PUBLICATION ETHICS AND MALPRACTICE STATEMENT
Publishing Ethics
The ethical policy of publication applied by Folia Philosophica
The publication ethics followed by the editors of Folia Philosophica are aimed at sustaining the best practices and standards as developed by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) - see COPE Core Practices (for their elaboration see the COPE website).
The editors of Folia Philosophica adapt the following principles of academic and publishing ethics:
Academic impartiality and integrity
Both the editors and the reviewers are devoted to keep to the highest standards of objectivity, impartiality, and academic integrity. The editors and the Editorial Board are keen on making Folia Philosophical a forum for publishing the most important and cutting-edge research in accordance with the highest academic standards in philosophy.
Folia Philosophica shall publish only articles observing the rules of scientific integrity and honesty. Any attempt of fabrication, falsification, and manipulation of information will be faced with adequate steps in accordance with the procedure set out in the COPE diagrams. This includes adequate and exhaustive citation and reference with respect of the copyrights of their owners.
The editors reserve the right to inquire about the research methods and data obtaining, to which the author should provide adequate and exhaustive information. Should any mistakes in this regard be found in already accepted paper, or in the data the paper is based on, the author would be obliged to retraction or corrections of the relevant mistakes. In the case of already published work, the authors will have the opportunity to publish a correction in the next volume of Folia Philosophica.
Non-discrimination policy
All materials submitted to Folia Philosophica are evaluated solely of the basis on their academic excellence, precision and clarity of argumentation, its originality, and value to the discipline. The author’s nationality or ethnicity, their political views, gender, race, religion, or sexual orientation are not taken into account. Whether the author suspects violation of this rule by the reviewer or any member of the editorial team, they should inform the Editor-in-Chief.
Confidentiality
The editors of Folia Philosophica and the University of Silesia Press protect data, documents, and information obtained at every stage of the publishing process, including submissions, author’s data, reviews, and correspondence between editors and authors. Reviewers and authors are also required to maintain confidentiality in this regard.
The editors shall disclose to the public information necessary for the proper publication of the papers, as well as their indexing by scientific internet search engines to increases the recognizability and citation of papers published in the Journal.
The originality of papers
Folia Philosophica accepts only original, previously unpublished research papers, translations, and reviews. By submitting to the journal, the authors and translators declare their authorship of their work and their absence from consideration by other journal. In exceptional cases already published work might be considered with the consent of the copyright owner.
Anti-plagiarism policy
Any use of works by other authors, whether borrowings, quotations, or cross-references, should be adequately and comprehensively marked. For detailed editorial requirements see Submissions. Failure in observing these regulations will be recognized as an infringement of the copyright owners, and the editors will take adequate steps in accordance with the procedure set out in the COPE diagrams. Any such cases identified by the editors will be brought to light, including notification of the relevant authorities (authors' employing institutions, academic associations, associations of scientific editors, etc.), as well as law enforcement agencies.
Duties of the Editor
1) The editor is responsible for the selection of articles for publication from among those submitted to the journal.
2) In making the choice, the editor must not be guided by such factors as race, gender, sexual preferences, religion, ethnicity, nationality, or political philosophy of the Author.
3) The choice of articles to be published in the journal is guided solely by:
- the value of the submitted text for the development of the research field and its fit with the scope of the journal;
- the originality of the text;
- the linguistic quality of the manuscript;
- clarity; and
- conformity with legal regulations concerning defamation, violation of copyright rules, and plagiarism.
Duties of the reviewer
1) The reviewer provides the editor with relevant information on the basis of which a conscious decision can be made concerning the acceptance or rejection of the submitted text.
2) The reviewer provides the author with relevant information on the basis of which necessary improvements can be made to the manuscript, helping the author to meet the highest standards of scholarly research or making it easier for the Author to write academic texts in the future.
3) The reviewer provides the review on time or informs the editor about any circumstances that prevent him or her from meeting the deadline.
4) In evaluating the submission, the reviewer remains unbiased.
5) The reviewer formulates his or her comments in a clear and unambiguous way.
6) The reviewer should never argue ad-hominem.
7) The reviewer should never make use of the review to enhance his or her academic status or professional position.
8) The reviewer will inform the Editor of any competing interests (to assess the possibility of competing interests, please consult the PLOS policy). In case of competing interests, the reviewer will refuse to evaluate the submission and notify the Editor about the fact.
9) The Reviewer will treat all received documents as confidential.
10) The Reviewer is obliged to identify any cases of insufficient documentation of sources or suspected plagiarism and to notify the Editor about them.
Ghost authorship, guest authorship, and gift authorship
Submissions to Folia Philosophica are restricted to papers, translations, and reviews by their authors and co-authors only. Any cases of submitting the work by other author, as well as any forms of ghost-authorship (not indicating the name of a significant contributor either as an author/co-author or mentioning their name in the acknowledgements included in the manuscript), guest-authorship, and gift-authorship (in which the authorship of the person indicated as one of the authors is negligible or did not take place at all) are strictly forbidden as blatant violation of academic integrity and honesty and will be faced with the adequate steps by the editors, including notifications of appropriate authorities (such as authors' employing institutions, academic associations, and associations of academic editors).
Information concerning all authors, contributors, and assistants should be provided to the editors along with the submission of the manuscript, including their names, affiliation, and role in preparation of the manuscript. This includes authorship of concepts of research, hypotheses, method selection, substantive comments, literature reviews and translations, etc.
Conflicts of interest
The Editors and Editorial Board of Folia Philosophica are devoted to maintaining the highest standards of academic impartiality, reliability, and honesty. With respect to them, authors are obliged to reveal the sources of funding of the research that resulted in the submitted paper. Authors should also inform the editors on any other circumstances influencing their impartiality or independence in research methods, data obtaining, interpretation of results or on their view expressed in the work submitted to Folia Philosophica.
Unpublished, original research material submitted to the journal will never be used by the editor or any other person who had access to it before publication for their own research purposes without the explicit written permission of the author.
Reviewers shall inform the Editorial Board of any cases of conflict of interest that they identify. Especially, they should report any cases of personal or professional relationship with the author of the work under review, which include (but is not limited to) relations of blood, marriage, cohabitation, affinity and professional subordination, or close professional relationship over last three years. They will also report any interest in publication or nonpublication of the manuscript for personal reasons.
Reviewers will also inform the Editorial Board about their engagement or cooperation with the author on submitted manuscript.
Submissions from the authors affiliated with the University of Silesia in Katowice or directly connected with Folia Philosophica are accepted, but they cannot exceed 50 per cent of papers published in each volume. In each cases, they will be subject to two double-blind reviews by reviewers not affiliated with the University of Silesia.
(To assess the possibility of competing interests, please consult the PLOS policy.)
Anti-duplication policy
Any duplications of previous works by the author submitting, that is, containing substantial repetition of argumentation, theses, text, and results, shall be recognized as violations of academic honesty. Should the editors suspect such a breach of academic standards, they will take steps in accordance with the instructions set out in the COPE diagrams. Identified cases of duplication will be disclosed, including notifications of relevant bodies.
Retraction of the already published study
In case of acknowledgement of manifest violations of the above-described publishing ethics, and especially plagiarism, unjustified duplications, ghost authorship, guest-writing, or significant conflict of interest, the editors may decide on retraction an already published paper. It will be removed from the Journal’s webpage at the OJS, and if print copies of a given volume were made, the explanation and/or apologies will be published in the upcoming volume of Folia Philosophica. Prior to a decision on retraction, the authors will be informed and offered a possibility to provide a comment and/or defence.
