Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement
Each volume of „In Gremium” is published annually in paper and digital (open access) forms. The digital version is available on the journal’s website under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) license. The editorial workflow of the journal is based on the “Core Practices” delineated by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). The journal is printed by Oficyna Wydawnicza Uniwersytetu Zielonogórskiego (Publishing House of University of Zielona Góra). The editors do not charge authors for submitting and publishing articles or for any other editorial work.
The journal is financed by the Institute of History of the University of Zielona Góra.
The editors do not undertake advertising activities. The texts published in the journal cannot have the character of a sponsored text or an advert.
Reporting standards: The texts submitted for publication must contain a reliable description of the research work carried out and an objective interpretation of the results. The text must contain sufficient information to identify the sources of the data used correctly to verify the test procedure. Unreliable presentation and interpretation of data and research results is unacceptable and results in the publication's interruption procedure, and thus the rejection of the text.
Duplicate, Antiplagiarism and Redundant Practice: Only original texts, which are the result of the research work of the author(s), may be submitted for publication. Submission of an article for publication means that the author declares that the submitted text is not subject to a review procedure, nor it has been accepted for publication in another journal, an edited monograph, etc. It is unacceptable to publish texts presenting the results of the same research process in more than one journal. When using research or the content of other authors, it is necessary to indicate the scope of the citation. Plagiarism and data fabrication are completely unacceptable.
Image Manipulation, Falsification and Fabrication: modification of iconographic material (photographs, maps, illustrations, graphs, etc.) is inadvisable, as it may lead to manipulation and, in extreme cases, falsification of data. At the same time, we realize that sometimes such modifications are necessary for a proper presentation of a research process. In such cases the editors expect the author(s) of the article to describe the issue and reserve the right to decide ultimately.
Acknowledgement of sources: the author(s) of submitted works are required to prepare the text in a way that indicates the publications used and the results of research by other authors that contributed to the creation of the submitted text.
Authorship of the manuscript: persons mentioned in the submitted work as author(s) or co-authors should have a significant share in the text's preparation (design, idea, planning, execution, interpretation of the results).
Those who contributed to the text incompletely or initially should be mentioned in the acknowledgements or the footnote marked with an asterisk.
It is up to the author submitting the text for publication to ensure that persons having a significant contribution to the creation of the article have been taken into account, and the list of co-authors does not include persons who do not meet the above conditions. Submitting the text is tantamount to accepting its final form by all co-authors.
Disclosure and conflict of interest: Author(s) should disclose any conflicts of interest that arise, whether financial or other, that may have influenced the form of the findings. The sources of financial support must be disclosed.
Errors in published texts: If the author(s) discover significant errors or inaccuracies in their texts, they must notify the editors or publisher of "In Gremium" immediately and cooperate with them to withdraw the text or correct errors as an erratum in the printed version of the journal or place an appropriate correction in the electronic version of the text on the journal's website. The editors strongly encourage readers to submit any comments on possible factual errors contained in the published material to: email@example.com.
Data-sharing principle: author(s) may be asked to submit raw research results, therefore they must provide access to the data, including the iconographic material, used at the request of the publisher or editorial board (including some period after the publication of the text).
Responsibility: the editorial board decides which of the submitted articles will be sent for review and publication and is responsible for the content of the journal. The board may consider the suggestions of the journal's program board and takes into account the applicable legal provisions in press and copyright law.
The editorial board cares for the honesty and transparency of scientific proceedings and prevents the lowering of intellectual and ethical standards. In justified cases, it publishes explanations, corrections and apologies.
When deciding to print the text, the editorial board considers the substantive level of the article, the originality of the subject and issue, the innovative approach to the presented problem, and the journal's profile.
The editorial board is independent in its decisions, cares for academic freedom and opposes all forms of discrimination. The editorial board strongly opposes the use of any form of violent, discriminatory or offensive language in correspondence related to the editorial process. Should such a situation arise, the editors will take action against such behaviour. In extreme cases, this may mean withdrawing the manuscript from the editorial process or rejecting the review, or asking for it to be rewritten according to the ethical principles.
