Publication ethics and malpractice statement

[All this rules are based on information from "Acta Medicorum Polonorum" journal and De Gruyter Press].


Editorial Board of "Klio. Journal of Polish and World History" strives to avoid cases of malfunction in research - "ghostwriting" and "guest authorship".


Author Duties

1. The question of being an author: All co-authors must be clearly indicated at the time of manuscript submission. Requests to add co-authors after a manuscript has been accepted will require approval of the editor.

2. Unnecessary and unrelevant papers: Authors reporting results of original research should present an accurate account of the work performed as well as an objective discussion of its significance. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behavior and are unacceptable.

3. Quoting and sources: The authors should ensure that if they have used the work and/or words of others, this has been appropriately cited or quoted. An author should not in general publish manuscripts describing essentially the same research in more than one journal or primary publication. Submitting the same manuscript in to more than one journal concurrently constitutes unethical publishing behaviour and not acceptable.

4. Ghostwriting: 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.


Editorial Board Duties

1. Decision about publication: The editorial board of “Klio. Journal of Polish and World History” is responsible for deciding which manuscripts (articles, reviews, materials) submitted to the journal should be published. The editors may consult with reviewers when making publication decisions.

2. Information about authors: Editorial Board insist on authors to reveal percentage of contribution of all authors involved in preparation of publication (it is necessary to inform about their affiliation and information about the author of the core idea of the article). Responsibility for this information lays on the side of author, who submits the paper.

3. Revealing malfunctions: every single case of revealed mulfunction is exposed, including notification of appropriate institutions (i.e. authors' employees, scientific societes).
All examples of malfunction in research are documented and kept in the archive of the "Klio".

4. Cross check software support: to help discover potential malfunction in the form of plagiarism or duplicate/redundant at submission stage, Nicolaus Copernicus University Press uses similarity (“plagiarism”) detection software (CrossCheck). For more information see here.

5. Confidentiality: The editorial board of “Klio” do not give any information about a submitted manuscript to anyone other than the corresponding author, reviewers, potential reviewers, other editorial advisers, and the publisher, as appropriate.

6. Discrimination: the editors evaluate manuscripts for their intellectual content without regard to race, gender, sexual orientation, ethnic origin, religious belief, citizenship or political philosophy of the authors.

7. Ensuring fair peer-review: the editors should seek so ensure a fair and appropriate peer-review process. The editor should recuse himself/herself from handling manuscripts (i.e. should ask a co-editor, associate editor, or other member of the editorial board instead to review and consider) 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.


Reviewer Duties

1. Assistance: Peer reviews assist the editorial board in making editorial decisions and, through the editorial communication with the author, may also assist the author in improving the manuscript.

2. 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 editorial board.

3. Essential and objective evaluation: reviews should be conducted objectively. Personal criticism of the authors is inacceptable. Reviewers should express their views clearly with appropriate supporting arguments. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage.