Ethics and malpractice statement
Publication ethics and publication malpractice statement for authors
Data access and retention - data sharing and reproducibility
Authors may be asked to provide the raw data in connection with a paper for editorial review, and should be prepared to provide public access to such data, if practicable, and should in any event be prepared to retain such data for a reasonable time after publication.
Originality and plagiarism
The authors should ensure that they have written entirely original works, and if the authors have used the work and/or words of others, that this has been appropriately cited or quoted. Plagiarism takes many forms, from ‘passing off’ another’s paper as the author’s own paper, to copying or paraphrasing substantial parts of another’s paper (without attribution), to claiming results from research conducted by others. Plagiarism in all its forms constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable.
Authors of reports of original research should present an accurate account of the work performed as well as an objective discussion of its significance. Underlying data should be represented accurately in the paper. A paper should contain sufficient detail and references to permit others to replicate the work. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behavior and are unacceptable. Review and professional publication articles should also be accurate and objective, and editorial ‘opinion’ works should be clearly identified as such.
Multiple, redundant or concurrent publication
An author should not in general publish manuscripts describing essentially the same research in more than one journal or primary publication. Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal concurrently constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable. In general, an author should not submit for consideration in another journal a previously published paper.
Acknowledgement of sources
Proper acknowledgment of the work of others must always be given. Authors should cite publications that have been influential in determining the nature of the reported work. Information obtained privately, as in conversation, correspondence, or discussion with third parties, must not be used or reported without explicit, written permission from the source. Information obtained in the course of confidential services, such as refereeing manuscripts or grant applications, must not be used without the explicit written permission of the author of the work involved in these services.
Authorship of the paper
Authorship should be limited to those who have made a significant contribution to the conception, design, execution, or interpretation of the reported study. All those who have made significant contributions should be listed as co-authors. Where there are others who have participated in certain substantive aspects of the research project, they should be acknowledged or listed as contributors. The corresponding author should ensure that all appropriate co-authors and no inappropriate co-authors are included on the paper, and that all co-authors have seen and approved the final version of the paper and have agreed to its submission for publication.
Hazards and human or animal subjects
If the work involves chemicals, procedures or equipment that have any unusual hazards inherent in their use, the author must clearly identify these in the manuscript. If the work involves the use of animal or human subjects, the author should ensure that the manuscript contains a statement that all procedures were performed in compliance with relevant laws and institutional guidelines and that the appropriate institutional committee(s) has approved them. Authors should include a statement in the manuscript that informed consent was obtained for experimentation with human subjects. The privacy rights of human subjects must always be observed.
Disclosure and conflicts of interest
All authors should disclose in their manuscript any financial or other substantive conflict of interest that might be construed to influence the results or interpretation of their manuscript. All sources of financial support for the project should be disclosed. Examples of potential conflicts of interest which should be disclosed include employment, consultancies, stock ownership, honoraria, paid expert testimony, patent applications/registrations, and grants or other funding. Potential conflicts of interest should be disclosed at the earliest stage possible.
Authors are obliged to participate in the peer review process and cooperate fully by responding promptly to editors’ requests for raw data, clarifications, and proof of ethics approval, patient consents and copyright permissions. In the case of a first decision of "revisions necessary", authors should respond to the reviewers’ comments systematically, point by point, and in a timely manner, revising and re-submitting their manuscript to the journal by the deadline given.
Fundamental errors in published works
When an author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in his/her own published work, it is the author’s obligation to promptly notify the journal editor or publisher and cooperate with the editor to retract or correct the paper. If the editor or the publisher learns from a third party that a published work contains a significant error, it is the obligation of the author to promptly retract or correct the paper or provide evidence to the editor of the correctness of the original paper.
Publication ethics and publication malpractice statement for editors
The editor of a peer-reviewed journal Acta Innovations is responsible for deciding which of the articles submitted to the journal should be published. The validation of the work in question and its importance to researchers and readers must always drive such decisions. The editor may be guided by the policies of the journal's editorial board and constrained by such legal requirements as shall then be in force regarding libel, copyright infringement and plagiarism. The editor may confer with other editors or reviewers in making this decision.
All of a journal’s content should be subjected to peer-review. Articles submitted for possible publication are subjected to a single-blind, peer review process. Articles are first reviewed by editors. The editor may reject it out of hand either because it is not dealing with the subject matter for that journal or because it is manifestly of a low quality so that it cannot be considered at all. Articles that are found suitable for review are then sent to three experts in the field of the paper. Referees of a paper are unknown to each other. Referees are asked to classify the paper as publishable immediately, publishable with amendments and improvements, or not publishable. Referees’ evaluations usually include an explicit recommendation of what to do with the manuscript. Referees’ comments are then seen by the author.
