Publishing ethics

The Scientific Publishing House of the Ignatianum University in Cracow (WN UIK) and the Editorial Board of the journal Elementary Education in Theory and Practice are committed to maintaining and updating generally accepted publishing standards and applying good publishing practices in accordance with the Committee on Publication Ethics guidelines (COPE).

EDITORIAL DUTIES

Conflicts of interest

All conflicts of interest between editorial board members, authors, and reviewers are addressed and eliminated.
Authors and reviewers must declare any potential conflicts of interest that could affect the credibility of the publication.
Members of the Editorial Board adhere to ethical standards and are not influenced by commercial interests.
The Editorial Board reviews submitted articles impartially and objectively, aiming to publish high-quality research.

The editor is obliged to:

Ensure a fair and thorough review process.
Share articles with reviewers without disclosing author information (double-anonymous process). https://publicationethics.org/sites/default/files/ethical-guidelines-peer-reviewers-cope.pdf
Select reviewers employed by institutions other than that of the author.
Disclose any potential conflicts of interest arising from competition, collaboration, or other relationships with the authors, institutions, or companies related to the submitted articles. If such conflicts exist, the editor should delegate the review process to co-editors or other editorial board members.
Require all contributors, including guest or theme editors, to disclose any material conflicts of interest and publish corrections if such conflicts are revealed after publication. If necessary, take appropriate actions such as retracting the publication or issuing a correction.
Ensure that advertising, reprinting, or other commercial considerations do not influence editorial decisions.

ANTI-PLAGIARISM PROCEDURES

Plagiarism in any form is unacceptable.
If plagiarism is detected during the initial review by the subject editor or during external reviews, the article will be rejected.
The editors use anti-plagiarism software to check all submissions.
The journal’s content is indexed by CrossRef, and each article is assigned a Digital Object Identifier (DOI).
If there are suspected ethical violations or research misconduct, the editors will investigate. They may contact the authors’ institutions, funding entities, or regulatory bodies if necessary.
In cases of suspected or confirmed misconduct, the journal will follow established ethical procedures. If misconduct is proven, the Editorial Board may take actions such as correcting or retracting the article.

Anti-plagiarism procedure:

- suspicion of plagiarism
- suspicion of self-plagiarism

Procedure against data manipulation: suspected data manipulation

Procedure for authorship and co-authorship:
- adding an author before publication
- removing an author before publication

REVIEW PROCESS

General information

A review is an expert opinion on an article provided by reviewers who specialize in the field relevant to the article.

Reviewers are independent and not part of the journal’s editorial team.
Every scientific article undergoes a thorough review process, including both parametric and qualitative assessments.
The review process is double-anonymous: the reviewer’s identity is hidden from the author, the author’s identity is hidden from the reviewer, but both identities are known to the editor (subject editor or chief editor).

Reviewers are not members of the journal’s editorial team.
Each scientific article undergoes a review procedure (parametric assessment and qualitative assessment).
The review is double-anonymous: the identity of the reviewer is not visible to the author, the identity of the author is not visible to the reviewer, the identity of the reviewer and the author is visible to the editor (subject, chief).

