Publication ethics (COPE)

Version dated: 10 July 2026
Last review of compliance with COPE guidelines: 10 July 2026

“Studia z Historii Filozofii” adheres to publication ethics principles in line with the COPE Core Practices and – in specific matters – with the relevant guidelines and flowcharts of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). These principles apply to authors, reviewers, editors, members of the journal’s bodies and the publisher, and they govern conduct both before and after the publication of an article.Here are the main expectations placed on editors, reviewers and authors, as well as the detailed procedures applied in the journal.

1. EDITOR’S DUTIES

To act in an honest, objective and fair manner, fulfilling the expected duties, without discrimination on grounds of sex, sexual orientation, religious or political beliefs, ethnic or geographical origin of the authors.

Consider the texts submitted for publication solely on the basis of their scientific value (without taking into account their possible commercial values).

Accept and compile submitted texts according to adopted and publicised procedures, and in the event of complaints regarding ethical standards or conflicts of interest proceed as appropriate in accordance with the procedures.

Provide authors with the opportunity to respond to any substantive allegations.
Consider possible complaints regardless of when the original publication appeared and store the documentation related to such complaints.

Editors bear full responsibility and have the right to reject or accept an article. Upon detection of any errors, the editorial team has the right to publish a correction or withdraw the text.

"Studies in the History of Philosophy" implement the principles of accuracy in scientific publications and procedures for the detection of scientific misconduct, particularly the instances of plagiarism, "ghostwriting" and "guest authorship." For this purpose we use CrossCheck (iThenticate) and Polish anti-plagiarism programmes (e.g. "Osa").

Cases of serious scientific misconduct (instances of plagiarism, "ghostwriting" and "guest authorship") will be disclosed and the relevant authorities will be notified of a copyright infringement.

The publisher of the journal "Studies in the History of Philosophy" has introduced procedures aimed at combating the phenomenon of "ghostwriting" and "guest authorship". All authors are required to complete and sign the "ghostwriting" and "guest authorship" declaration.

We are always ready to publish amendments and clarifications, and if necessary – withdraw a text and publish apologies.

2. REVIEWERS’ DUTIES

Streamline the decision-making process and improve the quality of a published text by reviewing the manuscript in an objective manner and within an optimal time frame. The evaluation should be objective.

Keep confidential all the information provided by the editor or author. Not store the manuscript or make its duplicates.

Notify the editor of any published or submitted content that is substantially similar to that contained in the reviewed text. The reviewer should be aware of potential conflicts of interest (financial, institutional relationships resulting from the collaboration of the reviewer and the author in the same projects or other such relationships), should alert the editor in the event that such a situation occurs and, if necessary, refrain from the evaluation of the submitted text. Reviewers should pay attention to published works that are not yet cited.

Reviewed articles should be treated confidentially.

3. AUTHOR’S DUTIES

All authors commit themselves to participate in the peer review process.

The author should keep an accurate record of data related to the submitted manuscript as well as render such data available at a justified request of the editor. In justified cases and where permitted by an employer, funding institution and other interested parties it will be allowed to deposit data in an appropriate repository or a place of storage for the purpose of exchange and further use by other persons.

The author signs the license declaration form and the author's declaration to state that all the information contained in the article is true and authentic. The author confirms that the manuscript sent had not been submitted for publication elsewhere.

The author declares which parts of the text overlap with other texts published or submitted by him/her for publication (by pointing to and citing these sources). The author provides the editor with a copy of a manuscript that may contain overlapping or closely related content to confirm that all the works in the delivered manuscript are original and point to or quote content reproduced from other sources.

The author provides his/her permission to reproduce the content from other sources (this particularly concerns translations).

4. DETAILED PROCEDURES APPLIED IN “STUDIA Z HISTORII FILOZOFII”

Suspected breaches of publication ethics

Any person may report to the Editorial Office a well‑founded suspicion of a breach of publication ethics relating to a submitted or published text, the peer‑review process, or the conduct of a member of the editorial team. Reports should be sent to: szhf@umk.pl
Where possible, the report should indicate the subject of the allegation and the available evidence. The Editorial Office also accepts anonymous reports, provided that they contain information allowing for substantive verification.