Editors should be ready to justify any important deviation from the described process. Editors should not reverse decisions on publication unless serious problems are identified.
Editors should publish guidance to either authors and reviewers on everything that is expected of them. This guidance should be regularly updated and will refer or link this code.
An editor should evaluate manuscripts for their intellectual content without regard to race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy of the authors.
The editor and any editorial staff must not disclose any information about a submitted manuscript to anyone other than the corresponding author, reviewers, potential reviewers, other editorial advisers, and the publisher, as appropriate.
Disclosure and conflicts of interest
Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in an editor's own research without the express written consent of the author. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage. Editors should recuse themselves (i.e. should ask a co-editor, associate editor or other member of the editorial board instead to review and consider) from considering manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or (possibly) institutions connected to the papers. Editors should require all contributors to disclose relevant competing interests and publish corrections if competing interests are revealed after publication. If needed, other appropriate action should be taken, such as the publication of a retraction or expression of concern.
Involvement and cooperation in investigations
An editor should take reasonably responsive measures when ethical complaints have been presented concerning a submitted manuscript or published paper, in conjunction with the publisher. Such measures will generally include contacting the author of the manuscript or paper and giving due consideration of the respective complaint or claims made, but may also include further communications to the relevant institutions and research bodies, and if the complaint is upheld, the publication of a correction, retraction, expression of concern, or other note, as may be relevant. Every reported act of unethical publishing behavior must be looked into, even if it is discovered years after publication.
Publication ethics and publication malpractice statement for reviewers
Contribution to editorial decisions
Peer review assists editors in making editorial decisions and, through editorial communications with authors, may assist authors in improving their manuscripts. Peer review is an essential component of formal scholarly communication and lies at the heart of scientific endeavour. Acta Innovations shares the view of many that all scholars who wish to contribute to the scientific process have an obligation to do a fair share of reviewing.
Any invited referee who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should immediately notify the editors and decline the invitation to review so that alternative reviewers can be contacted.
Any manuscripts received for review are confidential documents and must be treated as such; they must not be shown to or discussed with others except if authorized by the Editor-in-Chief (who would only do so under exceptional and specific circumstances). This applies also to invited reviewers who decline the review invitation.
Standards of objectivity
Reviews should be conducted objectively and observations formulated clearly with supporting arguments so that authors can use them for improving the manuscript. Personal criticism of the authors is inappropriate.
Acknowledgement of sources
Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors. Any statement that is an observation, derivation or argument that has been reported in previous publications should be accompanied by the relevant citation. A reviewer should also notify the editors of any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other manuscript (published or unpublished) of which they have personal knowledge.
Disclosure and conflicts of interest
Any invited referee who has conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies or institutions connected to the manuscript and the work described therein should immediately notify the editors to declare their conflicts of interest and decline the invitation to review so that alternative reviewers can be contacted.
Unpublished material disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in a reviewer’s own research without the express written consent of the authors. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for the reviewer’s personal advantage. This applies also to invited reviewers who decline the review invitation.
Policy on ethical oversight
When the Journal faces suspected cases of research and publication misconduct such as falsification of data, plagiarism, improprieties of authorship, misappropriation of the ideas of others, violation of generally accepted research practices, material failure to comply with legislative and regulatory requirements affection research, inappropriate behavior in relation to misconduct, the resolving process will follow the flowchart provided by the Committee on Publication Ethics (http://publicationethics.org/resources/flowcharts). The Editorial Board will discuss the suspected cases and reach a decision. We will not hesitate to publish errata, corrigenda, clarifications, retractions, and apologies when needed.
Policy on intellectual property
Acta Innovations is an open access journal (CC BY) which means that all content is freely available without charge to the user or his/her institution. Users are allowed to read, download, copy, distribute, print, search, or link to the full texts of the articles, or use them for any other lawful purpose, without asking prior permission from the publisher or the author. This is in accordance with the BOAI definition of open access.
Options for post-publication discussions and corrections
Every article published by Acta Innovations journal constitutes the final, definitive, and citable version in the scholarly record (see NISO, 2008), including:
the paper, revised and accepted following peer review, in its final form, including the abstract, text, references, bibliography, and all accompanying tables, illustrations, data; and
any supplemental material.
Acta Innovation's policy is not to amend or alter this published record.
