JOURNAL MANAGEMENT (Editorial Roles)

Day-to-day journal management relies on the Editor-in-Chief, Topic Editors, and Publishing House employees. Both the Editor-in-Chief and Topic Editors serve in voluntary, unpaid roles, with most also holding full-time positions at Jan Dlugosz University in Czestochowa or other scientific institutions. The management team is further supported by the Editorial Board Members, Statistical Editor, and Language Editors.

The Editor-in-Chief holds ultimate responsibility for the journal's direction, including decisions on topics, content, editing, website management, advertising, and relationship building. Responsibilities include:

• Collaborating with Section Editors on future topics, content, and contributors;
• Overseeing daily operations, particularly the peer-review process, and ensuring article originality;
• Assigning tasks to editorial team members and ensuring their timely completion;
• Editing content to maintain quality, making final decisions on submissions, and maintaining regular communication with the Editorial Board.

Topic Editors are experts in their fields, currently overseeing four journal areas. They manage the editorial process within their sections, assist the Editor-in-Chief with future topics and content, commission contributions from experts, and facilitate peer review to ensure a consistent flow of high-quality content for timely publication.

Editorial Board Members are a diverse, internationally recognized group of researchers representing four journal areas. In addition to recommending external reviewers, they peer-review articles, provide feedback on content and structure, promote the journal, occasionally contribute short articles, and advise the Editor-in-Chief on the journal's strategic direction.

The Statistical Editor, a voluntary role held by a full-time employee at Jan Dlugosz University in Czestochowa, evaluates the statistical quality of manuscripts. This involves verifying that statistical methods are clearly described, analysis techniques are appropriate, and results are satisfactorily presented.

Language Editors, employed full-time at Jan Dlugosz University Publishing House, bring expertise in English and academic writing. Their duties include reviewing article language during the review process, performing comprehensive editing for clarity and coherence, and ensuring consistency of terminology and adherence to the glossary.

REVIEWERS ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES

Peer review process

The review process for submitted papers begins with a preliminary assessment by the journal's editorial staff. During this stage, each paper is evaluated for its alignment with the journal’s scope, adherence to publisher’s editorial standards, and basic grammatical correctness.

If a paper meets these preliminary criteria, it is assigned an identification code and forwarded to at least two expert reviewers in the selected field. The journal adheres to a double-blind review process, where both reviewers and authors remain anonymous to one another. Reviewers are asked to provide their evaluations using a structured review form.

After the reviewing process, the Editorial Office makes the final decision to accept or reject a manuscript based on the reviewers' comments and recommendations. Finally, to recognize the contributions of our reviewers, a list of reviewers for each issue is published on the journal’s website once the issue is released.

If you are interested in becoming a reviewer for our journal, please contact the Editorial Office via email, including a copy of your CV and an outline of your review interests.

Reviewer Eligibility Requirements:

1. Reviewers should have no prior knowledge of the submission.
2. Reviewers must not have collaborated recently with any of the authors.
3. Reviewers from the same institution as any of the authors are not permitted.

If at least one of the above requirements is not met, the reviewer is required to contact the editorial office.

Guidance for peer reviewers

The review process is a structured, standardized assessment conducted through an electronic system, guiding reviewers through key aspects of a manuscript via a prepared questionnaire. All judgments and findings in the peer-review process are expected to be objective. The review process based on the provided criteria:

