1. The reviewing procedure takes into account the recommendations of the Committee on Publication Ethics.
2. Every manuscript is reviewed by at least two independent Polish and/or foreign reviewers outside of the Editorial Team and outside of the author’s home institution. One of the reviewers may be an expert from the publishing institution.
3. The reviews are double blind: the Editorial Team submits for reviewing texts stripped of authors’ personal data and the authors are unaware of the reviewers’ identities. The review should be done through the OJS system. The review ends with a definite conclusion whether the article may be published as submitted or whether it requires corrections/revisions or does not fulfill the standards of an academic text and cannot be accepted for publication.
4. If a possibility of a conflict of interests arises, the reviewer should notify the Editorial Team of this fact.
5. The Editorial Team ascertains that all evaluations and judgment in the reviewing procedure are objective. A criticism of the author not the text is inappropriate. The reviewers should clearly express their views, supporting them with arguments.
6. The reviewers indicate published works which have not been cited. Aware of the potential ethical problems in the work, they indicate these to the Editorial Team, including all significant similarities or parallels in statements or research between the reviewed manuscript and any other published document known to the reviewer. Every previously published statement should be appropriately referenced. The editor strictly abides by these rules.
7. The reviewed manuscripts are treated as confidential documents. The reviewers must not disseminate the reviews or any information about the manuscript and must not contact the authors directly. The editor ensures confidentiality.
8. The reviewers must complete their review within four weeks. If the review concludes with the statement: "a revised version of the article must be referred to the reviewer for acceptance", the reviewer, upon receipt of the revised text, has a maximum of 2 weeks to decide whether to accept or reject it.

THE EDITORIAL TEAM’S PROCEDURES IN CASE OF SUSPICIONS OF PLAGARISM

1. Plagiarism – definition

Plagiarism is the act of copying someone else's work (or part of it) with the attribution of its authorship to oneself by concealing its original provenance.

2. Types of plagiarism

2.1. Verbatim/direct plagiarism entails copying word-for-word the entirety or part of the text, without acknowledging the original source. Verbatim/direct plagiarism is evident and easy to detect through comparing texts.

2.2. Paraphrasing/mosaic/patchwork plagiarism entails reproducing a significant part of the work, without acknowledging the appropriate source. Of significance is both the quantity and quality of plagiarised content. Quality refers to the relative value of the plagiarised text, proportionally to the entirety of the work. Where the essence of the text has been reproduced, even if it constitutes only a small part of the original, plagiarism may have been committed.

2.3. Plagiarism may be committed without using the exact wording of the original text. To establish whether an unacceptable paraphrase has occurred, quantity and quality of the reproduced content must be assessed and it must be determined whether the author used someone else’s research idea.

3. Procedure in case the Editorial Team or the reviewer suspects plagiarism in a submitted manuscript

3.1. If the Editorial Team suspects plagiarism or if a reviewer informs the Team of such suspicions concerning a submitted manuscript, an anti-plagiarism procedure is initiated, which is based on the following actions:

3.1.1. The editor who suspects plagiarism or receives such information from a reviewer initiates procedural actions and notifies the reviewer that the procedure has been initiated;
3.1.2. The editor prepares a complete documentation of evidence, if it has not been supplied earlier;
3.1.3. The editor verifies the extent of reproduction with anti-plagiarism software, as well as through a simple comparison of the two relevant texts or an in-depth analysis in case of paraphrasing or self-plagiarism; 
3.1.4. If a significant level of reproduction is detected, the editor contacts the author in writing, attaching a signed copy of “The Author’s Statement” which confirms the authorship/originality of the work and the documentation evidencing plagiarism.

3.2. If the author provides a response with a satisfactory explanation (indicating, for instance, an unintentional error, unclear instructions on the part of the journal, justifiable publication), the editor contacts the author/authors and the reviewers and explains the journal’s standpoint on the issue and the expected future behaviour in similar cases.

3.3. If the author provides a response with an unsatisfactory explanation or an admission of guilt, the editor contacts the author/authors and the reviewers and informs them of an instance of plagiarism and a rejection of the manuscript, explaining the journal’s standpoint in such cases and the expected behaviour; the editor may consider informing the author’s superiors and/or persons responsible for managing research at the author’s institution.

3.4. If the author provides no response, the editor contacts the reviewers, the author’s superiors and/or persons responsible for managing research at the author’s institution, informing them of the instance of plagiarism and a rejection of the manuscript, explaining the journal’s standpoint in such cases and the expected behaviour. In case of a lack of response on the part of the author’s institution, the editor contacts the institution within 3-6 months. If there is still no response, the editor considers contacting other authorities in the country.

3.5. If the editor does not detect a significant level of reproduction/duplication, he/she informs the reviewers of the decision to continue the editorial process.

4. Procedure in case of an instance of plagiarism or in case of a notification of plagiarism suspicions concerning a published article from a reader

4.1. If the Editorial Team suspects plagiarism or if a reader informs the Team of their suspicions concerning a published article, an anti-plagiarism procedure is initiated, which is based on the following actions:

4.1.1. The editor, suspecting plagiarism or being informed by a reader of suspicions of plagiarism in an already published article initiates procedural action, informing in writing the reader in question;
4.1.2. The editor prepares a complete documentation of evidence, if it has not been supplied earlier;
4.1.3. The editor verifies the extent of reproduction with anti-plagiarism software, as well as through a simple comparison of the two relevant texts or an in-depth analysis in case of paraphrasing or self-plagiarism.

4.2. If the author provides a response with a satisfactory explanation (indicating, for instance, an unintentional error, unclear instructions on the part of the journal, justifiable publication), the editor contacts the author/authors and the reviewers and explains the journal’s standpoint on the issue and the expected future behaviour in similar cases.

