General principles

The publisher of the journal Current Problems of Forensic Science (PTK Publishing House) follows the ethical standards developed by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and recommended by the Ministry of Science and Higher Education (MNiSW).  The COPE standards support publishers in spreading ethical publishing practices.  They guarantee the application of publishing ethics, including transparency and integrity in science.  Adherence to such rules applies to the publisher, authors, and reviewers.  Below are links to pages detailing the Committee on Publication Ethics COPE standards.

Each publication submitted to the PTK Publishing House is reviewed for compliance with publishing ethics, reliability and scientific value before publication.

Rules applicable to the publisher

• Controlling ethical standards: The publisher is constantly vigilant about adhering to current publishing standards and publishing ethics, preventing practices inconsistent with accepted standards.
• The principle of fair play: race, gender, religion, origin, citizenship or political beliefs of authors in no way affect the evaluation of texts.  Texts are evaluated only on their merits.
• Criteria for accepting texts for publication: The publisher decides which texts will be published.  When accepting texts for publication, the reviewers’ opinions on the scientific value of the work, the originality of the treatment of the problem, and the clarity of the argument are taken into account.
• Confidentiality principle: The publisher shall not disclose to unauthorized persons any information about the works submitted for publication.  Persons authorized to have this information are: the author, designated reviewers, editors and other persons involved in the publishing process.
• Addressing conflicts of interest: Unpublished texts may not be used by employees of the publishing house or any other persons involved in the publishing process without the written consent of the authors.
• Withdrawal of publication: The publisher has the right to withdraw a publication after it has been issued if:

• there is evidence of the unreliability of test results and/or falsification of data, as well as when unintentional errors are made (e.g., methodological errors, calculation errors);
• the work bears the signs of plagiarism or violates the rules of publishing ethics.

Principles applicable to the author

• The principle of scientific integrity: Authors are required to accurately describe the research work performed and interpret the results objectively.  The work should include information to identify data sources.  Plagiarism or falsification of data is unacceptable.
• The principle of originality of work: Authors may submit their original texts for publication, and research descriptions, information or views of other authors used in the publication should be clearly identified in the text of the paper, references and bibliography, respectively, or marked to indicate that it is a citation.
• The principle of authorship of the work: authors submitting multi-author texts for publication must provide individual authors’ affiliations.

• Principle of reliability of sources: Authors must list in the appendix bibliography the publications they used in creating the text.
• The principle of the correctness of text editing and error correction: Authors should compile the text without errors, in a logical and coherent manner, and if the author discovers mistakes or inaccuracies, he is obliged to inform the publisher in order to correct the errors in an errata, the next edition of the work or a reprint.

Rules applicable to the reviewer

• Anti-conflict of interest principle: The reviewer does not know the personal details of the author(s) but should, based on the text of the peer-reviewed article, assess the possibility of conflicts of interest arising from competition, collaboration or other relationships related to the submitted manuscript.  In this case, he should waive the review.  The reviewer may not use the reviewed work for personal needs and benefits.
• Timeliness principle: The reviewer must deliver the review within the established deadline.  If, for some reason (content, lack of time, etc.), he is unable to meet the deadline or undertake the review; he should immediately inform the publisher.
• Confidentiality principle: The reviewer should not disclose the review to third parties except those involved in the publishing process.
• The principle of maintaining standards of review integrity: The review should be fair and objective, and comments and conclusions should be adequately justified.  The reviewer should identify works related to the subject of the text not cited by the author but relevant to the topic addressed.  The reviewer should also identify and report any significant similarities between the reviewed text and other works to the publisher.

Handling of reported or identified violations of publication ethics rules

The publisher considers every report of unethical publishing behavior, even if detected long after publication.  In the case of violations of the rules of publication ethics, in particular concerning a reasonable suspicion or statement:

• plagiarism,
• reproducing someone else’s work to a lesser extent,
• duplicate the author’s work,
• doctoring of the data,
• unauthorized use by the reviewer of the author’s work for his publication,
• other violations,

The publisher gathers evidence and takes appropriate action tailored to the extent and severity of the violation of publishing ethics.  These activities include, in particular:

• discontinuance of the proceedings due to the non-occurrence of ethical violations,

• issuing a letter to the author or reviewer indicating a breach of ethics, along with a warning about the need for due diligence in the future,

• publication on the publisher’s website of an official notice including details of the author’s or reviewer’s ethical violations,

• publishing a correction of the work,
• withdrawal of text from publication,
• notification of the case to relevant entities, including the author’s employing institutions, scientific associations, and, if necessary, law enforcement or other entities,

• imposing a formal embargo on the author or reviewer with the publication of information about the such fact on the Publisher’s pages,

• taking other actions appropriate to the circumstances.

Whenever a violation of ethics is reported, the addressee (author, reviewer) has the right to respond to all allegations made.  The decision as to the type of action taken and its scope is made by the editor-in-chief in consultation with the chairman of the Scientific Council of the journal and, if necessary, after obtaining the opinion of the Scientific Council of the Polish Forensic Association.