The procedure includes:

1. A preliminary assessment of the credibility of the report by the Editor‑in‑Chief or a designated editor.
2. Exclusion from the procedure of any person who has a conflict of interest.
3. Allowing the person concerned by the allegation to present their position.
4. Analysis of the available materials and – where necessary – consultation with an independent expert.
5. Taking appropriate action, in particular rejection of the text, correction, publication of an editorial notice, expression of concern, or retraction of the publication.

If clarification of the case requires findings that go beyond the remit of the journal, the Editorial Office may address the competent academic institution, the author’s employer, the funding body, or another journal. The procedure is conducted confidentially, impartially, and in accordance with the relevant COPE guidelines.

Complaints and appeals

An author may appeal against an editorial decision if they believe that the decision was taken as a result of a material procedural error or an obvious misreading of the content of the article or of the reviews. The appeal should be submitted to szhf@umk.pl within 30 days of receipt of the decision, indicating the specific grounds of the appeal.

The appeal is considered by the Editor‑in‑Chief, provided that they did not participate directly in the contested decision and are not in a conflict of interest. In such a case, the matter is considered by another designated member of the Editorial Office or by an independent expert. The decision taken after consideration of the appeal is final.

Complaints concerning the conduct of the Editorial Office, reviewers, members of the Editorial Board or the publisher may be sent to szhf@umk.pl. A complaint is not examined by the person directly concerned by it. In the case of a complaint against the Editor‑in‑Chief, the matter is referred to a designated independent member of the Editorial Office, a representative of the publisher, or an independent expert.

The Editorial Office confirms receipt of a complaint or appeal and seeks to consider it without undue delay, in accordance with COPE principles.

Conflicts of interest

A conflict of interest means any personal, professional, academic, institutional, financial or other circumstance that may influence, or may reasonably be perceived as influencing, the impartiality of an assessment, review or publication decision.

Authors are obliged to disclose all relevant conflicts of interest and the sources of funding for the research.

Reviewers do not undertake a review if there are circumstances that could undermine their impartiality; they should immediately inform the Editorial Office of such circumstances.

Editors withdraw from handling a submission if they have a personal relationship with the author, close scholarly collaboration, a direct line‑management relationship, or any other conflict that might call into question the impartiality of the decision. The text is then assigned to another editor.

Submissions authored by members of the Editorial Office or the journal’s bodies are subject to the same review rules as other submissions; the author has no access to the process of selecting reviewers or to decision‑making concerning their own text.

If a conflict of interest is disclosed after publication, the Editorial Office assesses its significance and, depending on the circumstances, publishes a correction, an editorial notice, a statement on the conflict, or undertakes other actions in line with COPE guidelines.

Authorship and co‑authorship

Only a person who has made a substantial intellectual contribution to the conception, argumentation, analysis, treatment of sources or preparation of the text, and who accepts its final version and takes responsibility for their own contribution, may be indicated as an author.

Persons whose contribution does not meet the criteria for authorship should be acknowledged in the acknowledgements section, with their consent.

In the case of co‑authored texts, the corresponding author confirms that all co‑authors agree to the submission and publication and discloses their contributions.

Any change to the list of authors after submission requires a written justification and the consent of all current and proposed authors. After publication, changes in authorship are made only in exceptional, duly documented cases and require the publication of an appropriate correction.

The Editorial Office does not adjudicate disputes over actual research contribution if they require evidentiary proceedings that go beyond the remit of the journal; in such cases it may seek clarification from the competent academic institution.

Data, sources and research materials

Given the profile of the journal, the notion of research materials includes, depending on the nature of the article, inter alia empirical data, text corpora, archival materials, transcriptions, source compilations, computer code, illustrative materials and other resources forming the basis of the findings presented.

The author should describe the sources and materials in a manner that enables verification of the argumentation to the extent appropriate for philosophical and history‑of‑philosophy research.

