Ethics and quality assurance policy

Statistics in Transition new series statements concerning publication ethics and malpractice are based on the practice guidelines developed by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). We expect all parties to commit to these principles, including ourselves. We strive to maintain the integrity of the academic record and are always willing to publish corrections, clarifications, retractions and apologies as needed. We do not tolerate plagiarism or fraudulent data, or any other unethical behaviour and will not hesitate to remove any manuscript that fails to meet these standards.

I. Procedures for dealing with unethical behaviour

Misconduct and unethical behaviour (such as duplicating publications, plagiarism, fabricating data, ghost authorship, guest authorship, gift authorship) with respect to the submitted manuscript may be identified and brought to the attention of the editor and publisher at any time and by anyone. Whoever informs the editor or publisher of any misconduct should provide all the sufficient information and evidence in order for an investigation to be initiated. Upon the presentation of the ethical allegations concerning the submitted or published manuscript, the editors initiate the relevant COPE procedures (flowcharts of COPE) verifying these allegations. All allegations shall be taken seriously and investigated with the utmost diligence until a satisfactory decision or conclusion is reached.

1. Investigation

The initial decision to conduct an investigation should be taken by the editor in consultation with the publisher, if necessary. Evidence should be gathered and treated as confidential and the allegations can be shared only with those who are involved in the matter. The Editor-in-Chief will be informed about the course of the procedure on an ongoing basis.

Minor misconducts may be addressed without the need for wider consultations. In any event, the author should be given the opportunity to respond to any allegations. Having considered the explanations, the editor has the right to make a decision as to the further proceedings regarding the manuscript independently (without further consultations). A serious misconduct may involve notifying the employers of the author suspected of misconduct. The editor, in consultation with the publisher (if necessary) makes a decision whether or not to present the allegations to the authorities of the institution that the author represents, to the person supervising the research at the author’s institution, or to conduct further consultations with other experts.

Having considered the case, the editor may apply any or all of the following punitive measures which involve:

1. informing the author or reviewer of the violation of the acceptable standards;
2. the publication of a formal notice detailing the misconduct on the journal’s website and in its next issue;
3. sending a formal notice to the supervisor of the author or reviewer;
4. a formal retraction or withdrawal of the publication from the journal and informing the relevant institution about the author’s or reviewer’s misconduct;
5. banning the author or reviewer from making contributions to the journal for a defined period.

The measures are imposed at the discretion of the Editor-in-Chief.

2. Retraction

If an instance of a serious misconduct is detected in the article after it is published or if large parts of the article are considered invalid, then the paper should be retracted with an explanation of the circumstances (involving e.g. fraud, error, plagiarism, violation of copyrights, double publications, failure to disclose a conflict of interest that might influence the reviews of the paper and the decisions of the editors/reviewers). Retraction may also be considered, if the published article is found to contain confidential information obtained by the author from third parties and used unlawfully in the article.

If in accordance with the principles of COPE, the retraction of an article is necessary, the following procedures should be followed:

• In the subsequent edition of the journal, a retraction note is published, signed by the authors and/or the editor.
• The electronic version of the retraction note includes a link to the original article.
• The online edition of the article contains information about the retraction.
• The original article remains unchanged, but a ‘RETRACTED’ watermark is added on each page of the PDF file).

3. Publishing Expressions of Concern

If there are significant doubts concerning the honesty or integrity of the manuscript or published article, the editors of the journal may consider publishing an editorial note called expressions of concern, stating that the results of the research should be treated with caution. Expressions of concern are published only if the investigation concerning the problems related to the article did not bring any results and if grounds for concern exist (the evidence that the research conducted by the authors was incorrect is not conclusive, but the nature of doubts justifies notifying the Readers; there is justified concern that the findings are unreliable or that a certain misconduct may have occurred, but the cooperation on part of the institutions of the authors in investigating the reported causes of concern is unsatisfactory). Such expressions of concern may also be published if the investigation is in progress but the findings will not be available for a longer period. The editorial note is linked to the article to which it refers.

