refuse to evaluate the 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 submission.
9. The reviewers are obliged to inform the editorial team of Review of Historical Sciences about any ethical concerns with the submitted manuscripts (lack of consent or reservations of the ethical committee regarding the protection of image, personal data). In such a situation, the editorial team is obliged to ask the authors to provide relevant certificates and documents. When the answer is satisfactory, the publishing process could be resumed, in the absence of clarification or in case of any objections – the review of the manuscript should be suspended, and the misconduct – reported to COPE and/or persons responsible for supervision over the research in the appropriate institution. If the matter has not been clarified after 3 to 6 months, it should be reported to other authorities (i.e. ethics committee, disciplinary spokesman of the university where the authors are affiliated).
Policies and Guidelines for the Publisher
Lodz University Press is obliged to collect and share with the editors all complaints and appeals received against the Review of Historical Sciences, its staff and the editorial team or the publisher itself. The publisher is also obliged to inform COPE when there is any violation of Publication Ethics or any other ethical policies followed by the University of Lodz.
Sources:
https://publicationethics.org/guidance
https://publicationethics.org/core-practices
https://publicationethics.org/files/ethical-problem-in-submitted-manuscript-cope-flowchart.pdf
