Ethics

Publication Ethics and Publication Malpractice Statement

The publication guidelines of the Publishing Houses of Łukasiewicz Research Network – Institute of Aviation, publisher of the ‘Marketing of Scientific and Research Organizations’ conform to those set forth by the Committee On Publication Ethics in COPE Code of Conduct and Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors and Code of Conduct for Journal Publishers.

To ensure the integrity of the scientific publication process – from research proposal to publication, the Authors, the Editors, the Reviewers and the Publisher are expected to comply with the ethical standards and recommendations contained in these guidelines.

The COPE’s Core Practices are stated below.

Ethical responsibilities for authors

Authors of manuscripts submitted must have significantly contributed to the research. Authors should refrain from misrepresenting research results which could damage the trust in the journal, the professionalism of scientific authorship, and ultimately the entire scientific endeavour. Maintaining integrity of the research and its presentation is helped by following the rules of good scientific practice presented in the statements below:

1. Authors are strongly advised to ensure that all persons designated as author, e.g. the corresponding author, and relevant co-authors are all reported in the manuscript at submission. The authors listed in the manuscript made significant contributions to the conception, design, execution, data acquisition, or analysis/interpretation of the study; they drafted the manuscript or revised it critically for important intellectual content. Each of the authors takes public responsibility for the content. They have also seen and approved the final version of the paper and agreed to its submission for publication.
2. All the persons who made substantial contributions to the work presented in the manuscript, e.g. technical help, writing and editing assistance but can’t be designated as authors should be acknowledged in the “Acknowledgements” section after their written permission to be named has been obtained.
3. The manuscript submitted for consideration should be original work and should not have been published elsewhere in any form or language. It must not be submitted simultaneously for publication in another journal.
4. A single study should not be split up into several parts to increase the quantity of submissions and submitted to various journals or to one journal over time.
5. Results of the study should be presented clearly, honestly, and without fabrication, falsification or inappropriate data manipulation (including image manipulation – it is only allowed to technically improve images for readability). Authors should adhere to discipline-specific rules for acquiring, selecting and processing data. Negative and inconclusive research results should be published or otherwise made publicly available, in the same manner as the positive results. Upon request authors should be prepared to send relevant documentation or data in order to verify the validity of the results presented. This could be in the form of raw data, samples, records, etc. Sensitive information in the form of confidential or proprietary data is excluded.
6. Manuscripts delivered for consideration must correctly cite all sources. Proper acknowledgements to other works must be given (this includes material that is closely copied, summarized and/or paraphrased), quotation marks (to indicate words taken from another source) are used for verbatim copying of material, and permissions secured for material that is copyrighted. Publications that have been influential in determining the nature of the work reported in the manuscript should also be cited.
7. Authors should make sure they have permissions for the use of software, questionnaires/(web) surveys and scales in their studies (if appropriate).
8. Authors will be held responsible for false statements about an entity (who can be an individual person, scientific institution or a company) or descriptions of their behaviour or actions that could potentially be seen as personal attacks or allegations about that person/institution.
9. Authors should engage in the peer review process and to respond promptly and provide feedback requested by the editor or the referees. Authors should respond to their comments systematically, point by point, and in a timely manner, revising and re-submitting their manuscript to the journal.
10. Authors must disclose all relationships or interests that could have direct or potential influence or impact bias on the work. In addition, interests that go beyond financial interests (non-financial interests) that may be important to readers should be disclosed. These may include, but are not limited to, personal relationships or competing interests directly or indirectly tied to this research, or professional interests or personal beliefs that may influence their research. All sources of financial support for the work should be disclosed. Examples of potential conflicts of interest that should be disclosed include financial ones such as: honoraria, educational grants or other funding, participation in speakers’ bureaus, membership, employment, consultancies, stock ownership, or other equity interest, and paid expert testimony or patent-licensing arrangements, as well as non-financial ones such as personal or professional relationships, affiliations, knowledge or beliefs in the subject matter or materials discussed in the manuscript.
11. When authors discover significant errors or inaccuracies in their own published paper, they are obliged to promptly notify the journal’s editors or publisher and cooperate with them to either correct the work or retract it.
12. Authors must ensure that procedures involving use of animal and human participants were performed in accordance with relevant regulations and received approval by the appropriate institutions. The manuscript should include a statement that the informed consent has been obtained from the participants of the study. The authors should also clearly inform in the manuscript of applying methods demanding the use of chemicals, procedures or equipment that are hazardous by nature to animal or human participants. Authors have a duty to make publicly available the results of their research on human subjects and are accountable for the completeness and accuracy of their reports keeping in mind that the privacy rights of human participants must always be observed.

