Code of Ethics

UKSW PUBLISHING HOUSE POLICY
on Publication Ethics Standards Applicable to UKSW Journals

Last updated: 2026-03-15
Version: 1.3

This Policy applies to all journals for which the publisher is UKSW Publishing House (Wydawnictwo Naukowe UKSW). It does not apply to journals that are only hosted on the UKSW journals platform but are published by other publishers.

1. Purpose and nature of the Policy

This Policy sets out uniform ethical standards and good practices applicable to all journals published by UKSW Publishing House. It replaces previous, journal-specific ethics rules with one unified set of standards covering publication ethics, peer review, and procedures for handling disputes or other problematic situations.

UKSW Publishing House, in this Policy, adopts as a reference point the standards and good practices developed by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), in particular the COPE Core Practices and COPE Guidance (recommended procedures for handling suspected misconduct, corrections, and retractions). This Policy is also consistent with the rules in force at UKSW, including the provisions of the UKSW Researcher’s Code of Ethics (Kodeks Etycznego Badacza UKSW).

2. Scope and definitions

2.1. Personal scope

This Policy applies to: authors and co-authors, editors (including the Editor-in-Chief), members of editorial/advisory boards and scientific committees, reviewers, and other persons involved in the publishing process of the journals.

2.2. Selected definitions

Ethical breaches / misconduct: including, but not limited to, plagiarism, undisclosed self-plagiarism, fabrication/falsification of data, peer-review manipulation, concealment of conflicts of interest, copyright infringement, improper authorship (ghost/guest/gift authorship), and citation manipulation.
Conflict of interest (COI): a situation in which financial, institutional, personal, or competitive relationships may influence (or may reasonably be perceived to influence) the impartiality of decisions made in the publishing process.
Double-blind peer review: the reviewer does not know the identity of the author, and the author does not know the identity of the reviewer (to the extent feasible in a given discipline).
Editorial expression of concern (Expression of Concern): an editorial notice published when there are serious concerns about an article, the investigation is ongoing, and at that stage there are no grounds for a correction or retraction.

3. Roles and responsibilities

The editorial team is responsible for:

conducting the editorial process and peer review in accordance with this Policy;
selecting reviewers independently and impartially;
ensuring confidentiality of the peer-review process;
responding to suspected ethical breaches and keeping appropriate records of cases;
making decisions on post-publication actions (corrections/retractions/expressions of concern), in accordance with Section 10.

Authors are responsible for:

ensuring the originality of the work, the reliability of its scholarly content, and the correctness of the scholarly apparatus;
proper citation and respect for copyright;
disclosure of funding and conflicts of interest;
accurate authorship and clear attribution of each co-author’s contribution (no ghost/guest/gift authorship);
cooperating during peer review, corrections, and requests for clarification;
meeting research ethics requirements (where applicable), including obtaining required approvals from relevant ethics committees (Section 8).

Reviewers are responsible for:

confidentiality, diligence, and timely completion of reviews;
disclosing conflicts of interest and withdrawing from the review if a COI exists;
not using information from the reviewed manuscript for their own purposes.

All decisions are made solely on the basis of scholarly merit and compliance with this Policy, without discrimination based on sex, age, nationality, origin, beliefs, institutional affiliation, or any other characteristics unrelated to the content of the work.

4. Peer-review process

Each journal published by UKSW Publishing House uses double-blind peer review as the default model.
As a standard, at least two external reviews are required for each scholarly text submitted for publication.
Reviewers are selected based on relevant expertise and verification that no conflict of interest exists.
Editorial teams take measures to prevent abuse of the peer-review process, including verification of reviewer identity and responding to signals of peer-review manipulation.
Any departure from the standard peer-review procedure must be documented by the editorial team.
Each journal publishes on its website the review criteria used in the peer-review process. As part of quality assurance, editorial teams monitor the correctness and integrity of the peer-review procedure. Journals also publish, once a year, a list of reviewers who have contributed to the journal, without linking reviewers to specific articles.

Exceptions and special rules:

External peer review may be waived only for texts of an informational or editorial nature (e.g., editorials, reports, editorial communications).
Review articles and all other scholarly texts requiring substantive evaluation are peer-reviewed in line with the standard of at least two double-blind reviews.

5. Conflicts of interest (COI)

Authors must disclose sources of funding and any potential conflicts of interest when submitting an article.
Reviewers and editors must disclose conflicts of interest before undertaking any editorial or review activity and must withdraw from the case if the conflict may affect impartiality (or could reasonably create the appearance of bias).
If a conflict of interest is identified, the editorial team applies appropriate mitigation measures, in particular: removing the conflicted person from the process, appointing a different reviewer, or assigning the case to another editor.
Information about funding and significant author conflicts of interest—if relevant to a given article—is disclosed in the published paper as a formal statement.
Failure to disclose a significant COI may result in suspension of the process, rejection of the manuscript, and—if the article has already been published—a correction or retraction.

