The prevention of publication malpractice is one of journal’s important responsibilities. Any kind of unethical behavior is not acceptable, and journal editors doesn't tolerate plagiarism in any form.

Plagiarism is committed when one author uses another work (typically the work of another author) without permission, credit, or acknowledgment. Plagiarism takes different forms, from literal copying to paraphrasing the work of another.
Plagiarism is considered to be: identical copying, remix (one person collects information from various sources and mix all together as a single document and claim the work as their own work), copying without citation, self-plagiarism (the act of borrowing from one’s own previous document without a proper citation), when the citation is inaccurate or it will lead to non-existing resources etc.

DUTIES OF AUTHORS
The Authors are expected to be aware of, and comply with the best practice in publication ethics.
• Authorship: authorship over the work submitted to Studia de Cultura should be limited to those who have made a significant contribution to conception, design, execution or interpretation of the reported study. Others who have made significant contribution must be listed as co-authors. Major changes in response to reviewer comments, e.g. adding new data might justify the inclusion of a new author.
• Originality: authors must ensure that the work they submitted is entirely original. The authors bear full responsibility for any case of plagiarism, whether it was discovered during the review process or after the publication in the journal.
• Acknowledgement of Sources: authors should acknowledge all sources of data used in the research and cite publications that have been influential in their research work. All sources should be cited according to standards of citing the sources.
• Reporting Standards: authors should present an accurate account of their original research as well as an objective discussion of its significance.
• Concurrent Publications: the journal's editors doesn't accept simultaneous submissions and the authors shouldn't concurrently submit the same work to journals other that Studia de Cultura. It is also expected that the author will not publish works describing the same research in more than one journal. Translations are acceptable but must reference the original.
• Fundamental Errors in Published Works: if at any point of time, author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in the work submitted to and published by Studia de Cultura, the error or inaccuracy must be reported to the editor.

DUTIES OF EDITORS
Each submission is initially evaluated by the journal’s editors who decide whether or not it is suitable to be considered for publication.
After the initial evaluation, all research papers are checked for originality, using appropriate channels to do so, and then forwarded to two independent external reviewers for two separate blind peer reviews. Each reviewer will make a recommendation to accept, reject, or ask to modify the manuscript.
The journal’s editors make sure that each received submission is reviewed for its intellectual content without regard to sex, gender, sexual orientation, skin colour, religion or lack thereof, origin, citizenship, etc. of the authors.
The journal’s editors must ensure that information regarding authors’ submissions is kept confidential.
The journal’s editors will not use unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted contributions for their own research without written consent of the author.

DOUBLE BLIND PEER REVIEW PROCESS
All manuscripts submitted to Studia de Cultura are initially assessed by the journal’s editors who decide whether or not the received submission is suitable to be considered for publication. Research articles considered suitable for publication are subject to an international double blind peer review process conducted by a minimum of two independent external experts, who assess the article for clarity, validity, and sound methodology. If an agreement is not reached by the initial two reviewers, the submission is sent to a third reviewer in order to reach a final decision about accepting or rejecting the work.
The journal strives to make the peer review process as open as possible, and authors can expect to see a full disclosure of the comments provided by the reviewers to editors.
The processing, reviewing and publishing generally lasts up to 6 weeks from the moment of the submission of the article.
REVIEWER'S RESPONSIBILITIES
The reviewers are required to review only manuscripts for which they have the expertise required to carry out a proper assessment.
After receiving the invitation to review the manuscript, the reviewers are required to immediately notify the editors whenever they feel unqualified to review the assigned manuscript or sees difficulties to meet the deadline for the completion of the review.
After the manuscript has been accepted for the review, the reviewers are required to prepare the review within 6 weeks at the latest.
The reviewers are required to write all reviews in Polish or English and include comments on article orientation, originality and scientific/research value, article goal, methodology, achieved results, discussion, references and quality of quality of the scientific language.
The reviewers are required to inform the editors if there is any possible conflict of interest related to the assigned manuscript. For example, in case the reviewer is invited to review the manuscript of his or her colleague from the same institution etc.
The reviewers are required to treat the manuscript in a confidential manner and not to use any part of the content of the reviewed manuscript for their future research as the reviewing manuscript is not published yet.
The main task of reviewers is an objective assessment of the quality of the manuscript and be constructively critical.
The reviewers are required to inform the editors whenever they find similarities between the reviewed manuscript and another article either published or under consideration to another journal.

PROCEDURES FOR DEALING WITH UNETHICAL BEHAVIOUR
All allegations of the ethical misconduct are taken seriously, and full investigation will take place. All suspected ethical misconduct will be solved according to the Core Practices and Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) flowcharts recommendation.
Minor misconduct should be dealt without the need to be consulted more deeply. In any event, the authors must be given the opportunity to respond to any allegations and must be given the chance for reasonable explanation.
Serious misconduct might require that the employers of the accused be informed. The editors, in consultation with the publisher, must make the decision whether or not to involve the employers, either by examining the available evidence themselves or by further consultation with a limited number of experts.
In case the editors has clear evidence that the findings presented within a publication are unreliable, either as a result of misconduct, or honest error, the findings have previously been published elsewhere without proper crossreferencing, permission or justification, the published material constitutes plagiarism, or reports unethical research, the published materials will be retracted in accordance to the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) retraction guidelines (http://publicationethics.org/resources/guidelines)
......................
ETHICAL STANDARDS

One of the journal's important duties is to prevent abuse of publication. Any unethical behaviour is unacceptable and the editors of the journal do not tolerate any form of plagiarism.
Plagiarism is committed when one author uses another work (usually the work of another author) without permission, recognition or confirmation. Plagiarism takes many forms, from literally copying to paraphrasing a work of another person. Plagiarism includes, but is not limited to: identical copying, remixing (combining information from different sources into a new document and attributing authorship), copying without quoting, autoplagiarism (quoting one’s own published texts without citing them), inaccurate citation or referring to non-existent resources, etc.

