For Editors

1. General Responsibilities of Editors

Editors are responsible for the proper conduct of the editorial and peer-review processes and for protecting the integrity of the published scholarly record.

Their responsibilities include:

• ensuring a fair and impartial editorial process;
• monitoring the timeliness, thoroughness, and integrity of peer review;
• maintaining appropriate standards of communication between participants in the publishing process;
• making unbiased decisions;
• maintaining the integrity of the scholarly record;
• defining and applying editorial policies;
• handling complaints and potential cases of misconduct;
• disclosing their own conflicts of interest.

2. Impartial Editorial Decisions

Editorial decisions should be made independently and should be based on the quality and nature of the material under consideration.

Disclosed conflicts of interest should not influence the peer-review process or editorial decisions. Where an editor has a conflict of interest in relation to a particular manuscript, responsibility for the matter should be transferred to another appropriate editor.

3. Managing the Peer-Review Process

Editors are responsible for organising peer review in accordance with the procedures of the relevant journal, series, or publishing unit.

The process should ensure:

• reviewer independence;
• confidentiality;
• appropriate management of conflicts of interest;
• the possibility of inviting additional reviewers where a review is insufficient;
• independence of the final editorial decision.

Reviews should be submitted in writing and accompanied by a declaration of potential conflicts of interest where required by the publication's procedure.

4. Selection of Reviewers

Editors should select reviewers in a manner that enables independent and appropriate scholarly assessment.

Where a reviewer has a conflict of interest, the manuscript should be assigned to another reviewer.

If a review does not provide an adequate basis for evaluating the material, editors may invite additional reviewers or discuss the matter internally.

5. Submissions by Editors and Editorial Board Members

Materials authored by editors, editorial board members, or other persons with a potential conflict of interest should undergo the standard peer-review procedure conducted by persons independent of the author.

An author holding an editorial position should not participate in the evaluation or decision-making process concerning their own work. Responsibility should be assigned to another editor who has no relevant conflict of interest.

6. Conflicts of Interest

Editors should disclose actual and potential conflicts of interest.

Conflicts may arise, among other circumstances, from financial, personal, or family relationships, employment, consultancy, honoraria, funding, or other relationships with authors, reviewers, members of the editorial team, or the publisher.

Where a conflict could affect the independence of a decision, the editor should withdraw from handling the matter.

7. Confidentiality

Materials submitted for publication should be treated as confidential throughout the editorial process until they are published.

Editors, reviewers, and other persons involved in the process should protect manuscripts and their components against unauthorised disclosure, misappropriation, and plagiarism.

This obligation also applies to unpublished research ideas, data, and other information contained in submitted materials.

8. Suspected Misconduct

Editors should respond to credible information suggesting a possible breach of publication ethics, both before and after publication.

Concerns may include:

• plagiarism;
• fabrication or falsification of data;
• manipulation of figures, tables, or citations;
• use of materials without the required permission;
• authorship or contribution problems;
• duplicate or redundant publication;
• manipulation of the peer-review process;
• concealment of a conflict of interest;
• other forms of publication misconduct.

9. Handling Allegations of Misconduct

Upon receiving a credible allegation, editors, together with the appropriate publishing body, should take steps to establish the circumstances of the case.

In publication ethics matters, relevant guidance from the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) should be taken into account.

The outcome should be communicated to the person who raised the concern, the person concerned by the allegation, and, where appropriate, relevant institutions.

10. Complaints and Appeals

Editors should provide an appropriate mechanism for submitting complaints concerning the publication and the editorial process.

Complaints may concern editorial decisions, published material, peer-review procedures, delays, the conduct of reviewers or editorial team members, or other potentially unethical activities.

The appropriate person or body should determine whether the applicable procedures were followed. The complainant should be informed of the outcome.

11. Changes to Authorship

Editors are responsible for considering requests for changes to authorship in accordance with the policies of the relevant publication.

A request to add or remove an author, or to change the order of authors, should include an explanation and agreement from all authors concerned.

Where the material has already been published, an authorship change should be appropriately documented, for example through a corrigendum.

12. Post-Publication Corrections

Editors should respond appropriately to significant errors identified after publication.

Where an author or another person reports an error, the editorial office should assess its nature and significance and determine whether an appropriate correction is required.

Depending on the circumstances, the publication may issue:

• an addendum;
• an editorial note;
• an expression of concern;
• a correction;
• a corrigendum;
• a retraction.

13. Retractions

Where serious concerns compromise the integrity of a publication, editors should apply appropriate retraction procedures in accordance with COPE guidance.

Grounds for retraction may include:

• plagiarism;
• redundant publication without appropriate disclosure;
• use of materials or data without authorisation;
• copyright infringement or other serious legal issues;
• unethical research;
• a compromised or manipulated peer-review process;
• failure to disclose a major competing interest affecting the interpretation of the work or the peer-review process.

A retraction notice should be clearly linked to the original publication.

14. Removal of Published Material

Complete removal of published material should be exceptional and should be considered primarily where retraction alone is insufficient because of a serious legal issue or hazard.

Where possible, basic publication metadata should remain available, together with a statement explaining why the content was removed.

15. Special Issues, Supplements, and Supplementary Material

Special issues and supplements should be subject to the same standards of independence, impartiality, and peer-review quality as regular publications.

Supplementary material may also be subject to peer review, depending on its nature.

16. Publication-Specific Procedures

Individual journals, series, and publishing units determine their own detailed procedures concerning, among other matters, the peer-review model, number of reviewers, types of material referred for review, decision-making procedures, and forms used in the process.

Editors should follow the procedures applicable to the publication they manage while maintaining the general principles of publication ethics and integrity of the University of Warsaw.

Contact

General questions concerning publication ethics at the University of Warsaw may be addressed to:

Research Services Office
E-mail: ja.lewczuk@uw.edu.pl

Useful Resources

The following external resources provide guidance, practical tools, and recommendations on editorial processes, peer review, and publication ethics.

• COPE – Committee on Publication Ethics – Ethics Toolkit for a Successful Editorial Office: practical guidance on editorial policies, publication ethics, identifying ethical concerns, and responding to suspected misconduct. COPE – Ethics Toolkit for a Successful Editorial Office
• EASE – European Association of Science Editors – Toolkit for Journal Editors: resources covering journal management, editorial workflows, peer review, publication ethics, retractions, and good editorial practice. EASE – Toolkit for Journal Editors
• Council of Science Editors (CSE) – Editor Roles and Responsibilities: guidance on editors' responsibilities towards authors, reviewers, readers, the scientific community, and journal owners or publishers. CSE – Editor Roles and Responsibilities
• WAME – World Association of Medical Editors – Policies for Medical Journal Editors: policies and recommendations concerning publication ethics, editorial independence, conflicts of interest, peer review, and the use of artificial intelligence. Particularly relevant to medical and health-science journals. WAME – Policies for Medical Journal Editors
• ICMJE – International Committee of Medical Journal Editors – Recommendations for the Conduct, Reporting, Editing, and Publication of Scholarly Work in Medical Journals: guidance on editorial responsibilities, peer review, conflicts of interest, corrections, publication misconduct, and responsible use of AI. ICMJE – Recommendations
• COPE / DOAJ / OASPA / WAME – Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing: principles covering journal transparency, peer review, editorial teams, publication ethics, ownership, fees, advertising, and archiving. Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing