Ordinance No. 43/2026 of the Rector of UKSW of 2 June 2026

Appendix No. 1

Last updated: 2026-06-05

Publishing Ethics Policy of the Cardinal Stefan Wyszynski University in Warsaw Applicable to UKSW Journals

The UKSW Policy on Publishing Ethics applicable to UKSW journals, hereinafter referred to as the “Publishing Ethics Policy”, applies to all journals published by the Publishing House of the Cardinal Stefan Wyszynski University in Warsaw (UKSW Publishing House). The Publishing Ethics Policy does not apply to journals hosted on the UKSW journal platform and published by other publishers.

1. Purpose and Nature of the Policy

The Publishing Ethics Policy establishes unified ethical principles and good practices applicable to all journals published by the UKSW Publishing House. The Publishing Ethics Policy replaces previous journal-specific regulations regarding ethical standards of publishing, peer review, and procedures applied in disputed or problematic situations.

Within the Publishing Ethics Policy, UKSW adopts as its point of reference the standards and good practices developed by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), in particular the COPE Core Practices and COPE Guidance (recommended procedures in cases of suspected misconduct, corrections, and retractions). The Publishing Ethics Policy also remains consistent with the principles applicable at UKSW, including the provisions of the UKSW Researcher’s Code of Ethics.

2. Scope and Definitions

2.1. Scope in Terms of Persons Covered

The Publishing Ethics Policy applies to authors, co-authors, editors (including the Editor-in-Chief), members of Scientific Committees, reviewers, and other persons involved in the publishing process of journals.

2.2. Selected Definitions

1. Ethical violations/misconduct: including plagiarism, undisclosed self-plagiarism, fabrication/falsification of data, peer review manipulation, undisclosed conflicts of interest, copyright infringement, improper authorship (ghost/guest/gift authorship), and citation manipulation;

2. Conflict of interest: a situation in which financial, institutional, personal, or competitive relationships may influence (or appear to influence) the impartiality of decisions made during the publishing process;

3. Double-blind peer review: a review model in which the reviewer does not know the identity of the author and the author does not know the identity of the reviewer, insofar as permitted by the nature of the discipline;

4. Expression of concern: an editorial notice published in cases of serious concerns regarding an article when an investigation is ongoing and there are, at that stage, insufficient grounds for correction or retraction.

3. Roles and Responsibilities

3.1. The editorial team is responsible for:

1. conducting the editorial and peer review process in accordance with the Publishing Ethics Policy;

2. selecting reviewers in an independent and impartial manner;

3. ensuring the confidentiality of the peer review process;

4. responding to suspected ethical violations and maintaining documentation of cases;

5. making decisions concerning corrections/retractions/expressions of concern after publication (in accordance with Section 10).

3.2. Authors are responsible for:

1. the originality of the work, academic integrity, and the accuracy of the scholarly apparatus;

2. proper citation practices and respect for copyright;

3. disclosure of funding sources and conflicts of interest;

4. accurate attribution of authorship and co-author contributions (absence of ghost/guest/gift authorship);

5. cooperation during peer review, corrections, and clarification procedures;

6. compliance with research ethics requirements (where applicable), including obtaining the necessary approvals from competent ethics committees (Section 8).

3.3. Reviewers are responsible for:

1. maintaining confidentiality, reliability, and timeliness of reviews;

2. disclosing conflicts of interest and withdrawing where such conflicts exist;

3. not using the reviewed material for personal purposes.

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

4. Peer Review Process

1. Each journal published by the UKSW Publishing House applies double-blind peer review as the default model;

2. At least two external reviews constitute the standard for each scholarly text qualified for publication;

3. Reviewers are selected on the basis of scholarly competence and verification of the absence of conflicts of interest;

4. Editorial teams undertake measures to prevent peer review misconduct, including verification of reviewer identities and responding to signs of peer review manipulation;

5. Any deviation from the peer review standard requires a documented editorial decision;

6. Each journal publishes on its website the evaluation criteria used in the peer review process. Editorial teams monitor the integrity and reliability of the peer review process. Journals also publish annually a list of reviewers cooperating with the journal, without assigning reviewers to specific articles.

