The editors of the journal Media - Kultura - Komunikacja Społeczna [Media – Culture – Social Communication] follow the rules of publication ethics according to the guidelines of COPE – Committee on Publication Ethics available at http://www.publicationethics.org/.

The evaluation of articles, reviews, reports, and messages submitted to the editorial staff is of a purely substantive nature and does not depend on race, sex, sexual orientation, religion, an origin of citizenship and political beliefs of the author(s). The editors do not reveal any information about the publishing process to anyone other than those who are authorized to possess them.

The editors are responsible for the honest, fair and professional conduct of the review procedure of the texts sent to the editorial office.

The authors submits a statement confirming that the paper is original and does not violate the copyrights of third parties; it has not been previously published and is not filed in the editorial office of another journal. Multiple submissions and redundant publicatins are not considering.

According to the ghostwriting procedure, the editors ask for information in the submitted papers on the contribution of individual authors to the publication (who is the author of the concepts, assumptions, methods, etc. used in the preparation of publications). At the same time, the editors reminds that ghostwriting as well as guest authorship are manifestations of scientific misconduct, and the main author is responsible for this type of practice.

Texts in which non-authorized practices have been detected will not be published. Any changes concerning the authorship of papers sent to the editorial board must be notified to the editor in writing in the form of a declaration signed by all authors. The editors do not make decisions in disputes regarding the determination of the authorship of the submitted texts.

The editors also asks for information on the sources of financing of the publication, the contribution of scientific research institutions, associations and other entities (“financial disclosure”) in the submitted articles.

If the author(s) used generative artificial intelligence tools to develop any portion of a manuscript, its use must be described, transparently and in detail, in the Methods or Acknowledgements section. The author is fully responsible for the accuracy of any information provided by the AI tool. The final decision about whether use of a GenAI tool is appropriate or permissible in the circumstances of a submitted manuscript or a published article lies with the journal’s editors.

More about COPE and AI: https://publicationethics.org/cope-focus/cope-focus-artificial-intelligence 

The reviewers commit themselves to objectivity in the assessment of the paper, guided by its substantive value and the formal correctness.

Each review is made by independent reviewers in accordance with the double blind peer review rules. The reviewers do not know the names of the authors of the publication, the authors do not know the names of the reviewers. Reviewers are selected from a different institution to the author of the paper. The reviewers confirm that there are no conflicts of interest with the authors.

The reviewer fills in a special review form. From the texts sent to the reviewers, all data enabling the author’s identification, in particular, the name and surname of the author of the article and its affiliation, are deleted. The reviewer is obliged to refrain from preparing the review when he feels incompetent to the assessment of the author’s issues when the preparation of the review prevents a conflict of interest when the preparation of the review is not possible in the editor’s time designated by the editors.

The publisher and the editors undertake adequate actions to clarify the situation regarding plagiarism, scientific dishonesty and unfair preparation of each article, review, report, and communication. Counteracting these types of threats may involve the necessity to refrain from publication of unfairly prepared papers.

All complaints and appeals are carefully handled as quickly as possible. The editors are open to post-publication discussion and corrections. The editors encourage the publication of open data in repositories for future use. 

 In case of discovering any scientific misconduct, the procedure is consistent with the rules accepted by COPE, available at www.publicationethics.org   The most important principles are presented below. The details of the procedures are available at the above mentioned website. In each case of suspected research dishonesty, the editors take into account detailed recommendations of COPE, including a contact with the author/authors and considering the responses obtained during the procedure

 The procedure of the editors with regard to:

- suspected redundant (duplicate) publication in the submitted manuscript: gathering full documentary evidence → checking the extent of overlap/redundancy using the anti-plagiarism software or other sources → depending on the results of examination concerning the extent of overlap/redundancy and response or lack of response from the author, decision on: contacting the author's institution, withdrawing the publication, correcting the text or further proceeding;

- suspected redundant (duplicate) publication in the published article: gathering full documentary evidence → checking the extent of overlap/redundancy using the anti-plagiarism software or other sources → depending on the results of examination concerning the degree of overlap/redundancy and response or lack of response from the author, decision on: contacting the author's institution, withdrawing the publication, correcting the text or further proceeding;

- suspected plagiarism in the submitted manuscript: gathering full documentary evidence → checking the degree of copying → depending on the results of the examination concerning the extent of overlap/repetitions or response or lack of response from the author, a decision on: contacting the author's institution, withdrawing the publication, notifying the author of the other journal involved in this case or the publisher of the plagiarised book, correcting the text or further proceedings;

- suspected plagiarism (plagiarism is defined as using fragments of the text and/or data without attribution of authorship, presented as if they were authored by the plagiarist) in the published article: gathering full documentary evidence→ checking the degree of copying→ depending on the results of the examination concerning overlap/repetitions and response or lack of response from the author, decision on: contacting the author's institution, withdrawing the publication from the electronic version, placing a note about this issue in the subsequent published volume in the traditional and electronic version, notifying the author of the second journal involved in this case or the publisher of the plagiarized book if the accusations are confirmed;

- suspected fabricated data in the submitted manuscript: a request to provide evidence to the person reporting the suspicion concerning data fabrication → data analyses, contact with the author, possibly consulting a third party → depending on the proceeding results, decision on: contacting the author's institution, withdrawing the publication, correction – in case of an unintentional error, or further proceeding in case of unfounded charges;

- suspected fabricated data in the published paper: requests to provide evidence to the person reporting the suspicion concerning data fabrication → data analysis, contact with the author, possibly consulting a third party → depending on the results of the proceeding, decision on: contacting the author's institution, withdrawing the publication if the charges prove are true, corrections in case of an unintentional error;

- changes in the list of authors before publication of the text: explaining the reasons for changing the authorship, checking, verifying whether all authors agree to add/remove another person → if so – adding / removing the author, if not – suspending the review/publication until the issue of authorship is settled by all authors, if necessary, through their institutions;

- changes in the author list after publication of the text: explaining the reasons for changing the authorship, checking whether all authors agree to add/remove a given person → if so, adding/removing the author, if so – publishing the correction, if not – explaining to the authors that the changes will not be made until the consent of all authors is obtained, if it is obtained, publishing the correction, if not, submitting the case to the author's institution with a request to settle the problem, publishing the correction if it is required by the institution;

- suspected ghost authorship, gift authorship or guest authorship: reviewing the text and the author's statement → in case of suspected omission/unjustified addition of any person, contact with the authors to clarify any doubts → in case of necessary changes in the author list, obtaining the consent of all authors → submitting for review/printing.

The entire publication process is carried out in accordance with respect for copyright, intellectual property rights, with no conflicts of interest and with all ethics and protection from malpractice.