Nasze serwisy używają informacji zapisanych w plikach cookies. Korzystając z serwisu wyrażasz zgodę na używanie plików cookies zgodnie z aktualnymi ustawieniami przeglądarki, które możesz zmienić w dowolnej chwili. Więcej informacji odnośnie plików cookies.

Obowiązek informacyjny wynikający z Ustawy z dnia 16 listopada 2012 r. o zmianie ustawy – Prawo telekomunikacyjne oraz niektórych innych ustaw.

Wyłącz komunikat

 
 
politechnika
Ethical Standards

ETHICAL STANDARDS


In order to implement ethical standards at the highest level, the procedures recommended by the COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics) were implemented in the Modern Management Review.
 
All data collected in the publishing process are compliant with the RODO 2018 information clause.
 
 
The review principles of scientific articles in the Scientific Research Papers of the Rzeszow University of Technology
 
The procedure for reviewing research articles in the Scientific Research Papers of Rzeszow University of Technology is in line with the recommendations of Ministry of Science and Higher Education developed as a booklet „Dobre praktyki w procedurach recenzyjnych w nauce”, Warszawa 2011 r.
  1.     To evaluate each article thematic editors (scientific) appoint two independent reviewers outside of the author’s institution. In the case of the articles written in foreign languages, at least one of the reviewers is affiliated with a foreign institution other than the author's nationality.

2.      Thematic editors (scientific) reviewers choose the best-qualified reviewers in the field.

3.      Between the reviewers and authors of the article there is no conflict of interest.

4.      Reviewing procedure is done confidentially (double-blind).

5.      Each review shall be in writing and ends with a request for approval or rejection of the article for publication.

6.      Reviews that do not meet the substantive and procedural requirements are not accepted.

7.      Pre-qualified by the editor-in-chief paper is sent to reviewers who comment on its acceptance or rejection. Reviewers are entitled to re-examine the revised text.

8.      In case of disputes there are appointed additional reviewers.

9.      Reviewers’ remarks are transmitted to the author whose duty is to correct the text.

10.  The final decision to qualify or reject the article belongs to the editor-in-chief in consultation with the members of the Editorial Council.

11.  Review form is available on the website of Scientific Research Papers. Eligibility or rejection criteria are included in the review form.

12.  The names of the cooperative reviewers will be quoted once a year - in the last issue of the Papers, and published on the website.

13.  Detailed information on reviewing articles and works proceedings of the papers and the Publishing House are described in the guidelines for authors of scientific papers.

 
Ghostwriting and guest authorship firewall

To prevent misconduct in science (ghostwriting, guest authorship), the editorial staff of Scientific Research Papers of the Rzeszow University of Technology has introduced appropriate procedures specific to the disciplines represented and has taken the following measures:

1. The editors will require the contributions from the authors in the creation of the article (with their affiliation and the following information: who the author of the concept is, objectives, research, etc.); the primary responsibility will be borne by the person submitting the article.

2. The editors will explain the concept of ghostwriting and guest authorship to the authors, which are a manifestation of scientific misconduct, and any detected cases of this type of action on the part of the authors will be revealed, including the notification of the appropriate bodies.

3. The editors will obtain information about the sources of publications funding, contribution to research institutions and other bodies (financial disclosure).

4.The editors will document all forms of scientific misconduct, especially breaking the rules of conduct obligatory in science.

Conflict of interest

There must be no conflict of interest between reviewers and article authors. Conflict of interest is considered to be the direct personal relationship between the reviewer and the author (in particular, relationship to the second degree and marriage), professional dependency relations or direct scientific cooperation during the last two years preceding the year of the review preparation. Each reviewer and reviewer submits the reviewer's declaration of no conflict of interest. The reviewer is obliged to inform the editorial office of the journal about the occurrence of a conflict of interest.