However, we publish corrections to the articles as errata or corrigenda, if there is a serious error, for example with regard to scientific accuracy, or if the Authors' reputation or that of the journal would be affected. We do not publish corrections that would not affect the article in a material way, nor significantly impair the reader's understanding of the article.
If you have identified an error in an article published by Acta Innovations, please review the guidance below. If, after reading the guidance, you believe a correction is necessary in the article, please contact the editor.
If the Journal’s editors agree a correction is warranted, and the article has been published online, we will publish a correction notice which will be linked to the original article online.
Examples of corrections we would make include:
Spelling error or factual error in title
Author name spelt incorrectly
Affiliation, if this was incorrect at the time of submission
Error in ORCiD
Error in correspondence details
Figure source, attribution, or permission information missing
Missing text or typographical error, if the meaning is changed or an error introduced
Error in data
Amendment to tables, figures, and appendices, if the meaning is changed or an error introduced
Poor figure quality
Missing funding information
Examples of proposed changes we would decline include amendments to:
Title, if an aesthetic change only
Affiliation, if this has changed since submission
ORCiD, if not supplied on submission
Text or typography, if the meaning is unchanged or no error has been introduced
Tables, figures, and appendices if the meaning is unchanged or no error has been introduced
Additional or updated references and citations
The different types of corrections we can make:
An erratum will be used if a significant error has been introduced by us during the production of the journal article, including errors of omission such as failure to make factual proof corrections requested by authors within the deadline provided by the journal and within journal policy. A 'significant error' is one that affects the scholarly record, the scientific integrity of the article, the reputation of the authors, or of the journal. All errata are linked to the published primary version of the article that they correct.
A corrigendum is a notification of a significant error made by the authors of the article. All corrigenda are normally approved by the editors of the journal. All corrigenda are linked to the primary published version of the article that they correct.
An addendum is a notification of an addition of information to an article, for example in response to a reader's request for clarification. Addenda do not contradict the original publication, but if the author inadvertently omitted significant information available at the time, this material can be published as an addendum. Addenda may be peer reviewed, according to journal policy, and are normally subject to oversight by the editors of the journal. All addenda are linked to the primary published version of the article to which they relate.
- Comments, responses, and rejoinders
In cases where a comment on a published primary version of the article is submitted to the journal editor, it will be subject to peer review, and shared with the authors of the published article, who are invited to submit a response.
In turn, the response will be subject to peer review, and shared with the commentator, who is invited to submit a rejoinder. The rejoinder will be subject to peer review, and shared with the authors of the published primary version of the article. No further correspondence will be considered for publication.
All comments, responses, and rejoinders are linked to the primary version of the article to which they relate.
- Expressions of concern
Expressions of concern are used to alert readers to a potential issue within an article that could affect readers’ understanding of the methods, results, author articles, or ethical approval within the published article, but where a retraction is not immediately warranted.
The rationale for an expression of concern will be given in the expression of concern notice. Acta Innovations reserves the right to issue a retraction if evidence of misconduct by an author is subsequently forthcoming, following an investigation of the issue in question.
A retraction is a means to notify the community of unsound results or misconduct, following an investigation of the issue in question by Acta Innovations Editorial Board. Either can be held to compromise the validity and reliability of an article, and the latter can be held to damage the reputation of the journal.
Retractions for unsound results are made when the conclusions of an article are seriously undermined as a result of miscalculation or error.
Retractions for misconduct are made when there has been an infringement of publishing ethics or a breach of author warranties, which can include breaches of third party copyright.
In cases of serious misconduct, Acta Innovations reserves the right to prohibit an author from making new submissions to any of our journals for up to five years.
The rationale for a retraction will be given in a Statement of Retraction. All Statements of Retraction are linked to the primary version of the article which they retract; the primary version of the article will be digitally watermarked RETRACTED.
- Article removals
On occasion Acta Innovations may be obliged to remove an article from its site as a consequence of a legal action. Removal will be indicated on the issue table of contents, by the insertion of “Article withdrawn’ to prefix the article title and in place of the removed content, by the posting of an Article Withdrawal notice.
Corrections to articles are free to access
Acta Innovations makes all corrections to journal articles completely free to access on its website in all cases, whether these are corrigenda, errata, or statements of retraction.
Plan for electronic backup and preservation of access to the journal content
All articles are and will be accessible via Publisher's institutional Knowledge Base (in Polish: "Baza Wiedzy") in the event a journal is no longer published. Furthermore, the articles are stored locally in BazTech, an external database of Polish journals. In 2021 it is also planned to provide access to all articles via CLOCKSS or Portico as well.
Acta Innovations adheres to guidelines of COPE – Committee on Publication Ethics.