Guidelines and ethics for reviewers

The review process is overseen by the issue’s subject editor, in consultation with the journal’s secretary and the editor-in-chief or deputy editor.
The first stage involves a preliminary assessment by the editorial board. This includes checking the article’s formal aspects, ensuring it aligns with the journal’s profile, verifying correct metadata input, and running the text through the iThenticate anti-plagiarism system. The results are communicated to the author. If the article does not meet the formal requirements, it may be rejected with the possibility of resubmission.
Reviewers are chosen based on their expertise and ethical qualifications. They must be experts in the field with significant scientific achievements and no conflicts of interest (professional or personal) with the author.
Reviewers must confirm or decline the review request in the journal’s OJS system. Upon accepting, they should review the text and complete the review form within 4 weeks, providing a recommendation consistent with their comments. If they recommend “corrections required and re-review,” they commit to reviewing the revised version.
Reviewers use the form on the OJS platform or attach a file that follows the journal’s guidelines. They must be objective and constructive, offering specific criticisms supported by evidence to help authors improve their manuscripts.
Reviewers should maintain professionalism, and avoid hostile or derogatory comments. Their role is to assess the quality and scientific rigor of the text, suggesting additional analyses if necessary but not expanding the work beyond its current scope.
Reviewers must be impartial, not influenced by the authors’ nationality, beliefs, gender, or other characteristics. They should evaluate the manuscript solely on its content and scientific merit.
If a conflict of interest arises, reviewers must notify the journal and withdraw from the review process. They should also inform the editors if they lack the expertise needed to evaluate certain aspects of the manuscript to avoid delays.
If reviewers identify the author(s), they should inform the journal if this knowledge creates a potential conflict of interest in the double-anonymous review process.
Reviewers must maintain confidentiality, not using information from the review for personal gain or to discredit others. They should not involve others in the review without permission from the journal’s editors and must inform the editors if they wish to appoint a co-reviewer.
After completing the review and sending their recommendation to the editors, reviewers receive confirmation and thanks. Their names are included in the annual list of reviewers on the journal’s website.
If reviewers suspect irregularities in the research or publication process, they should inform the editors immediately. This includes concerns about research misconduct, plagiarism, or similarity to other works. Reviewers should cooperate confidentially with the journal rather than conducting independent investigations unless requested by the journal.
In cases of discrepancies between reviewers’ recommendations, the final decision rests with the editorial board or the editor-in-chief.

Consideration of reviews

The final decision to publish an article is made by the journal's editors.
Editors reserve the right to reject an article at any stage of the review process if there are serious concerns or if at least one review is negative. Reasons for rejection may include lack of relevance to the journal’s scope, formal deficiencies, negative reviews, or issues flagged by the anti-plagiarism system.
In ambiguous cases, the final decision is made by the Editor-in-Chief.
Only scientific and review articles are subject to review; editorials are not subject to the review process.
After receiving the reviews, the author must respond by:

a) Making the necessary corrections (highlighting changes in the text for easy evaluation by the editors, e.g., using color or track changes mode).
b) Responding to reviewers’ comments with substantive justifications for any suggested changes that were not made (in a separate file).

The decision to accept an article for publication is made after discussing the reviews and aligning the positions of the author, reviewers, and editors.
Submission of an article does not guarantee its acceptance for publication.
Each article will include information about the submission date and the acceptance date for publication. The publication date is provided on the journal’s website.
Reviewers have direct contact with the editorial board, which acts as an intermediary between the author and the reviewer.
We have adopted a confidential review model, so no information about the review process is published.

AUTHORS’ RESPONSIBILITIES

Before submitting their article, authors must read and sign the copyright statement.

Originality of the article/text

By submitting an article to OJS, authors confirm that the research has not been previously published, is not under consideration elsewhere, is approved by all authors, and, if accepted, will not be published in the same form elsewhere without written permission from the Publisher. Articles that reuse text from the author’s previous works, whether published or under review, are not acceptable. Submitting materials that violate third-party copyrights or legal rights is prohibited. Authors bear full ethical and legal responsibility for any violations or misrepresentations. An originality statement (in electronic form) must be submitted before sending the article.

Definition of authorship

An author or co-author is someone who significantly contributes to the creation of the article and is accountable for the work and its presentation.

Responsibility of authors and corresponding authors

The corresponding author is responsible for the manuscript and communication throughout the publication process and approves the article’s proofreading. They must ensure they have the authority to act on behalf of all co-authors in publication matters, including supplementary materials. The corresponding author must keep co-authors informed about the article’s status during submission, review, and publication.

Contribution of individual authors

For multi-author texts, authors should submit an electronic statement detailing each author’s percentage contribution and specific roles, such as conception and design, data collection, research, data analysis and interpretation, formulation of conclusions, text editing, and others.

Funding for research/journal publication project

Authors must disclose all sources of research funding, including the funding institution’s name, grant name, contract number, and/or grant identifier. For commercial funding, the funder’s role must be described. All financial support for the research/project must be disclosed at the end of the text (after the bibliography) and in the metadata.