4.1. Exceptions and Special Rules

1. External peer review may be waived exclusively for content of an informational or editorial nature (e.g. editorials, reports, editorial communications);

2. Review articles and all other scholarly texts subject to substantive evaluation are assessed in accordance with the standard requiring at least two external reviews conducted under the double-blind peer review model.

5. Conflict of Interest

1. Authors are required to disclose funding sources and potential conflicts of interest upon article submission;

2. Reviewers and editors are required to disclose conflicts of interest before undertaking editorial or review activities and to withdraw where such conflicts may affect impartiality or create a justified appearance of bias;

3. In cases of conflicts of interest, the editorial team applies appropriate corrective measures, including exclusion from the process, replacement of the reviewer, or reassignment of the case to another editor;

4. Information on funding and on significant conflicts of interest of the authors—if applicable to a given article—is disclosed in the publication in the form of a statement;

5. Failure to disclose a significant conflict of interest may result in suspension of the publishing process, refusal of publication, and, after publication, a correction or retraction.

6. Originality, Plagiarism, and Similarity Assessment

1. The editorial teams of journals published by the UKSW Publishing House assess the originality of submissions, including conducting a similarity check using appropriate tools;

2. Depending on the editorial practice and the specificity of the discipline, various similarity-checking tools may be used, including iThenticate, tools recommended by Polish Ministry of Science and Higher Education, or other tools, provided that they are appropriate to the type of content and ensure comparison against relevant databases;

3. The result of a similarity assessment does not in itself constitute a sufficient basis for a decision. The editorial team interprets it substantively, taking into account, among other things, proper citation, the bibliography, acceptable methodological similarities, and the nature of the text;

4. In the case of justified suspicions of plagiarism or other forms of misconduct, the editorial team takes action in accordance with the principle of due investigatory procedure and, where necessary, applies measures appropriate to the findings (e.g., suspension of the process, refusal of publication, correction/retraction/statement of concern);

5. Authors are required to retain source materials and/or the data underlying the findings presented in the article and, upon a justified request from the editorial team, to make them available to the extent necessary to verify the integrity of the work. Any processing of materials (in particular illustrations, graphs, and images) that could mislead or affect the interpretation of the presented findings is unacceptable.

7. Authorship and Prohibited Practices

1. Authorship must reflect the actual contribution of the individual authors to the preparation of the work;

2. Ghostwriting and guest/gift authorship are prohibited practices;

3. If irregularities are identified, the editorial team will request explanations and may refuse publication; in the case of articles already published, it may issue a correction or retract the publication;

4. The editorial team requires authors to submit an author contributions statement in order to ensure transparency of authorship.

8. Research Ethics Involving Humans or Animals

1. If the research involves human participants or animals, the authors are required to obtain the necessary approvals, opinions, or decisions of the competent ethics committees and to comply with the applicable regulations and standards;

2. In the case of research involving human participants, the authors are additionally required to obtain the informed consent of the research participants, if this is required by law, by the ethical standards of the discipline concerned, or by the nature of the research conducted;

3. The authors are responsible for meeting ethical and legal requirements and, at the editorial team’s request, for providing documents confirming compliance with these requirements;

4. The editorial team may suspend the review or publication process, or refuse publication, if the required approvals are missing or if there are justified concerns regarding the ethics of the research.

9. Complaints and Appeals

UKSW Publishing House ensures the possibility of submitting complaints and appeals regarding the editorial process, peer review, and decisions made in ethical matters (e.g. conflicts of interest, plagiarism, peer review manipulation, and correction/retraction of publications). Complaints are considered impartially, confidentially, and with documented findings.

9.1. How to submit reports

1. Reports regarding ethical violations should be sent to the UKSW Publishing House by email to: etyka.wydawnictwo@uksw.edu.pl.

