Focus and Scope

Cognitive Science - New Media - Education is an English language, reviewed, six-monthly e-journal. It presents the latest research and theoretical reflections on cognitive aspects of media pedagogy and the use of new media in the wider realms of education, culture, art, educational therapy and speech therapy, among other areas. The addressed subject-matter is meant to facilitate the integration of the international scientific community and thus to foster the development of theory and research within the aforementioned areas. Each issue will include the following:

1. Studies and dissertations.

2. Research reports.

3. Reports from educational practice.

4. Innovations and introductions.

5. Scientific debuts.

6. Reviews.

7. Varia.

We invite researchers from Polish and foreign academic institutions whose scientific interests overlap with the content scope of the Journal. We hope that this electronic publication will constitute an important initiative of the academic educational environment in our country, aimed at the development of scientific disputes on the issues of the role and place of media in the modern world. We are committed to maintaining a high scientific level of the published articles, which will be subjected to reviewing procedures in accordance with the recommendations of the Ministry of Science and Higher Education.

ETHICAL PUBLICATION RULES

COGNITIVE SCIENCE - NEW MEDIA - EDUCATION *

The Editorial Board of Cognitive Science - New Media - Education seeks to maintain ethical standards in their scientific publications and shall take all measures against negligence and inadequacies in this area.

THE EDITORIAL BOARD WILL BE BOUND BY THE FOLLOWING OBLIGATIONS:

Admittance of articles

When deciding to admit articles for publication, the Editorial Board is obliged to abide by the existing legislation, including copyright regulations.

Prohibition of discrimination

In the area of non-discrimination, the Editorial Board will abide by the law in force in the Republic of Poland.

Impartiality

When making their decisions to admit or reject scientific articles, the Board will consider their originality, scientific quality and consistency with the mission of the Journal, rather than the author's provenance, nationality, ethnicity, political stance, gender, race or religion.

Confidentiality / disclosure and conflict of interest

Members of the Editorial Board cannot disclose information on articles submitted for publication (including the content of reviews) to third parties, i.e. to people who are not involved in the process of publication. The Board will not disclose information about authors to reviewers or information about reviewers to authors. The Editorial Board will not appoint reviewers who remain in direct subordination to authors or in other direct personal relationships (if the editorial staff are aware of such liaisons).

In their publications / presentations, the members of the Editorial Board may not refer to, quote or otherwise relate to the content of articles that have not yet been published without prior permission of their authors.

REVIEWERS WILL BE BOUND BY THE FOLLOWING OBLIGATIONS:

Editorial decisions

Reviewers will support the Editorial Board in decisions regarding the publication of articles.

Deadlines

Reviewers are obliged to declare whether they can meet the deadline. Should they find it impossible to meet the deadline, they are obliged to inform the Editorial Board.

Standards of objectivity

Personal criticism of authors is deemed inappropriate. Reviewers should clearly express and justify their position. Comments made by reviewers should be of constructive character.

Anonymity

All reviews are performed anonymously and the Editorial Board does not share authors’ / reviewers’ personal details.

Confidentiality / disclosure and conflict of interest

All reviewed articles are confidential, i.e. they may not be shown or talked about with other people than members of the Editorial Board. Any doubts, criticism and polemics should be stipulated in the review, whose content should be treated as a confidential document. Information obtained in the course of the reviewing process may not be used for personal gain.

Confirmation of sources

Reviewers should inform the Editorial Board of any suspected copyright infringement in the reviewed article, and pay attention to deficiencies or errors in footnotes. Reviewers should also inform editorial assistants of violations in ethical standards (if such occur), including significant similarities, partial content overlapping with other publications or suspected plagiarism.

AUTHORS WILL BE BOUND BY THE FOLLOWING OBLIGATIONS:

Appropriate designation of authorship / disclosure of funding sources / conflict of interest

Authorship should be limited to those who had a significant influence on the content of the article. Others involved in the work on the article should be listed in a footnote as co-operators, e.g. fieldwork assistants.

Authors have the responsibility to disclose all funding sources, contribution of research institutions, associations and other entities (affiliation and / or relevant reference) and any relevant conflicts of interest that may affect the results or their interpretation.

The Editorial Board recognises ghostwriting and guest authorship as signs of scientific misconduct, and all detected cases will be disclosed, including notification of all relevant entities (employment institutions, scientific societies, associations of scientific editors, etc.).

Ghostwriting occurs when someone has made a substantial contribution to a publication, without revealing their participation as one of authors or without mentioning their role in the acknowledgments.

Guest authorship (also known as: honorary authorship) occurs when the participation of an author is insignificant or non-existing, and his / her name appears at the top of the article.

Authors will submit a declaration aimed at the prevention of ghostwriting and guest authorship.

Access to data and their ownership

Authors may be asked to provide raw data on their work submitted for publication.

Multiple, competitive publications

Submission of the same article to more than one editorial board at the same time constitutes unethical behaviour and as such, is unacceptable.

Fundamental errors in published articles

Should authors discover a significant error or inaccuracy in their article, they are expected to immediately notify the Editorial Board. Also the Editorial Board, having learned of errors from third parties, will take all necessary steps to make appropriate adjustments.

Originality and plagiarism / confirmation of sources

Authors will submit their original articles. At the same time, they are obliged to reveal sources that influenced the creation of an article submitted for publication, by means of footnotes and citations. Authors should make sure that names of authors / books cited in their work and / or cited fragments were appropriately labelled. Authors may not rely on the information obtained in private, without express consent of the source. Also, they may not make use of confidential information without the permission of relevant authorities.

