Policies

---

Code of ethics

The Editorial Board of AUPC Studia ad Bibliothecarum Scientiam Pertinentia (AUPC. SBSP) applies core practices of publication ethics according to the guidelines of COPE – Committee on Publication Ethics. All parts involved in the publishing process (editors, authors, reviewers, and publishers) are familiarized with the practices applied in the journal.

The authors, when submitting the manuscript, must confirm their knowledge of these rules.In the case of manuscripts with multiple authors, the authors must declare who contributed to the work and in what capacity. AUPC. SBSP does not accept the manuscripts that have been under consideration for publication anywhere else. Reviewers who accept to assess the manuscript must confirm the knowledge of the code of ethics (Guidelines for reviewers) as well as declare any conflict of interest.

Detailed guidelines on publication ethics applied in the journal are available at COPE website:  https://publicationethics.org/guidance/Guidelines. The basic standards of ethics applied in AUPC. SBSP, based on the guidelines of COPE are presented below.

Code of conduct for Editorial Board

Fair play. Submitted manuscripts are assessed based on their content without discrimination on grounds of race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, nationality, religious or political beliefs.

Confidentiality. All submissions are confidential. It is unacceptable to disclose their content to the third parties by anyone except if authorized by the Editor-in-Chief. Any part of manuscripts cannot be used by the persons involved in the process of reviewing and editing.

Independence of the Parties and Conflict of Interest. The selection of reviewers is carried out with the utmost care and ethical standards, and in accordance with the principle of independence of the parties. The reviewers should not be affiliated with the same academic institution as any of the authors of the manuscripts, and they cannot assess the manuscripts where a conflict of interest may occur between the reviewer and the author(s).

Prevention of ghostwriting and guest authorship. AUPC. SBSP Editorial Board feels responsible for the research reliability, and it implements the rules of prevention of ghostwriting and guest authorship. “Ghostwriting” is a phenomenon of not disclosing the name of a person who is the author or who has made a significant contribution to the submission. The significant contribution should be always reported by indicating the names of all authors or by acknowledging this person. “Guest authorship” is based on attributing to particular person authorship or co-authorship, even though her/his contribution to the publication was very little or did not happen at all. To prevent ghostwriting and guest authorship, the authors are asked to disclose each author’s contribution to the conception, design, execution, or interpretation of the reported study; the main responsibility in contribution reporting lies on the corresponding author. The Editorial Board requires a financial disclosure as well as disclosure of any support made by research institutions, associations, and any other subjects. The Editorial Board documents any manifestation of scientific misconduct, particularly violation of scientific research ethics. All cases will be revealed, and the relevant actors (i.e., institutions that employ the authors, scientific societies, scholarly editors associations, etc.).

Decisions on publication
The Editor-in-Chief takes the final decision on which materials will be and which will not be published. The Editor-in-Chief’s decision is based on the reviewers’ assessments, journal editorial policy, as well as on the legal requirements considering plagiarism and other copyright violation.

Code of conduct for Reviewers

Contribution to the work of Editorial Board. Reviewers assist in the work of the Editorial Board and they influence the decisions made by editors. They may also assist the authors in improving their manuscripts.

Qualifications and promptness. Any invited reviewer who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript, or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should immediately notify the Editorial Board.

Confidentiality. All texts submitted for publication, reviewed, and edited are confidential. It is unacceptable to disclose their content to third parties, except if authorized by the Editor-in-Chief. The content of the entrusted editorial staff and reviewed texts may not be used in any form by persons involved in the editing and reviewing process.

Standards of objectivity. Reviews should be conducted objectively. Personal criticism of the author is unacceptable. Reviewers should express their remarks clearly with supporting arguments.

Acknowledgment of sources. Reviewers, if needed, should indicate relevant published works that have not been cited by the authors. Any statement that has been reported in previous publications should be accompanied by the relevant in-text citation. A reviewer should also notify the Editorial Board of any substantial similarity between the manuscript under consideration and any other published manuscript.

Independence of the parties and conflicts of interest. The selection of reviewers is carried out with the utmost care and ethical standards, and in accordance with the principle of independence of the parties. In particular, the principle applies, according to which reviewers should not work at the same academic institution as any of the authors of the texts under evaluation, and they cannot evaluate texts where there may be a conflict of interest between the reviewer and the author(s).