2. If the report does not concern irregularities on the part of the editorial team, it is also permissible to send the report simultaneously to the editorial office of the journal concerned (to the address indicated on the journal’s website).

9.2. Review procedure

1. Initial verification and the position of the journal’s editorial team (unless the report concerns irregularities on the part of the editorial team);

2. If the report concerns irregularities on the part of the editorial team, or if the complainant does not agree with the decision, the case may be referred to the director of the institute supervising the journal and then, if necessary, to the dean of the competent faculty as the appellate body;

3. In highly complex cases, the principles arising from the UKSW Researcher Code of Ethics and other internal UKSW regulations may apply.

9.3. Investigatory procedure

The recipient of the report (the UKSW Publishing House or the editorial team) acknowledges receipt of the report and informs the parties of the outcome within a reasonable time. In the event of a report concerning suspected ethical violations, the editorial team and/or the publisher conduct an investigatory procedure in an impartial and documented manner:

1. they register the report and verify its initial grounds;

2. they obtain the positions of the parties, including the author(s);

3. where necessary, they seek the opinion of reviewers or independent experts;

4. they make a decision appropriate to the findings (e.g. continuation of the procedure, suspension, refusal of publication, correction/retraction/statement of concern);

5. they inform the parties of the decision and its grounds, indicating the appeal procedure.

10. Corrections, Retractions, and Editorial Notices After Publication

1. If an article has already been published, the following actions may be applied:

a) correction (erratum/corrigendum),

b) retraction,

c) editorial expression of concern.

2. The author may request a correction or retraction, but the decision is made by the journal’s editorial team and/or the publisher in accordance with the principle of academic integrity and good COPE practices.

3. Information on corrections and retractions is published in a visible and unambiguous manner, with reference to the original version of the publication and a permanent link to the article (e.g. through an editorial notice and a status designation for the publication, including, where technically possible, also in the metadata and in the PDF file).

4. Retraction occurs in particular in cases of serious ethical violations, data fabrication, plagiarism, significant errors undermining the credibility of the results, or other circumstances making it impossible to maintain the publication within 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.

5. An editorial expression of concern is published in cases of serious doubt when an investigatory procedure is ongoing and, at that stage, there are not yet sufficient grounds for a correction or retraction; after the conclusion of the procedure, the editorial team decides on the further course of action (correction/retraction/removal of the notice).

6. The editorial team may, at its own discretion and in accordance with the journal’s profile, allow the publication of polemics, replies to polemics, 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, if the editorial team considers it justified, to peer review.

11. AI Tools

UKSW has adopted a policy on the use of artificial intelligence (AI) tools. This policy is uniform for all journals published by the UKSW Publishing House and is made available on the journals’ websites. Editorial teams and authors are required to comply with this policy, including, among other things, the permissible uses of AI, the obligation to disclose the use of AI tools, and responsibility for the content.

12. Copyright, Licence, and Version Deposit

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

13. Confidentiality and Data Protection

Ethics procedures, peer review, and complaints are conducted with due regard for confidentiality. Personal data are processed only to the extent necessary for carrying out the publishing process and handling cases, in accordance with the applicable regulations and UKSW policies on data protection (GDPR).

14. Updating the Publishing Ethics Policy

1. The Publishing Ethics Policy is subject to periodic review in order to ensure its compliance with applicable legal regulations, academic standards, and good practices in publication ethics.

2. The review referred to above is conducted at least once every two years from the date of entry into force of the Publishing Ethics Policy or its last update.

3. Regardless of the period indicated above, the review and update of the Publishing Ethics Policy are conducted whenever significant changes occur in international publication ethics standards, in particular COPE guidelines, affecting the content or scope of the Policy.

4. The UKSW Publishing House is responsible for monitoring such changes and initiating the review and update procedure.

The document is prepared in two language versions: Polish and English. The Polish-language version shall be considered the original and authoritative version. In the event of any discrepancies or doubts in interpretation, the Polish version shall prevail.