The principle of confidentiality: the members of the editorial board observe the principle of confidentiality and therefore do not disclose to unauthorized persons any information about the works submitted for publication and their authors. Only the authors themselves, selected reviewers, potential reviewers (who receive the title and abstract of the proposed text for their opinion), members of the editorial board, authorized members of the program board, and the publisher remains authorized to have this information.
Retraction of a text, complaints and appeals: the editorial board retracts a text if:
- finding plagiarism or self-plagiarism;
- infringement by the author(s) of the copyrights of third parties and persons;
- stating the lack of reliability or falsification of data and/or test results;
- non-compliance with the profile of the journal;
- publishing the research results in another journal.
In the event of a substantiated submission of this kind the editorial board shall take the following steps:
- the text suspected of plagiarism or self-plagiarism is checked by an employee of the University Library responsible for the University's activities in this regard. The prepared bibliometric analysis, along with the text published in "In Gremium" and the plagiarized text, is submitted for an opinion to an external reviewer who has not taken part in the review process so far. Based on the prepared opinion, the editorial board makes the final decision to retract an article:
a) in case of plagiarism the text is removed from the journal's website and a note informing about the retraction of the article appears in its place. The note contains the title of the removed article and the name, surname and affiliation of the author(s) along with information about the reasons for the retraction of the text. The note is published immediately after the final decision is made;
b) the superiors of the author of the retracted text are informed in writing about the situation;
c) the author(s) of the plagiarized text are informed about the actions along with an apology for the situation;
d) the reviewers of the retracted text are informed about the confirmed plagiarism with a request to refer to the situation. The editorial board informs the reviewers about terminating the cooperation.
- the text suspected of being unreliable in the presented research is referred to two external reviewers who have not taken part in the current review process for an opinion. A report of suspected unreliability of the presented research is attached to the text in an anonymised form. Based on the prepared opinion, the final decision to retract an article is made by the editorial board:
a) if the presented research is found unreliable, the text is removed from the journal's website and replaced with information about the reasons for the retraction;
b) the superiors of the author of the retracted text are informed in writing about the situation;
c) the reviewers of the retracted text are informed about the confirmed misconduct of the presented research with a request to refer to the situation. The editorial board informs the reviewers about terminating the cooperation.
Editorial board members do not submit their own or co-authored texts to "In Gremium" to avoid suspicion of manipulating the review process or influencing the decision to publish the text.
Cooperation with the editorial board: the reviewers support the editorial board with their substantive knowledge and scientific experience in deciding about printing the submitted article. The review process and correspondence with persons responsible for contact with the reviewers (editor-in-chief, thematic editor, deputy editor-in-chief and editorial secretary) are carried out via the open journal system and the editorial office's e-mail (firstname.lastname@example.org). The reviewers follow the journal’s review procedure.
Timeliness: the reviewer must prepare the opinion on time or inform the board of the inability to meet the deadline and agree to a new one.
The principle of confidentiality: all texts submitted for an opinion are confidential. Therefore, disclosing their content in any form to unauthorized persons is not allowed.
The principle of maintaining the standards of objectivity: opinions should be impartial. Ad personam comments and the use of disparaging, violent or discriminatory language are unacceptable. Reviewers' comments should be clear. The review should end with an unambiguous conclusion about the acceptance, rejection, or return of the article for correction according to the reviewer's indications.
Principle of source reliability: the reviewer should draw the editorial board's attention to any significant similarities or relationships between the reviewed text and previously published data of which he/she is aware and should indicate any significant works not used by the author.
Transparency and counteracting conflicts of interest: reviewers cannot use for their own purposes the knowledge acquired when giving opinions on the text, especially in terms of new ideas, research results and methodological approach (including the case of a negative conclusion).
The reviewer must inform the editorial board about any conflict of interest, as well as about the situation in which the principle of blind review cannot be maintained.
Persons finding a violation of publishing and research ethics, particularly plagiarism, self-plagiarism and unreliability of the research presented in the text published in the journal, should submit their comments in a documented form to the editor-in-chief (email@example.com).