Zasady etyczne obowiązujące w czasopiśmie

Publication Ethics and Publication Malpractice

The following standards of ethical behaviour are expected of all parties involved in the publishing of the Yearbook of Conrad Studies, i.e.: the author, the journal editor, the editorial board, the peer reviewers and the publishers.

All the articles submitted for publication in the Yearbook of Conrad Studies are peer reviewed for authenticity, ethical issues and relevance.


Monitoring ethical standards: the editorial board monitors the ethical standards of scholarly articles and takes all possible measures to combat publication malpractices.

Fair play: Submitted manuscripts are evaluated for their intellectual content without regard to race, gender, sexual orientation, religious beliefs, citizenship, or ideology.

Publication decisions: The editor is responsible for deciding which of the submitted articles should or should not be published. The decision to accept or reject a paper for publication is based on its importance, originality, clarity and its relevance to the scope of the journal.

Confidentiality: The editor and the members of the editorial board must ensure that all materials submitted to the journal remain confidential whilst under review. They must not disclose any information about a submitted manuscript to anyone other than the authors, reviewers, potential reviewers, other editorial advisers and the publishers.

Disclosure and conflict of interest: Unpublished materials disclosed in the submitted manuscript must not be used by the editor or the editorial board in their own research without the written consent of the authors concerned. The editors must never allow commercial considerations to compromise intellectual and ethical standards.

Maintenance of the integrity of the academic record: The editors will protect the integrity of the published academic record by issuing corrections and retractions whenever necessary and by investigating any suspected or alleged malpractices relating to issues of scholarship or publishing, e.g. plagiarism and the publication of fraudulent data.

The editorial board will always be ready to publish corrections, clarifications, retractions and apologies whenever necessary.

Retractions of articles: Journals editors will consider retracting a paper if:

- they have clear evidence that the findings are unreliable, either as a result of misconduct (e.g. data fabrication) or honest error (e.g. miscalculation or experimental error)

- the findings have previously been published elsewhere without proper cross-referencing, permission or justification (cases of redundant publication)

- it constitutes plagiarism or reports unethical research.

Notice of the retraction should be linked to the retracted article (by including the title and the authors in the retraction heading), clearly identifying the retracted article and stating who is retracting the article. Retraction notices should always mention the reason(s) for the retraction in order to distinguish honest error from misconduct.

Retracted articles will not be removed from printed copies of the journal nor from electronic archives, but their retracted status will be indicated as clearly as possible.


Reporting standards: Authors of reports of original research should present an accurate account of the work performed as well as an objective discussion of its significance. Underlying data should be represented accurately in the paper, which should contain sufficient detail and references to allow others to replicate the work. The fabrication of results and the making of fraudulent or inaccurate statements constitute unethical behaviour and may lead to the rejection or retraction of a manuscript or published article.

Originality and plagiarism: Authors should ensure that they have written entirely original work and that they have provided adequate references to the publications of others and/or quotations of their words. Plagiarism and fraudulent data are not acceptable.

Data access and retention: Authors may be asked to provide the raw data for editorial review. They should be prepared to provide public access to such data, and should be prepared to retain such data for a reasonable time after the publication of their paper.

Multiple or concurrent publication: Authors should not in general publish a manuscript describing essentially the same research in more than one journal. Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal concurrently constitutes unethical publishing behaviour and is unacceptable.

Authorship of the manuscript: Authorship should be limited to those who have made a significant contribution to the conception, design, execution, or interpretation of the paper. All those who have made contributions should be listed as co-authors.
The main author should ensure that all appropriate co-authors and no inappropriate co-authors are included in the paper, and that all co-authors have seen and approved the final version of the paper and have agreed to its submission for publication.

Acknowledgement of sources: A proper acknowledgment of the work of others must always be given. Authors should cite publications that have been influential in determining the scope of the reported work.

Fundamental errors in published works: When an author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in a paper that has been submitted for publication, it is his or her obligation to promptly notify the journal editor or publisher and to cooperate with the editor in order to retract or correct the paper.


Contribution to editorial decisions: Peer reviews assist the editor in making editorial decisions and may also help authors to improve their manuscript.
Promptness: Any selected referee who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or who knows that its timely review will be impossible should notify the editor and excuse himself/herself from the review process.

Confidentiality: All manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. They must not be shown to or discussed with any other persons except those authorized by the editor.

Standards of objectivity: Reviews should be conducted objectively. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate. Referees should express their views clearly with appropriate supporting arguments.

Acknowledgement of sources: Reviewers should identify any relevant published work that has not been cited by an author. Any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published paper should be reported to the editor.

Disclosure and conflicts of interest: Privileged information or ideas obtained through the peer review process must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage. Reviewers should not consider evaluating a manuscript in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative or any other relations with the authors, companies or institutions involved.