Editor duties

1. Editors should aim to comply with the Codes of Conduct and Best Practice Guidelines as presented by the Committee on Publication Ethics.
2. Editors evaluate submitted manuscripts exclusively on the basis of their academic merit (importance to readers and researchers, originality, study’s validity, clarity, considering the reviewers’ comments as well as legal requirements in force concerning libel, copyright infringement and plagiarism and decide which articles should be published due to its relevance to the journal’s scope and without regard to the authors’ race, gender, sexual orientation, ethnic origin, citizenship, religious belief, political philosophy or institutional affiliation.
3. Editors and editorial staff will not disclose any information about a submitted manuscript to anyone other than the reviewers, potential reviewers and other editorial advisers, and the publisher. Privileged information or ideas obtained by editors as a result of handling the manuscript will be kept confidential and not used for their personal advantage.
4. The editors ensure that all submitted manuscripts being considered for publication undergo peer-review by at least two reviewers who are expert in the domain. They provide clear advice to the reviewers, develop and maintain a database of suitable reviewers, and update this on the basis of reviewer’ performance.
5. Editors and editorial board members will not use unpublished information disclosed in a submitted manuscript for their own research purposes without the authors’ explicit written consent. Editors will recuse themselves from considering manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships/connections with any of the authors, companies or institutions connected to the papers; instead, they will ask another member of the editorial board to handle the manuscript.
6. Editor’s task is to prevent the publication of manuscripts where research misconduct has occurred. If well-founded ethical concerns are raised with regard to a submitted manuscript or published paper, the editor along with the publisher will take all the appropriate measures to clarify the situation. They will either promptly publish an expression of concern, an erratum, clarification or another type of relevant note in the journal or withdraw the article.
7. When dealing with cases of suspected misconduct the Publishing Houses of Łukasiewicz Research Network – Institute of Aviation shall adhere to the COPE’s Guidelines for Retracting Articles.

Reviewer’s responsibilities

1. Peer reviewers assist the editor in making editorial decisions and, through editorial communications with authors, may assist authors in improving their manuscripts. It is an essential component of the scientific process. Reviewers provide journals with professional information that is accurate and a true representation of their expertise.
2. A peer reviewer should be able to respond in a reasonable timeframe and inform the editors without delay when they find they do not have the subject expertise required to carry out the review. They should also inform the journal when circumstances arise preventing them from submitting a timely review and ask for the postponing of the deadline.
3. Reviewers must declare any potential conflicting interests resulting from relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies or institutions connected to the manuscript or the research described therein. They should seek advice from the journal when they suspect or discover there have arisen circumstances that might prevent them from submitting a fair and unbiased review. Their review must neither be influenced by the nationality, gender or religious and political beliefs of the authors. They must stay objective and constructive in their reviews offering clearly formulated observations with supporting arguments to allow the authors to improve their manuscripts.
4. They should keep all manuscript and review details confidential during and after the peer review process. The manuscript must not be shown to or discussed with others except if authorized by the Editor (who would only do so under exceptional and specific circumstances). This applies also to invited reviewers who decline the review invitation. They must first obtain permission from the journal if they want to involve others in the review process. The persons who have helped them with the reviewing of the manuscript should be included in the journal’s records.
5. If the reviewers notice any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and other submissions or already published articles of which they have personal knowledge they must promptly notify the Editor.
6. The editor should be informed about any reviewer’s ethical doubts concerning the submitted manuscript.
7. The reviewer must not take advantage of the unpublished material disclosed in a manuscript they have reviewed without written consent of the authors.