The following information on publication ethics in the European Bison Conservation Newsletter and is based on best practice guidance for journal editors from the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).
The aim of the "Ethical rules" is to prevent manifestations of unfair publishing practices and scientific misconduct and to maintain the highest possible ethical standards when publishing the scientific journal European Bison Conservation Newsletter [Żubr i jego ochrona Biuletyn].
1. Rules for the Editor-in-Chief and the Editorial Board
1.1 Scientific integrity:
The publication of particular texts takes place according to the purpose and thematic scope of the scientific journal, the usefulness of the article for science and practice, originality, as well as the research methods used, the selection of sources and the communicativeness of the content.
1.2. Responsibility for published texts
Both the Editor-in-Chief and the Editorial Board are required to comply with the current legal status regarding the field of defamation, infringement of copyright and plagiarism. The decision to publish the text is based on reviews, the opinion of the thematic editor and the Scientific Council. The Editor-in-chief is responsible for the final decision which of the submitted articles will be published.
The decision to accept or reject a given scientific article is made on the basis of its originality, scientific quality and consistency with the subject of the journal, and not on the basis of the author's origin, nationality, ethnicity, political views, gender, race or religion.
1.4. Counteracting conflicts of interest
The Editorial Board does not appoint Reviewers from among persons who are in directly subordinate to the Author of the text or beaing in other relationships that may cause a conflict of interest, as long as they are known. The Reviewer may not be affiliated with the same institution as the Author of the scientific text.
1.5. Commitment and fairness
The Editor watches over the editorial process, tracking down any editorial flaws and irregularities in reviews. The Editor builds the integrity of his journal by revising and withdrawing articles, and by eliminating alleged shortcomings in the publications.
1.6. Counteracting the phenomena of "ghostwriting" and "guest authorship"
The phenomena of "ghostwriting" and "guest authorship" are a manifestation of scientific misconduct. Ghostwriting occurs when someone who has made a significant contribution to a publication does not disclose his or her participation as one of the Authors, or otherwise identify his role. Guest authorship occurs when a person's participation is negligible or even absent, yet he or she is indicated as the Author. In order to counteract these phenomena, the Editorial Board requires authors to disclose the contribution of individual authors to the publication and to define the role played by the Author in preparing the publication.
1.7. Counteracting unethical behavior during research with the participation of animals
When publishing the results of research involving animals, the Editorial Board requires the Author's consent from the local ethical committee appropriate for the location of the research (if such consent is required). All experiments involving animals should be carried out in accordance with the national legal acts on the protection of animals used for scientific or teaching purposes and related guidelines of Directive 2010/63 / EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 September 2010 on the protection of animals used for scientific purposes [https://ec.europa.eu/environment/chemicals/lab_animals/legislation_en.htm]
2. Rules for Reviewers
The purpose of the review is to increase the scientific value of the text. Reviews should be made objectively, in line with ethical standards, based on scientific arguments. Reviewers should clearly express their opinions, using appropriate arguments to support their theses. Personal criticism of the Author is unacceptable.
2.2. Responsibility and punctuality
A reviewer who is unable to review a given text for any reason, especially if he or she considers that he or she does not have appropriate scientific competences, should immediately inform the Editors about it. A reviewer who knows that he or she will not be able to complete a review in a timely manner should notify the Editor immediately so that he can request someone else's review.
2.3. Communication and collaboration
The Reviewer's comments are intended to help the Author in improving the article, and the Editor in making decisions in the editorial process. The reviewer should indicate the publications that the author did not refer to, and which are necessary to maintain the scientific accuracy of the reviewed text. The reviewer should draw the editorial attention to any significant similarities or overlaps between the data in the article under consideration and the already published papers, referring to specific scientific papers. The reviewer should also indicate the level of significance of the comments or objections raised.
Information obtained during the review should be treated as confidential and may not be used for personal gain. Each reviewed article must be treated as a confidential document.
2.5. Disclosure of a conflict of interest
Reviewers should not evaluate articles in which they have conflicts of interest arising from competition, collaboration, or other relationships and affiliation with one of the article's authors, companies, or institutions.
3. Rules for Authors
3.1. Standards in the reporting of test results
Authors publishing research results should provide a thorough report on the work done, as well as an objective discussion of the results and determination of their significance. Basic data should be presented thoroughly. The work should contain enough details and references to scientific literature to enable others to repeat the research. It is unethical to make false or knowingly false statements.
The author is obliged to submit the original text for publication, which neither in whole nor in any part constitutes plagiarism or the so-called self plagiarism (repetition of whole or parts of the author's previous publications). In case the authors have used the works and / or words of other authors, they should be cited or cited accordingly.
Authorship should be limited to those who are responsible for the concept and implementation of research and the interpretation of published research results. A co-author is someone who has contributed significantly to the creation of the work. People who participated in some parts of the research work that resulted in the article should be listed in the "Acknowledgment" section. In the case of collective works, Authors are obliged to specify the authorship of individual fragments of the text or declare that they are Co-authors in equal parts.
The lead Author (or the corresponding author) should ensure that all co-authors (as defined above) are included as co-authors of the article and that there are no inappropriate contributors among the co-authors. The lead Author (or the corresponding author) should also ensure that all co-authors have seen and approved the final article and has consented to its publication. In the case of collective works, each of the Authors, depending on their participation in the preparation of the text, is responsible for violations of the law or standards of ethics and scientific integrity.
3.5. Acknowledgments and Disclosures
Articles should include thanks to the people or institutions that provided the work for the author. The author is obliged to inform the publisher about circumstances that may affect the test results or their interpretation. In particular, the Author should inform about his / her relations with persons or institutions to whom the text submitted for publication relates, as well as indicate the sources of research funding.
3.6. Counteracting the publication of substantive errors
In the event that the Author finds significant errors or inaccuracies in his published work, he is obliged to immediately notify the editor of the journal or publisher and cooperate with them to withdraw the article or publish appropriate errata.
3.7. Ethics Committee approval for research (if required)
The author declares that all experiments involving animals comply with the guidelines of the local ethics committee responsible for the location of the study (if consent is required).
4. Rules for the Publisher
4.1. Transparency of the publication process
The requirements for Authors and the rules for reviewing articles are open and publicly available. The publisher provides an opportunity to discuss the article after its publication, in particular in the form of discussion articles, reviews or letters to the editor.
At the time of publication, the Publisher does not disclose any information about the text submitted for publication to anyone except the Authors, Reviewers and other persons whose participation in the publishing process is necessary. The Reviewers are not disclosed of the Authors 'personal data, and the Authors are not disclosed of the Reviewers' personal data. Until publication, the information obtained in the publication evaluation process, as well as rejected articles or their fragments, may not be used in own research by persons associated with the Publisher or members of the journal's bodies, without the express written consent of the Author.
4.3. Personal data protection
The publisher ensures the confidentiality and security of the processing of personal data in accordance with the provisions of law on the terms and conditions set out in the information clause made available to persons whose data is processed.
4.4. Counteracting unfair research proceedings
If the Author, Reviewer or other persons related to the publishing process are found to be incorrect or violated the ethical principles, the Publisher is obliged to take appropriate corrective and disciplinary actions or take specific actions provided for by law. In the event of detection of unfair research proceedings, the Publisher encourages Editors to use the map of solutions, which are COPE diagrams (https://publicationethics.org/resources/translated-resources/polish-all-flowcharts)