Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement

Editorial procedure

The Editorial Board of Studia Ceranea is committed to provide the highest ethical standards at every stage of the publishing procedure. Studia Ceranea is a member of the Board on Publication Ethics (COPE) and strictly follows the rules of that organisation. The review process in Studia Ceranea 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: Guidelines for authors and Guidelines for reviewers.


Editorial procedure – schedule

  1. Contributions to Studia Ceranea are accepted only via the official address of the Editorial Board and the OJS platform.
  2. 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.
  3. 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. At least half of the reviewers for any given issue of Studia Ceranea must be affiliated with an institution outside of the Republic of Poland.
  4. 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.
  5. After all reviews are received, they are read by the Editor in Chief as well as the other members of the Board. In case a submission receives two negative reviews, it is either rejected or a third reviewer is appointed. In case a submission receives one positive and one negative review, a third reviewer is appointed.
  6. 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.
  7. 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.
  8. After the printed version of the volume is published, the Editor in Chief and the Secretary ensure that the list of reviewers is posted at the Studia Ceranea website as well as that the new issue is added to the relevant online repositories and directories in due time.


Author Responsibilities

Reporting standards:  Authors reporting results of original research and submitting their article to Studia Ceranea should present an accurate account of the work performed as well as an objective discussion of its significance. Underlying data should be represented accurately in the manuscript. A paper should contain sufficient detail and references to permit others to replicate the work. Previous relevant discussion on the subject of the paper should be always acknowledged. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behavior and are unacceptable, and in consequence the texts of that kind will not be published in the journal.

Originality and Plagiarism: The authors should ensure that they have written entirely original works, and if the authors have used the work and/or words of others that this has been appropriately cited or quoted. Plagiarism, data manufacturing and data falsification are inacceptable.

Multiple, redundant or concurrent publication:  An author should not publish manuscripts describing essentially the same research in more than one journal or primary publication. Parallel submission of the same manuscript to more than one journal constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable. Such texts will not be published in Studia Ceranea.

Acknowledgement of sources: Proper acknowledgment of the work of others must always be given. Authors should also cite publications that have been influential in determining the nature of the reported work.

Authorship of a manuscript: Authorship should be limited to those who have made a significant contribution to the conception, design, execution, or interpretation of the reported study. All those who have made significant contributions should be listed as co-authors. Where there are others who have participated in certain substantive aspects of the research project, they should be named in an Acknowledgement section or in the first footnote.

The corresponding author should ensure that all appropriate co-authors (according to the above definition) and no inappropriate co-authors are included in the author list of the manuscript, and that all co-authors have seen and approved the final version of the paper and have agreed to its submission for publication.

Disclosure and conflicts of interest: All authors should disclose in their manuscript any financial or other substantive conflict of interest that might be construed to influence the results or their interpretation in the manuscript. All sources of financial support for the project should be disclosed.

Fundamental errors in published works: When an author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in his/her own published work, it is the author’s obligation to promptly notify the journal’s editor or publisher and cooperate with them to either retract the paper or to publish an appropriate erratum.

Availability of data: The authors may be requested to deliver the primary data gathered by them, and they should ensure that the positive answer to such a request is still possible some time after the text is published.


Editor in chief and Editorial Board responsibilities

Accountability: The Editorial Board of Studia Ceranea, and its Editor in Chief in person, are responsible for deciding which articles submitted to the journal should be published, and, moreover, are accountable for everything published in the journal. In making these decisions, the Board may be guided by the policies of the journal’s Editorial Board and is guided by the legal requirements regarding libel, copyright infringement and plagiarism. The Board may confer with other editors or reviewers when making publication decisions. The Board 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 and apologies when needed. As the head of the Editorial Board, the Editor in Chief has final decision on every stage of the procedure and he/she bears personal responsibility for every decision taken by the Board.

Thus, all the below mentioned rules are obligatory to the whole Editorial Board and to the Editor in Chief in particular.

Fairness: The Editorial Board of Studia Ceranea should evaluate manuscripts for intellectual content without regard to race, age, gender, sexual orientation/identity, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, academic position or degree, or political philosophy of the author(s). The Board will not disclose any information about an author to anyone. Identity of author is not revealed to the reviewer until the publication.

Confidentiality: The editor and any editorial staff of Studia Ceranea must not disclose any information about a submitted manuscript to anyone other than the corresponding author, reviewers, potential reviewers (these shall be informed only about the title, length of the text and the abstract), other editorial advisers, and the publisher, as appropriate.

Disclosure, conflicts of interest, and other issues: The Editorial Board of Studia Ceranea will be guided by COPE’s Guidelines for Retracting Articles [DOI: 10.24318/cope.2019.1.4] when considering retracting, issuing expressions of concern about, and issuing corrections pertaining to articles that have been published. Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in an editor’s own research without the express written consent of the author. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage.

The editor of Studia Ceranea is committed to ensuring that advertising, reprint or other commercial revenue has no impact or influence on editorial decisions.

The Editorial Board of Studia Ceranea should seek to ensure a fair and appropriate peer review process. Editors should recuse themselves (i.e. should ask other member of the Editorial Board or Editorial Council to review and consider the manuscript) 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.

Involvement and cooperation in investigations: The Editorial Board of Studia Ceranea should guard the integrity of the published record by issuing corrections and retractions when needed and pursuing suspected or alleged research and publication misconduct. The Board should pursue reviewer and editorial misconduct. It should take reasonably responsive measures when ethical complaints have been presented concerning a submitted manuscript or published paper. If needed, the Board is always willing to publish the appropriate corrections, clarifications or apologies.

Rejection of the text: The Editorial Board of Studia Ceranea refuse to publish the text if:

  • it does not match the chronological and geographical profile of the journal
  • it constitutes plagiarism or violate the copyright
  • it lacks the adequate academic professionalism or bears clear evidence that the findings are unreliable, either as a result of misconduct (e.g. data fabrication) or honest error (e.g. miscalculation or experimental error)
  • the findings have previously been published elsewhere without proper crossreferencing, permission or justification (i.e. cases of redundant publication)
  • it reports unethical research
  • it was not altered or corrected by the author(s) in accordance with the suggestions of the reviewers.

The author is officially informed by the Editorial Board if the text is not accepted due to the aforementioned reasons. Information should indicate the precise reasons of refusal.

Editors and editorial team members are excluded from publication decisions when they are authors or have contributed to a manuscript.


Reviewer Responsibilities

Contribution to editorial decisions: Peer review assists the Editorial Board of Studia Ceranea in making editorial decisions and, through the editorial communication with the author, may also assist the author in improving the manuscript.

Promptness: Any invited referee who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its timely review will be impossible should immediately notify the Board of Studia Ceranea so that alternative reviewers can be contacted.

Confidentiality: 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.

Standards of objectivity: Reviews should be conducted objectively. Personal criticism of the author is inacceptable. Referees should express their views clearly with appropriate supporting arguments.

Acknowledgement of sources: 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 the relevant citation. A reviewer 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.

Disclosure and conflict of interest: Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage. Reviewers should not consider evaluating 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.


For the matters unspecified above COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers should be effectively used 

Concerns & complaints: Anyone who notices any violations of the rules specified above or any unnoticed example of unethical behaviour, fraudulent research or misconduct is kindly asked to contact the Editorial Board and Editor in Chief immediately –