If the article is based on a distinct dataset or on materials that can be made available, the Editorial Office encourages their deposition in a trusted repository and the indication of the access point. If access cannot be provided for legal, ethical, archival or data‑protection reasons, the author should indicate this limitation.

At the justified request of the Editorial Office, the author should make available materials necessary to clarify doubts concerning the reliability of the publication, insofar as this is not precluded by legal or ethical constraints.

In the event of suspected fabrication, falsification or unreliable presentation of data and materials, the Editorial Office proceeds in accordance with the relevant COPE guidelines.

Ethical oversight of research

Authors are obliged to conduct their research in accordance with the applicable ethical and legal standards relevant to the given type of research.

If an article presents the results of research involving human participants, uses non‑public personal data, interviews, testimonies or other materials requiring the consent of participants or the approval of an appropriate ethics committee, the author should indicate how the relevant ethical and legal requirements have been met.

Information enabling the identification of individuals may not be published without an appropriate legal basis or the requisite consent.

In historical and archival research, authors should respect the applicable rules on access to collections, data protection, copyright and justified requirements of confidentiality.

The Editorial Office may request additional explanations or documents where justified doubts arise concerning the ethical character of the research.

Corrections and post‑publication actions

The Editorial Office seeks to maintain the integrity of the published scholarly record. After publication, the following forms of action may be taken:

1. Correction – where an error affects the precision or interpretation of the text but does not undermine the main findings or argumentation. The correction is published as a separately designated document and linked to the article.
2. Editorial notice – where it is necessary to clarify an important issue concerning the publication process or the content of the article.
3. Expression of Concern – where there are serious, credible doubts about the reliability of a publication, but the explanatory procedure has not been completed or its outcome remains uncertain.
4. Retraction – where there is credible evidence that the findings or a substantial part of the content are unreliable as a result of a serious error or misconduct, that plagiarism, redundant publication, unethical research or another breach justifying withdrawal has occurred.

Information on a correction, Expression of Concern or retraction is public, clearly labelled and linked to the original article. A retracted article remains accessible as part of the scholarly record but is clearly marked as retracted. The retraction notice states the reason and the decision‑making body, with due regard for legal requirements.

Decisions are taken in accordance with current COPE guidelines.

Post‑publication discussion

The Editorial Office accepts substantive rejoinders, comments and letters concerning articles published in the journal. Such materials may be subject to editorial or peer review appropriate to their nature. The author of the publication addressed by a rejoinder may be given the opportunity to respond.

The Editorial Office also considers well‑founded information about errors and ethical problems reported after publication, irrespective of whether the reporting party intends to publish a formal rejoinder.

Digital archiving

The journal’s content is stored and safeguarded within the infrastructure of the Nicolaus Copernicus University Academic Journals Platform (Akademicka Platforma Czasopism UMK), with back‑up copies of the server made by the University IT Centre. The purpose of this procedure is to ensure permanent access to the published materials, including in the event of system failure or the discontinuation of current publishing activities.

Thematic issues and texts authored by members of the editorial team

All scholarly articles published in thematic issues are subject to the same standards of substantive, ethical and peer review as articles in regular issues.

A guest editor may not take decisions concerning their own article or a text in relation to which they have a conflict of interest. Such cases are handled by an independent member of the Editorial Office.

Articles authored by the Editor‑in‑Chief, members of the Editorial Office, the Editorial Board or the editors of a thematic issue are processed without the author’s participation in the selection of reviewers, access to the confidential part of the process, or decision‑making.

Generative artificial intelligence tools

Generative artificial intelligence systems may not be indicated as authors or co‑authors of publications.

The author bears full responsibility for the content of the submitted text, the accuracy of references, the reliability of the argumentation and the absence of infringements of third‑party rights. Substantial use of generative AI tools in the preparation of the text, translation, analysis of material or creation of content should be disclosed in a manner appropriate to the nature of the use. Routine use of tools for linguistic or technical correction does not require separate disclosure, provided that it does not result in the generation of a substantial part of the scholarly content.

Reviewers and editors may not submit confidential, unpublished manuscripts to external generative AI systems if this could compromise confidentiality, the author’s rights or data‑protection rules.