CODE OF ETHICS

PRINCIPLES OF PUBLICATION ETHICS AND COUNTERACTING UNFAIR PUBLICATION PRACTICES

THE REVIEW OF PSYCHOLOGY (PRZEGLĄD PSYCHOLOGICZNY) follows the ethical principles and procedures recommended by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE, https://publicationethics.org/) in its publication activities.

All articles submitted for publication in THE REVIEW OF PSYCHOLOGY are screened for compliance with COPE's ethical principles and for their reliability, value and scientific usefulness.

The following are the main ethical principles of THE REVIEW OF PSYCHOLOGY based on COPE recommendations. COPE recommendations apply in all other circumstances that are not listed in the below set of principles.

These principles apply to Editorial Team members as well as reviewers and authors of scientific articles.

Rules applicable to Editorial Team members

Editorial Team members:

• continually monitor the observance of ethical principles and standards;
• undertake actions related to verification and documentation; and respond to scientific misconduct and abuse in publication practice;
• do not use do not use materials submitted to the Editorial Office in their own research;
• treat all authors equally regardless of their sex, race, nationality or origin;
• take steps to prevent conflicts of interest;
• supervise the selection of reviewers and the reviewing process;
• keep in confidence and do not disclose to a third party any materials that have been submitted to the Journal;
• take responsibility for the content published in the Journal;
• are guided by the substantive opinions of independent reviewers in the review process (double blind review) in their decisions to publish an article;
• decide whether to accept or reject an article for publication based on the importance, originality and clarity of the presented research and its relevance to the Journal’s scope.

Rules applicable to reviewers

A reviewer:

• reviews a scientific article in a field where he/she has the required scientific expertise that enables a fair review;
• notifies the Editor and refuses to review the article if a conflict of interest (personal, financial, professional, intellectual, etc.) is suspected with respect to the submitted article;
• meets the deadlines indicated by the Editor for completing the review, and if the review cannot be completed or an existing obligation cannot be fulfilled, the reviewer shall notify the Editor of the above;
• is guided by the principle of confidentiality during the review process and after its completion, and shall refrain from disclosing the contents of the manuscript or the review;
• may not use the information obtained during the review process for own benefit or the benefit of another person or institution, or to discredit others or to their detriment;
• performs the review in an objective and impartial manner, without regard to the author’s/authors’ nationality, religion, political beliefs, gender or other characteristics, the origin of the manuscript or commercial considerations; 
• shall refrain from personal criticism of the author/authors of the manuscript; the review should be a constructive assessment (including precise argumentation) that will allow the authors to improve their manuscript;
• performs the review with the use of the provided form, where the reviewer’s decision related to the reviewed article should be clearly stated;
• notifies the Editor if the author/authors of the reviewed article is/are suspected of violating ethical standards;
• may not contact the author(s) without the Editor’s explicit permission.

Rules applicable to the authors

The authors:

• submit a statement including the information that the article was written independently, has not been published previously (in part or in whole) and is not under consideration for publication in another journal;
• submit, together with the article, a statement that the article does not violate third party rights and that other authors’ research has been used in observance of copyright laws;
• in articles with multiple authors, specify the contribution made by each author (to prevent ghostwriting and guest authorship which are treated as scientific misconduct);
• in articles with multiple authors, accept the final version of the article and agree to its submission for publication;
• in the acknowledgements section, list persons who have contributed to the article but are not the co-authors;
• submit an original paper for a review; describe the results in a fair, comprehensible and non-partisan manner that enables other researchers to replicate the study;
• provide a comprehensive list of sources (references) that were used in the article;
• conduct research in accordance with ethical principles;
• disclose sources of research funding or indicate that the research was not funded from external sources;
• provide information on a possible conflict of interest (in articles with multiple authors, the statement must be provided by all co-authors);
• obtain permission to reproduce illustrative material (illustrations, tables, charts, etc.) from external sources in the article and present it to the publisher;
• immediately contact the Editor-in-Chief or the publisher if errors or inaccuracies are discovered in a published article, and cooperate in the process of withdrawing the article or correcting the errors.