Recognition of non-authors

Authors should acknowledge the contributions of others (non-authors) within the article text, e.g. in the footnotes. This includes acknowledging commissioned research, information from unpublished dissertation, or other significant contributions. If other people (non-authors) contributed to significant aspects of the research project, they should be clearly identified in the article.

Conflict of interest

Authors must submit a statement in electronic form (in the OJS system) regarding any potential conflicts of interest when submitting their article. If, in their opinion, any affiliations or roles might affect or might be considered by third parties to affect their objectivity, they must disclose this to the editorial board (e.g., employment at a related institution, paid representation of an institution as, for example, an expert, use of institutional funds).

MANAGING POTENTIAL DISPUTES

Conflict of interest/conflicting interests

A conflict of interest arises when economic, business, or personal relationships between authors, reviewers, or editorial team members could influence the research findings, text evaluation, or publication decisions for Elementary Education in Theory and Practice. Conflicts may also stem from joint projects, past publications, or professional or political rivalries. All parties involved (authors, reviewers, and editorial team members) must report any conflicts of interest to the editor-in-chief.

To identify conflicts of interest, the following procedures are used:

Reviewers are required to:

- Submit a statement of interest on the OJS platform before agreeing to perform the review.

- Withdraw from the review, if there is a conflict of interest due to rivalry, cooperation, or other relationships with the author.

- Authors, editors, and reviewers must adhere to good publication ethics. Providing false or vague information in conflict of interest statements is unethical and unacceptable.

For research involving children or individuals with limited decision-making capacity, authors must provide information on obtaining permission from the relevant Research Ethics Committee.

Authors are legally and ethically responsible for the views expressed in their articles. The publisher and the journal are not legally liable for compensation claims related to the content.

In managing potential disputes, the journal follows COPE guidelines.

If ethical violations or misconduct are suspected, the editors will investigate and may contact the authors’ institutions, funding entities, or regulatory bodies.

If misconduct is confirmed, actions may include correcting, retracting the article, or publishing an erratum.

Appeals and complaints. Policy and handling

This procedure applies to appeals against editorial decisions, complaints about process irregularities (such as delays), and complaints about publication ethics.

Appeals against editorial decisions should be sent to the editor-in-chief or the subject editor who handled the article.

Complaints about the scientific content, such as an appeal against the rejection of an article

The editor-in-chief or subject editor will review the authors’ arguments and decide whether to:

Uphold the rejection.
Seek another independent opinion (review).
Recognize the appeal.

The decision and reasons will be communicated to the complainant, if appropriate. Decisions on appeals are final, and new submissions are given priority.

Complaints about processes, such as the duration of the article review process

The editor-in-chief, along with the subject editor if applicable, will investigate complaints about review times or other processes. Feedback will be provided to the complainant and relevant stakeholders to improve publishing processes and procedures.

Complaints about Publication Ethics, such as the behavior of a researcher, author or reviewer

Complaints about the behavior of a researcher, author, or reviewer will be handled by the editor-in-chief or managing editor following COPE guidelines.

They may seek advice from the publisher or legal advice on complicated matters.

The editor-in-chief or managing editor will decide on the course of action and provide feedback to the complainant.

For more information, see (COPE)

DATA PROTECTION POLICY

The editors ensure the confidentiality and security of authors’ personal data. In accordance with Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of April 27, 2016, on the protection of individuals regarding the processing of personal data and the free movement of such data, and repealing Directive 95/46/EC (General Data Protection Regulation) (Official Journal of the European Union), hereinafter referred to as RODO, and in connection with the Act of May 10, 2018, on the protection of personal data (Journal of Laws 2018, item 1000), we inform you that:

The administrator of the personal data is Ignatianum University in Cracow, located at 26 Kopernika Street, 31-501 Krakow.
Personal data is processed solely for the purpose of the publishing process and the dissemination of publications.
The legal basis for processing personal data is Article 6(1)(a) and Article 6(1)(b) of the GDPR.
Providing personal data is:

Voluntary when accessing the content of open-access journals on the OJS platform.

Necessary for participating in the electronic publishing process (submitting texts for publication with authors’ rights, conducting work related to the roles of thematic editor, section editor, technical editor, reviewer, DTP specialist) and creating an account with reader rights to receive information about newly published issues.