1. Document Type Identification: Reviewers begin by selecting the document type (e.g., original article, review article), helping to set the expectations and standards appropriate for the submission's format.
2. Overall Recommendation: Based on an initial evaluation, reviewers select a preliminary recommendation for the manuscript, choosing from options like "accept in present form," "accept after minor revision," "reconsider after major revision," or "reject." This overall assessment reflects the reviewer's general judgment on the manuscript’s readiness for publication.
3. Clarity of Aim: Reviewers assess whether the study’s objective is clearly stated, choosing from responses such as "yes," "no," or "partly," to gauge how effectively the aim is communicated.
4. Introduction and Background: The review then focuses on the quality of the research introduction and background, rated on a satisfaction scale from "not at all satisfied" to "completely satisfied." This step assesses whether the background is adequately set for readers to understand the research context.
5. Inclusion of Prior Studies: Reviewers evaluate how well the manuscript incorporates relevant previous studies, using a scale from "very poor" to "excellent," which reflects the depth of literature integration and understanding of the research field.
6. Choice of Statistical Methods: For studies with statistical analysis, reviewers assess whether the statistical methods are appropriate for the research, with ratings from "very poor" to "excellent," including an option to indicate if the article contains no statistics.
7. Methodological Clarity: Reviewers consider whether the methods are described with enough detail to allow for study replication, answering "yes," "no," or "partly" to indicate whether sufficient methodological transparency is present.
8. Clarity of Results: This step checks the presentation of results, with reviewers indicating "yes," "no," or "partly" to denote whether the results are clearly articulated and easy to interpret.
9. Appropriateness of Study Design: Reviewers evaluate if the study design is suitable for addressing the research question or hypothesis, helping to ensure that the methodology aligns well with the study’s aim. Responses include "yes," "no," or "partly."
10. Clarity and Support of Conclusions: Reviewers assess the clarity and evidence-based support of the conclusions, with a rating scale from "very poor" to "excellent." This step ensures that conclusions are logically derived from the presented data.
11. Quality of Presentation: The overall presentation quality of the manuscript is rated, again on a scale from "very poor" to "excellent," assessing coherence, layout, and readability.
12. English Language and Style Quality: Language and style are evaluated with options ranging from extensive editing requirements to minor spell-check needs, or reviewers may indicate if they are unqualified to judge the language quality.
13. Detection of Plagiarism: Reviewers are asked if they have detected any plagiarism, with a simple "yes" or "no" answer, ensuring the originality and integrity of the submission.
14. Inappropriate Self-Citation: Finally, reviewers indicate whether they detected any inappropriate self-citations by the authors, choosing either "yes" or "no," to maintain ethical standards and prevent biased referencing.
15. Comments and Suggestions for Authors: This section provides reviewers with space to give constructive feedback directly to the authors. Here, reviewers can suggest improvements, clarify concerns, or highlight strengths of the manuscript. These comments are shared with the authors to guide revisions and enhance the manuscript's quality.
16. Comments for Editors: This section allows reviewers to share confidential comments exclusively with the editorial team. Reviewers might use this space to discuss concerns, make specific recommendations regarding the manuscript’s suitability for publication, or share insights on issues like potential conflicts of interest, ethical concerns, or overall suitability for the journal. These comments help editors make an informed final decision.

AUTHORS ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES

Authors responsibility and authorship criteria

Authors are required to confirm that: (1) their manuscript is original, (2) has not been previously published or submitted elsewhere (except as a pre-print or conference paper with limited circulation), and (3) that it complies with ethical standards.

To qualify as an author, individuals must make substantial contributions to the study’s conception and design or to data acquisition, analysis, or interpretation. They must also participate in drafting the article or revising it critically for significant intellectual content. Additionally, authors must approve the final version for publication and accept responsibility for the accuracy and integrity of the work, ensuring that any issues related to these aspects are thoroughly investigated and resolved.

The journal uses the CRediT (Contributor Roles Taxonomy) system to document individual author contributions. CRediT allows authors to provide an accurate, detailed description of their diverse roles in the published work. It is the responsibility of the corresponding author to ensure these descriptions are accurate and agreed upon by all authors. CRediT statements should be submitted during the manuscript submission process and will be published at the end of the manuscript.

The role(s) of all authors should be listed, using the relevant above categories:

Conceptualization	Ideas; formulation or evolution of overarching research goals and aims
Methodology	Development or design of methodology; creation of models
Software	Programming, software development; designing computer programs; implementation of the computer code and supporting algorithms; testing of existing code components
Validation	Verification, whether as a part of the activity or separate, of the overall replication/reproducibility of results/experiments and other research outputs
Formal analysis	Application of statistical, mathematical, computational, or other formal techniques to analyze or synthesize study data
Investigation	Conducting a research and investigation process, specifically performing the experiments, or data/evidence collection
Resources	Provision of study materials, reagents, materials, patients, laboratory samples, animals, instrumentation, computing resources, or other analysis tools
Data Curation	Management activities to annotate (produce metadata), scrub data, and maintain research data (including software code, where it is necessary for interpreting the data itself) for initial use and later reuse
Writing - Original Draft	Preparation, creation and/or presentation of the published work, specifically writing the initial draft (including substantive translation)
Writing - Review and Editing	Preparation, creation and/or presentation of the published work by those from the original research group, specifically critical review, commentary or revision – including pre- or post-publication stages
Visualization	Preparation, creation and/or presentation of the published work, specifically visualization/data presentation
Supervision	Oversight and leadership responsibility for the research activity planning and execution, including mentorship external to the core team
Project administration	Management and coordination responsibility for the research activity planning and execution
Funding acquisition	Acquisition of the financial support for the project leading to this publication

Sample CRediT author statement:

Marie Curie-Skłodowska: Conceptualization, Methodology, Original Draft. Albert Einstein: Data Curation, Investigation, Review & Editing. Rosalind Franklin: Analysis, Visualization, Validation. Niels Bohr: Supervision, Project Administration, Funding. Alan Turing: Software, Resources, Review & Editing. All authors approved the final version of the manuscript.