AUTHORS’ DUTIES
The authors are expected to be acquainted with the best ethical publication practices:

• Authorship: the authorship of a text sent to Studia de Cultura should be limited to those who have made a significant contribution to the development, design, execution or interpretation of the study. All persons who have made significant contributions must be listed as co-authors. Subsequent changes (e.g. in response to comments from reviewers, e.g. adding new data) may justify the inclusion of a new author.
• Originality: authors must make sure that the paper they have sent is completely original. The authors are fully responsible for any plagiarism, whether it is detected during the review process or after publication in the journal.
• Confirmation of sources: authors should acknowledge all sources of data used in the research and cite publications that have affected their research work. All sources should be cited in accordance with the standards for source citation.
• Reporting standards: authors should provide an accurate description of their original research, as well as an objective discussion of its significance.
• Parallel publications: the editors of the journal will not accept simultaneous submissions, and authors should not send the same work to other journals at the same time. It is also expected that the author will not publish papers describing the same research in more than one journal. Translations are acceptable, but must refer to the original.
• Serious errors in published papers: if at any time an author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in a paper submitted and published by Studia de Cultura, the error or inaccuracy should be reported to the editors.

THE DUTIES OF THE EDITORIAL OFFICE

Each submission is initially evaluated by the editors of the journal, who decide whether or not to include it in the publication.

After an initial evaluation, all research papers are checked for originality using a suitable channel and then submitted to two independent external reviewers for two separate anonymised double blind reviews. Each reviewer makes a recommendation to accept, reject, or ask for the manuscript to be modified.

Journal editors must ensure that any submission received is checked for intellectual content, regardless of gender, sexual orientation, colour, religion or lack thereof, origin, nationality or other characteristics of the identity of the author(s).

Journal editors must ensure that information about author submissions is kept confidential.

Editors of the journal may not use unpublished materials disclosed in submitted works for their own research without the written consent of the author.

DOUBLE BLIND PEER REVIEW PROCESS

All manuscripts submitted to Studia de Cultura are initially evaluated by the editors of the journal, who decide whether the submitted application is suitable for publication. Research papers deemed suitable for publication shall be subject to an international process of double blind peer review by at least two independent external experts who shall assess the article for clarity, relevance and sound methodology.

If the first two reviewers fail to reach agreement, the submission is sent to a third reviewer in order for the editors to make a final decision on whether to accept or reject the paper.

The journal tries to keep the review process as open as possible, and authors can expect full disclosure of comments submitted by reviewers to editors.

Processing, reviewing and publishing usually takes up to 6 weeks after the submission of a paper.

OBLIGATIONS OF REVIEWERS

Reviewers may review only those manuscripts which refer to their expertise, necessary to carry out a proper evaluation.

After receiving an invitation to review a manuscript, reviewers are required to notify the editors immediately if they feel they are not entitled to review an assigned manuscript or see difficulties in meeting the deadline for completing the review.

After accepting a manuscript for review, reviewers are required to prepare a review within 6 weeks at the latest.

Reviewers are obliged to write all reviews in Polish or English and include comments on the originality and academic/research value of the paper, its purpose, methodology, achieved results, polemics, references and quality of the scientific language.

Reviewers are required to inform the editors of any conflict of interest associated with the assigned manuscript. For example, if a reviewer is invited to review the manuscript of his colleague from the same institution, etc.,

Reviewers are obliged to treat the manuscript in a confidential manner and not to use any part of the contents of the reviewed manuscript for future research, as the manuscript has not yet been published.

The main task of the reviewers is to objectively assess the quality of the manuscript and to criticise it constructively.

Reviewers are obliged to inform the editors whenever they find similarities between a reviewed manuscript and another paper published or submitted for publication in another journal.

PROCEDURES FOR SOLVING UNETHICAL BEHAVIOUR PROBLEMS

All allegations concerning ethics are taken seriously and fully investigated. Any ethical misconduct will be dealt with in accordance with the best practices of the Publication Ethics Committee (COPE).

Minor offences will be dealt with without further consultation. Authors will be able to respond to any allegations and explain them reasonably.

Serious misconduct may require that the employer be informed. Editors, in consultation with the publisher, must decide whether to involve employers or examine the available evidence themselves or consult additional experts.

Where editors have clear evidence that: the findings set out in the publication are unreliable; findings are the result of misconduct or unintended error; findings have previously been published elsewhere without adequate reference, consent or justification; published material is plagiarised or contains unethical research, etc.; - the published material will be withdrawn in accordance with the guidelines of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) (http://publicationethics.org/resources/guidelines)