4.3. If the author provides a response with an unsatisfactory explanation or an admission of guilt, the editor contacts the author/authors and the reviewers and informs them of an instance of plagiarism and a rejection of the manuscript, explaining the journal’s standpoint in such cases and the expected behaviour; the editor may consider informing the author’s superiors and/or persons responsible for managing research at the author’s institution.

4.4. If the author provides no response, the editor contacts the reviewers, the author’s superiors and/or persons responsible for managing research at the author’s institution, informing them of the instance of plagiarism and a rejection of the manuscript, explaining the journal’s standpoint in such cases and the expected behaviour. In case of a lack of response on the part of the author’s institution, the editor contacts the institution within 3-6 months. If there is still no response, the editor considers contacting other authorities in the country.

4.5. If the editor does not detect a significant level of reproduction/duplication, he/she informs the reviewers of the decision to continue the editorial process.

5. The editor may involve into the anti-plagiarism procedure the reviewers, the members of the Academic Board or experts from the relevant field (anonymously in relation to the complainant party and, if possible, in relation to the identity of the complainant authors), applying the standard procedures of peer-review (particularly in case of more complex forms of plagiarism).

THE EDITORIAL TEAM’S PROCEDURES IN CASE OF SUSPICIONS OF GHOST AUTHORSHIP, GUEST OR GIFT AUTHORSHIP

1. Ghost authorship, guest or gift authorship – definitions

1.1. Ghost authorship entails the lack of acknowledgment as an author/co-author of a person whose contribution to the research, the writing of the manuscript, etc. is significant enough to warrant his/her acknowledgement as one of the publications’ authors.

1.2. Guest or gift authorship entails an acknowledgement as an author/co-author of a person whose contribution to the research, the writing of the manuscript, etc. is not significant enough to warrant his/her acknowledgement as one of the publication’s authors.

2. Procedure in case of a suspicion of ghost authorship, guest or gift authorship or in case a reviewer informs the Team of such suspicions concerning a submitted article

2.1. If the Editorial Team suspects an instance of ghost authorship, guest or gift authorship or if a reviewer informs the Team of their suspicions concerning a submitted manuscript, a procedure is initiated, which is based on the following actions:

2.2. The editor who suspects ghost authorship, guest or gift authorship or receives such information from a reviewer initiates procedural actions and notifies the reviewer that the procedure has been initiated.

2.3. The editor prepares a complete documentation of evidence, if it has not been supplied earlier.

2.4. The editor contacts the author, asking for explanations;

2.4.1. If the author provides a response with a satisfactory explanation, the editor contacts the unacknowledged or groundlessly acknowledged author and the reviewers and explains the journal’s standpoint on the issue and the expected future behaviour in similar cases. The authors in question must either be removed or added to the list of authors (in the latter case, they must submit appropriate statements found in the For Authors section).
2.4.2. If the author provides a response with an unsatisfactory explanation, the editor contacts the unacknowledged or groundlessly acknowledged author and the reviewers and, if possible, other authors, informing them of the instance of ghost authorship, guest or gift authorship, and the rejection of the manuscript, explaining the journal’s standpoint in such cases and the expected behaviour; the editor may consider informing the author’s superiors and/or persons responsible for managing research at the author’s institution.
2.4.3. If the author provides no response, the editor contacts all the authors, the reviewers, the author’s superiors and/or persons responsible for managing research at the author’s institution, informing them of the instance of ghost authorship, guest or gift authorship, and the rejection of the manuscript, explaining the journal’s standpoint in such cases and the expected behaviour. In case of a lack of response on the part of the author’s institution, the editor contacts the institution within 3-6 months. If there is still no response, the editor considers contacting other authorities in the country.

3. Procedure in case of an instance of ghost authorship, guest or gift authorship or a notification of such suspicions concerning a published article from a reader

3.1. If the Editorial Team suspects ghost authorship, guest or gift authorship or if a reader informs the Team of their suspicions concerning a published article, an anti-plagiarism procedure is initiated, which is based on the following actions:

3.1.1. The editor, suspecting ghost authorship, guest or gift authorship or being informed by a reader of suspicions of ghost authorship, guest or gift authorship in an already published article initiates procedural action, informing in writing the reader in question;
3.1.2. The editor prepares a complete documentation of evidence, if it has not been supplied earlier;
3.1.3. The editor contacts the author, asking for explanations.

3.2. If the author provides a response with a satisfactory explanation, the editor adds – on the basis of a written consent of the authors – the unacknowledged author or, for groundlessly mentioned author, removes/adds acknowledgements proportional to the author’s contribution to the research and writing of the article. The editor contacts the author and the unacknowledged or groundlessly acknowledged author and the reader, informing them of the undertaken actions and explaining the journal’s standpoint on the issue and the expected future behaviour in similar cases.

3.3. If the author provides a response with an unsatisfactory explanation, the editor considers withdrawing the publication; He/she contacts the unacknowledged author, the reviewers, the groundlessly acknowledged authors, and the reader informing them of the situation and still attempting to gather more information from the authors. The editor also explains the journal’s standpoint in such cases and the expected behaviour; the editor considers informing the author’s superiors and/or persons responsible for managing research at the author’s institution, as well as the readers in the journal itself.

3.4. If the author provides no response, the editor contacts the unacknowledged author, the reviewers, the groundlessly acknowledged authors, the author’s superiors and/or persons responsible for managing research at the author’s institution, informing them of the situation and explaining the journal’s standpoint on the issue and the expected future behaviour in similar cases. In case of a lack of response on the part of the author’s institution, the editor contacts the institution every 3-6 months. If there is still no response, the editor considers publishing the statement of withdrawal of the publication and contacting other authorities in the country.