Read more about CRediT here and here

ETHICAL GUIDELINES AND INTEGRITY

Research ethics

Where applicable, an ethics statement is required whenever research involves human participants or human tissue. Authors must provide full information about ethics approval, including the name of the approving organization and key details.

“This study was conducted in accordance with the World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki. The study protocol was reviewed and approved by the [ethics board name and affiliation] [approval number, city, country, approval date]. All participants provided written informed consent to participate in this study.”

Acknowledgment. Contributors who do not meet authorship criteria should be listed under an “Acknowledgments” heading on the title page of the article. Authors are responsible for ensuring that all acknowledged individuals have agreed to be named.

Financial disclosure. All authors must explicitly disclose funding sources. Use a dedicated “Funding” heading on the title page. If the study received no external support, include the statement:

“Funding: The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.”

Conflict of interests

All authors must disclose potential conflicts of interest under a “Declaration of Conflicting Interests” heading, positioned on the title page of the article before the references. Conflicts can include financial interests such as investments, consultancy, employment, or patents related to the manuscript, as well as personal or academic relationships that could influence the work. If no conflicts exist, include the statement:

“The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.”

Editors and reviewers also declare relevant conflicts and are recused from handling or assessing manuscripts where conflicts exist.

Plagiarism screening

The journal screens submissions for plagiarism. Authors must submit only original work that has not been published previously in whole or in substantial part and that does not reuse copyrighted content without permission. Submitted articles may be checked with duplication-checking software such as iThenticate.

Allegations of misconduct and investigations. The journal addresses alleged misconduct in line with recognized best practice. Confirmed cases of scientific unreliability or misconduct will be acted upon. Actions can include notifying the authors’ institutions and relevant bodies. The journal follows the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) flowcharts when handling concerns. Procedures and guidance are available at https://publicationethics.org/resources/flowcharts.

External guidelines and principles

This journal follows established best practices and provides working links to the full texts of the principles it cites:

• World Medical Association, Declaration of Helsinki – Ethical Principles for Research Involving Humans: https://www.wma.net/what-we-do/medical-ethics/declaration-of-helsinki/
• Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), Core Practices: https://publicationethics.org/core-practices
• Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), Retraction Guidelines: https://publicationethics.org/retraction-guidelines

POST-PUBLICATION POLICIES

Corrections and versioning

The journal corrects the scholarly record promptly. Published corrections cite the original article, describe the changes, and are bidirectionally linked to the article page. Versions are time-stamped and the current version is clearly indicated. Indexing services and metadata providers are notified and DOI records are updated as appropriate.

Expressions of concern

If serious concerns arise but evidence is incomplete or an investigation is ongoing, the Editor-in-Chief may issue an Expression of Concern that explains the reason and links to the article. It remains in place until a final outcome is available.

Retractions and article removal or replacement

Retractions are issued when findings are unreliable due to error or misconduct, in cases of plagiarism or redundant publication, or when legal or ethical issues require action. Retraction notices are freely available, identify the article, state who is retracting and why, and link to the original article, which remains online watermarked “Retracted.” In rare legal or safety circumstances, the journal may remove or replace content and will publish a public statement explaining the reason.

Requests and decision process

Requests for a correction, expression of concern, or retraction may be initiated by authors, readers, institutions, or editors. The Editor-in-Chief, with Section Editors and the Publisher as needed, evaluates requests, may seek institutional input, and issues a decision without undue delay. All authors and relevant institutions are notified of the outcome.

Indexing and metadata

Post-publication notices receive DOIs where applicable, are listed in the table of contents, and are communicated to indexing services so that the scholarly record remains accurate.

Open access and copyright policy

The journal provides immediate open access to its content. Authors retain copyright to their articles, while Jan Dlugosz University in Czestochowa holds first publication rights. As a condition of publication, authors license their work under the Creative Commons Attribution license (CC BY). This license permits remixing, adaptation, and building upon the work for any purpose, including commercial use, provided the original author is credited. Authors may archive any version of their article and reuse it in subsequent works. Detailed guidelines on reuse and redistribution are available on the journal website to support broad dissemination and access.