II. A conflict of interest

Conflict of interest is understood as a situation where any interests or dependencies (of professional, financial or other nature) may influence the assessment of the article or the decision whether to publish it or not.

All authors, reviewers and editors are required to declare any interests that could appear to compromise, conflict or influence the validity of the publication. Competing interests must be declared upon an article's submission. A conflict of interest must be stated if there is any reason why the information or the interpretation of information being produced may be influenced by a personal or financial relationship with other organisations or individuals, or if these relationships could be reasonably perceived from other people as influencing objective data or decision-making. Everyone involved in the submission, editorial processing, peer review and publication should declare any competing interests that they may have as early as possible.

The author(s), reviewers and editors should all take into account the consideration that when there is a conflict of interest they are obliged to take appropriate actions in order to avoid it and to inform everyone it may concern.

Both the author(s) and reviewers must submit a Conflict of Interest Statement as part of the Licence Grant Statement or Paper Review Sheet.

The relevant duties and expectations of the authors, reviewers and editors are set out below.

Authors’ Responsibilities

1. Authors must certify that the manuscript has not been previously published elsewhere, in any form.
2. Authors must certify that their manuscripts are their original work.
3. Authors must certify that the manuscript is not currently being considered for publication elsewhere.
4. Authors must identify all sources used in the creation of their manuscript.
5. Authors must immediately report to the Editorial Team any errors, inconsistencies or incorrect data in their manuscript or in an already-published text, so that it may be corrected, withdrawn or a rectification may be issued. If an already-published article requires correction, its new version is published on the SiTns website together with an appropriate explanation of the situation. The editorial team may correct the electronic version of the text; the date of introducing the modifications and their detailed scope must be then provided. If the corrections do not affect the scientific results (the scientific integrity of the article remains intact), the online and PDF versions are corrected, and an annotation about the corrections will appear in the document. In the printed edition of the journal, the information about corrections is published on a numbered page as an editorial comment to the published article (a correction or erratum), along with a reference to the original paper. The publisher will archive all the previous versions of the article that will be available for Readers upon request.
6. Authors must notify the editor of any conflicts of interest. The required Conflict of Interest Statement is part of the Licence Grant Statement that authors submit jointly with the article for publication.
7. The authors are obliged to ensure that the submitted works are fully authentic. The Editorial Team does not allow for any signs of authorship misconduct, including:
   • duplicating publications – re-publishing an own paper or its part;
   • plagiarism – appropriating a foreign work or its fragment without providing information on its source;
   • fabricating data – preparing a scientific work based on untrue research results;
   • ghost authorship – not disclosing the co-authors regardless of their significant contribution to the article;
   • guest authorship – listing persons who made an infinitesimal or no contribution to the article as co-authors;
   • gift authorship – listing persons whose contribution is based on a weak relation with the research as co-authors.
8. During the process of the collection and analysis of data, writing the paper and production of graphical elements, the authors can use AI tools, but human content should constitute the majority of the creative contribution to the article. Also, the authors are fully responsible for the content that has been generated automatically, including all the potential breaches of publication ethics. It is the authors’ responsibility to inform the Editorial Team about the fact they have used AI. AI cannot be identified as a co-author. Papers written fully by means of AI tools cannot be regarded as original research work and will thus be rejected.
9. The authors make an appropriate statement that the submitted article does not infringe upon any copyrights of third parties, has not been published or proposed to any other publishing house so far (including versions written in a foreign language), is their original work, and they specify their contribution to the article. Additionally, they must declare that they have the permission of the owner of the materials used (e.g. iconographic) for them to be published (if applicable). The authors have to inform the Editorial Team whether or not they used any AI tools in the process of writing the paper. If the authors submitted an article to another publisher before it is published in SiTns, they should notify the Editorial Team about this fact. If the materials on the basis of which the article was written were presented e.g. at a conference, the authors are obliged to inform the Editorial Team about this fact upon submitting the text for publication in SiTns.
10. All articles are subject to double-blind peer review, performed by at least two independent experts in a given field. Having received positive reviews, the authors introduce the modifications recommended by the reviewers and deliver the updated version of the publication to the Editorial Team, jointly with a confirmation that the adjustments have been made. If any disputes arise as to the suggested amendments, the authors should explain which of them they accept and justify their rejection of the others. The authors authorise their texts after the editorial process has been completed, and they participate in the proofreading stage.
11. The published articles should contain a list of the resources that are referred to.