The Editorial Board is required to document all forms of scientific misconduct, especially violations and infringements of rules of ethics applicable to science.

Peer Review Process

The process of reviewing

1. All submitted articles are subject to the process of reviewing; their submission denotes author’s consent to the reviewing procedure in force.

2. The initial review, i.e. formal and thematic assessment is performed by members of the Editorial Board.

3. On preliminary approval by the editorial staff, each article is referred to at least two independent reviewers, not employed at the same institution as the author.

4. The process of reviewing is carried out according to a double-blind review model, i.e. authors and reviewers are unaware of their identities; if the model is not applicable, the reviewer signs a No Conflict of Interest Declaration (when there is: direct personal relationship between the author and the reviewer [kinship, legal relationship, conflict], professional relationship, direct scientific cooperation in the past two years).

5. Each reviewer presents critical comments and makes a final recommendation. Possible recommendations include:

a / accept for publication in the existing form,

b / accept for publication after amendments,

c / do not accept for publication.

6. A final decision about the publication is made by the scientific editor after his / her familiarisation with the reviews and recommendations.

7. The author is informed of the outcome of the reviews, but not given the names of reviewers.

8. Reviewers’ names are not disclosed; a list of reviewers cooperating with the Journal is published yearly on its website.

Review form

Open Access Policy

The journal offers access to the contents in the open access system on the principles of non-exclusive license Creative Commons (CC BY-ND 3.0).

Scientific Council

prof. Diane Boothe, Boise State University, Idaho, USA
prof. Erik Bratland Nord Universitet, Norwegia
prof. Giuseppe Chiarenza, Włochy
prof. Piero Crispiani, Università di Macerata, Włochy
profesor Jelena Davidova, Faculty of Education and Management, Daugavpils Universitate, Łotwa
prof. Angela Fawcett, University of Swansey, Wielka Brytania
prof. zw. dr hab. Janusz Gajda, Polska
prof. zw. dr hab. inż. Włodzimierz Gogołek, Uniwersytet Warszawski, Polska
prof. Sabahudin Hadžialić Międzynarodowy Uniwersytet w Travniku, Bośnia i Hercegowina oraz Uniwersytet UNINETTUNO we Włoszech
prof. zw. dr hab. Stanisław Juszczyk, Uniwersytet Śląski, Polska
prof. zw. dr hab. inż. Grzegorz Karwasz, Uniwersytet Mikołaja Kopernika, Polska
prof. zw. dr hab. Maria Kozielska, Politechnika Poznańska, Polska
prof. zw. dr hab. Zbigniew Kwieciński, Uniwersytet Mikołaja Kopernika, Polska
prof. Roald Larsen, UiT University of Tromsø, Norwegia
prof. zw. dr hab. Tadeusz Lewowicki, Polska
prof. Joseph Malach, Czechy
prof. zw. dr hab. Zbyszko Melosik, Uniwersytet im. Adama Mickiewicza w Poznaniu, Polska
dr hab. inż. Janusz Morbitzer, prof. WSB, Wyższa Szkoła Biznesu w Dąbrowie Górniczej, Polska
dr hab. Piotr Petrykowski, prof. UMK, Uniwersytet Mikołaja Kopernika, Polska
prof. dr hab. Beata Przyborowska, Uniwersytet Mikołaja Kopernika, Polska
prof. Kerry Rice, Boise State University, Idaho, USA
dr paed., asoc. profesor Marite Rozenfelde, Faculty of Education, Languages end Design, Rezekne Academy of Technologies, Łotwa
prof. zw. dr hab. Krzysztof Rubacha, Uniwersytet Mikołaja Kopernika, Polska
prof. zw. dr hab. Bronisław Siemieniecki, Uniwersytet Mikołaja Kopernika, Polska
prof. zw. dr hab. Władysława Szulakiewicz, Uniwersytet Mikołaja Kopernika, Polska
prof. zw. dr hab. Bogusław Śliwerski, Uniwersytet Łódzki, Polska
dr hab. Maciej Tanaś, prof.  APS., Akademia Pedagogiki Specjalnej im. Marii Grzegorzewskiej, Polska
prof. Aiste Urboniene Uniwersytet w Wilnie (Kaunas, Litwa)
dr hab. Marta Urlińska, prof. UMK, Uniwersytet Mikołaja Kopernika, Polska
dr paed. Svetlana Usca, Personality Socialization Research Institute, Rezekne Academy of Technologies, Łotwa

prof. dr Harald Nilsen †, Norwegia

prof. zw. dr hab. Kazimierz Wenta †, The Koszalin University of Technology, Poland

List of Reviewers

-   prof. dr hab. Marek Sokołowski - Uniwersytet Warmińsko-Mazurski w Olsztynie

-   dr hab. Józef Bednarek, prof. APS - Akademia Pedagogiki Specjalnej im. Marii Grzegorzewskiej w Warszawie

-   dr hab. Beata Borowska-Beszta, prof. UMK - Uniwersytet Mikołaja Kopernika w Toruniu

-   dr hab. Janusz Miąso, prof. UR - Uniwersytet Rzeszowski

-   dr hab. Grażyna Penkowska, prof. UG - Uniwersytet Gdański

-   dr hab. Elżbieta Perzycka, prof. US – Uniwersytet Szczeciński

-   dr hab. Ryszard Pęczkowski, prof. UR - Uniwersytet Rzeszowski

-   dr hab. Marta Wrońska,  prof. nadzw. UR - Uniwersytet Rzeszowski

-   dr hab. Beata Stachowiak - Uniwersytet Mikołaja Kopernika w Toruniu

-   dr Małgorzata Karczmarzyk - Uniwersytet Gdański