Publication Ethics „Karto-Teki Gdańskiej”

 

Editorial team of „Karto-Teka Gdańska” promotes high quality of scholarly publications and follows the ethical standards, therefore is obligated to fair and professional dealing in all publishing operations. The editorial team is committed to take all possible measures against any professional negligence, such as double publication, plagiarism, or falsifying data.

The journal endorses the codes of conduct established by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) https://publicationethics.org/. Articles submitted for publication are verified in terms of editorial ethics according to our knowledge and using available anti-plagiarism tools.

Furthermore, submitted articles are objectively and substantively assessed on the basis on the peer reviews. The main criteria for assessment of papers are: an original way of approaching the subject, a scientific value of the work, and transparency of the argument.

Articles are reviewed in two stages: first, by the editors (editor-in-chief, two editorial members and editor of the issue), then, manuscripts are sent out to reviewers. Neither the reviewers nor the authors do not know their identities.

 

The Editorial Team, as well as the Science Editor of the issue of „Karto-Teka Gdańska”, are committed:

• to decide which materials will be published. The main criteria for acceptance of papers should be: an original way of approaching the subject, a scientific value of the work and transparency of the argument;
• to ensure the scientific reliability of published papers. In case of a discovered misconduct on the author's part (plagiarism, falsifying data), the scientific editor should withdraw the article from the collective publication;
• to make sure that the contributors of the collective work accept comments of the science editorial.

 

Editorial team of „Karto-Teka Gdańska” and the Science Editor reserve the right to withdraw an already published paper if:

• they suspect a lack of honesty and fairness of conducted research and its results, falsifying data, as well as errors (e.g. methodological errors, factual errors);
• they suspect a plagiarism or violations of the ethical standards;
• they suspect a double publication;
• there is a request for changes in the list of authors;
• they suspect a ghostwriting;
• there is any other unethical act that occurred in the course of the manuscript being written, edited or reviewed;
• they suspect the reviewer has appropriated the author's ideas or datas

 

Each author is expected to:

• present their results honestly and clearly, without falsification or data manipulation;
• enable identification of sources cited in the study;
• grant access to data presented in the paper even after publication of the article;
• obtain any necessary permission to reproduce in the publication illustrations, tables, graphs, quotes, etc. (all the copyright laws);
• attach a bibliography (a list of publications used by the author in the article);
• correct immediately all substantive errors in the article, indicated by the editor at each stage of the publishing process or discovered by the author after the publication of the work.

 

Each reviewer is expected to:

• prepare a review on time;
• treat submissions in strict confidence. Reviewers are required to keep confidential all details of the editorial and peer review process on submitted manuscript;
• objective assess of the submitted article, supported by appropriate argumentation;
• report any detected or suspected fragments or passages plagiarized to the editor-in-chief, and to indicate similarities to other papers