The Reviewers’ Responsibilities

1. Reviewers must notify of any conflicts of interest. The required Conflict of Interest Statement is part of the Paper Review Sheet that reviewers complete when evaluating an article for publication.
2. Reviewers must keep information pertaining to the manuscript confidential.
3. Reviewers must bring any information that may be reason to reject the publication of a manuscript to the attention of the Editor-in-Chief.
4. A reviewer who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should notify us and withdraw from the review process.
5. Reviewers must at all time evaluate manuscripts only for their intellectual content; despite the double-blind policy, we emphasize the requirement of full objectivity and no reference to be made to (even supposed) race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy of the authors.

Responsibilities of the Editorial Board and the Editorial Team

1. The Editorial Board must keep information pertaining to the submitted manuscripts confidential.
2. The Editorial Board must disclose any conflicts of interest.
3. The Editorial Board must evaluate manuscripts only for their intellectual content.
4. In case of any suspected abuses such as:
   • redundant (duplicate) publication in a submitted manuscript or a published article,
   • plagiarism in a submitted manuscript or a published article,
   • fabricated data in a submitted manuscript or a published article,
   • changes in authorship,
   • ghost, guest or gift authorship,
   • undisclosed conflict of interest in a submitted manuscript, as pointed out by the reviewer,
   • undisclosed conflict of interest in a submitted manuscript, as pointed out by a reader,
   • an ethical problem with a submitted manuscript, as pointed out by the editor,
   • the reviewer’s appropriation of the author’s ideas or data,
   the Editorial Team take further action according to the procedures of COPE.
5. The Editorial Team makes the preliminary evaluation of the article, which involves content verification, the assessment of the article’s compliance with the aim and thematic scope of the journal, and checking if it meets the journal’s editorial requirements as well as whether the principles of scientific integrity are observed. The Editorial Team select reviewers of the article in such a way as to avoid the conflict of interests, and ensure that the reviewers deliver a fair and objective review within a fixed deadline.
6. In order to verify the originality of the submitted articles prior to the reviewing process, the Editorial Team use an antiplagiarism system. If the article shows significant similarities to other papers, or it is highly probable that AI tools have been used to write it, the Editorial Team notify the Editor-in-Chief about it, who decides, jointly with the Editorial Board, whether to accept or reject the article. Should the article be rejected, this decision and its justification shall be delivered to the authors.
7. Should any grounds for suspicion of the authors’ scientific misconduct occur at any point of the publishing process, the Editorial Team shall inspect the issue in detail in accordance with the COPE principles available at https://publicationethics.org/guidance/Flowcharts. If any scientific misconduct on the authors’ part is proven, the submitted article will be rejected, and this decision jointly with its justification will be delivered to the authors.

The Publisher’s Responsibilities

1. Any materials published in SiTns are subject to copyrights. Detailed information on the copyrights is provided with each article, in both electronic and printed form.
2. The full contents of all the articles published in SiTns are made available by the publisher on the Internet website according to the formula of open access, i.e. free of charge and without technical restrictions. Users may read, download, copy, print and use the articles published online for other purposes in accordance with the relevant provisions on the permitted use, provided they indicate a detailed annotation on the source of the article. Any other form of use of the content of the article requires the consent of the publisher. Statistics in Transition new series uses the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International Public Licence (CC BY-SA 4.0).
3. The publisher declares its readiness to publish corrections, explanations and apologies, should such a justified need arise.