6. Originality, plagiarism, and similarity checking

Editorial teams of journals published by UKSW Publishing House assess the originality of submissions, including by conducting a similarity check using appropriate tools.
Depending on editorial practice and the discipline, different similarity-checking tools may be used, including, for example, iThenticate, tools recommended by the Polish Ministry of Science and Higher Education, or other tools, provided that they are appropriate to the type of content and enable comparison against relevant databases.
Similarity-check results are not, by themselves, the basis for a final decision. The editorial team interprets them substantively, taking into account, among other things, proper quotations and citations, the bibliography, permissible methodological similarities, and the nature of the text.
Where there is a justified suspicion of plagiarism or other misconduct, the editorial team proceeds in line with the investigation principle and—if necessary—applies measures appropriate to the findings (e.g., suspension of the process, rejection, correction/retraction/expression of concern).
Authors must retain source materials and/or data underpinning the findings presented in the article and—upon a justified request from the editorial team—make them available to the extent necessary to verify the integrity of the work. Manipulation of materials (in particular figures, charts, and images) that could mislead readers or affect interpretation of the reported findings is not permitted.

7. Authorship and unacceptable practices

Authorship must reflect the genuine contribution of each author to the work.
Ghostwriting and guest/gift authorship are not permitted.
If irregularities are identified, the editorial team requests explanations and may reject the manuscript; for already published papers, the editorial team may issue a correction or a retraction.
The editorial team requires authors to submit an author contributions statement in order to ensure transparency of authorship.

8. Ethics of research involving humans or animals

If research involves humans or animals, authors must obtain the required approvals, opinions, or decisions from relevant ethics committees and comply with applicable regulations and standards.
In the case of research involving human participants, authors must also obtain the informed consent of the participants where required by law, the ethical standards of the relevant discipline, or the nature of the research.
Authors are responsible for meeting ethical and legal requirements and—upon request from the editorial team—for providing documents confirming compliance.
The editorial team may suspend processing or refuse publication if required approvals are missing or if there are justified concerns regarding research ethics.

9. Complaints and appeals

UKSW Publishing House provides the possibility to submit complaints and appeals concerning the editorial process, peer review, and decisions made in ethical matters (e.g., conflicts of interest, plagiarism, peer-review manipulation, correction/retraction decisions). Complaints are considered impartially, with confidentiality and documented findings.

9.1. How to submit a report

Reports concerning ethical breaches should be submitted by email to: etyka.wydawnictwo@uksw.edu.pl.
If the report does not concern the editorial team, it may also be sent in parallel to the editorial office of the relevant journal (address provided on the journal’s website).

9.2. Review pathway

Initial verification and the journal editorial team’s position (unless the report concerns the editorial team itself).
If the report concerns the editorial team, or if the complainant disagrees with the outcome, the case may be forwarded to:

the Director of the Institute supervising the journal, and then—if necessary—to
the Dean of the relevant Faculty as the appellate authority.

In highly complex cases, the principles set out in the UKSW Researcher’s Code of Ethics and other internal UKSW regulations may apply.

9.3. Investigation procedure

UKSW Publishing House and/or the editorial team acknowledges receipt of the report and communicates the outcome within a reasonable time. When a suspected ethical breach is reported, the editorial team and/or the publisher conducts an investigation in an impartial and documented manner:

registers the report and verifies its initial basis;
obtains statements from the parties involved, including the author(s);
where necessary, seeks opinions from reviewers or independent experts;
makes a decision appropriate to the findings (e.g., continue processing, suspend processing, reject the manuscript, correction/retraction/expression of concern);
informs the parties of the decision and its grounds, indicating the appeal route.

10. Corrections, retractions, and editorial notices after publication

If an article has already been published, the following actions may be applied: (1) a correction (erratum/corrigendum), (2) a retraction, or (3) an editorial expression of concern.
An author may request a correction or retraction, but the decision is made by the journal editorial team (and/or the publisher) in line with the principle of academic integrity and COPE good practices.
Information about corrections and retractions is published in a clear and visible way, with reference to the original version of the publication and a durable link to the article (e.g., through an editorial notice and appropriate status marking of the publication, including – where technically feasible – marking in the metadata and in the PDF file).
Retraction is applied in particular in cases of serious ethical breaches, data fabrication, plagiarism, material errors undermining the reliability of the findings, or other circumstances that make it impossible to maintain the publication in the scholarly record. Retraction does not consist in removing the content from the archive, but in clearly marking it as retracted, while preserving the integrity of the publication record.
An editorial expression of concern is published when there are serious doubts, the investigation is ongoing, and at that stage there are no grounds for a correction or retraction; after the investigation, the editorial team decides on the next step (correction/retraction/removal of the notice).
The editorial team may, at its discretion and in line with the journal’s scope, enable the publication of scholarly debates, replies, explanations, or corrections relating to published content. The decision to accept such a text rests with the editorial team and may be subject to editorial assessment and, where the editorial team considers it appropriate, peer review.

11. AI tools

UKSW Publishing House has adopted a policy on the use of artificial intelligence (AI) tools. This policy is uniform for all journals published by UKSW Publishing House and is made available on the journals’ websites. Editorial teams and authors must follow this policy, including rules on permitted AI use, disclosure of AI use, and responsibility for content.
Permanent link (once available): [LINK: UKSW Publishing House AI Policy]

12. Copyright, licence, and depositing different versions

Copyright in all published content is retained by the authors. At the same time, authors sign a publication agreement with UKSW Publishing House, which governs the use of the work under the CC BY-ND 4.0 International licence. Authors may deposit the submitted, accepted, and published versions of their texts in an institutional repository or another repository of the author’s choice without embargo.

13. Confidentiality and data protection

Ethical investigations, peer-review procedures, and complaints are handled with confidentiality. Personal data are processed only to the extent necessary for the publishing process and for handling cases, in accordance with applicable law and UKSW policies (GDPR).