Publishing Ethics

The editorial board of “Review of Enforcement Law” is committed to ensuring the highest ethical standards at every stage of the publication process. “Review of Enforcement Law” applies the standards and recommendations of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) – https://publicationethics.org. The following policy was created in accordance with COPE standards.

Ethical Principles for Authors

1. Only original scientific texts are published in the “Review of Enforcement Law”. Authors are therefore required to submit original texts and, when using other people’s research or words, to use appropriate citations. Plagiarism and data fabrication are unacceptable.
2. The author is responsible for the current legal status of the content of the study, the cited regulations, case law and doctrine. If the author discovers significant errors or inaccuracies in their text, they are obliged to immediately notify the Editorial Office of “Review of Enforcement Law” at the following e-mail address: magdalena.ruzicka@currenda.pl or ppe@currenda.pl
3. Authors should not publish texts describing the same research in more than one journal. Simultaneous submission of the same texts for publication in multiple journals is considered unethical and will not be accepted by the Editorial Board of “Review of Enforcement Law”.
4. It is recommended that the list of authors or co-authors be limited to those who have actually made a significant contribution to the text submitted for publication. All co-authors should approve the final version of the text and agree to submit it for publication in the “Review of Enforcement Law”.
5. Authors submitting a text for publication in “Review of Enforcement Law” should disclose any financial or other significant (commercial, legal, professional) conflicts of interest which, in their opinion, may influence or may be considered by third parties to influence the results of the presented research or its interpretation.
6. With regard to conflicts of interest, the journal follows the recommendation of the Committee on Legal Sciences of the Polish Academy of Sciences on the disclosure of conflicts of interest in legal scientific publications of 3 February 2021.
7. Please provide information about the sources of funding for the publication, such as grants or subsidies in an enclosed statement. If the submitted scientific text is the result of a research project, scholarship or scientific internship, or scientific activities financed by scientific or research institutions, it should contain an appropriate clause informing about this fact, together with an indication of the licence under which it may be published.
8. The submitted text must not infringe on the personal rights or rights of third parties, in particular other copyrights.

Editorial Policy

1. The editorial board of “Review of Enforcement Law” ensures the consistency of published materials, excludes any scientific or ethical compromises, and allows for the publication of corrections, errata and retractions, if necessary.
2. The editorial board of “Review of Enforcement Law” evaluates submissions using substantive criteria regardless of the race, gender, sexual orientation, religious beliefs, ethnic origin, nationality or political philosophy of the author or authors.
3. In the process of deciding whether to accept or reject a scientific text for publication in “Review of Enforcement Law”, its originality, scientific quality and consistency with the subject matter of the journal are important. The decision to publish an article is based on reviews.
4. No information about the text under review may be disclosed to anyone other than the author(s), reviewers and potential reviewers, and in selected cases, members of the Editorial Committee and Scientific Council, as well as the Publisher.
5. Unpublished material contained in the submitted application may not be used in the Editorial Board members’ own research without the author’s express written consent.
6. The editorial board of “Review of Enforcement Law” should strive to ensure a fair review process.
7. The Editorial Board encourages all interested parties to send comments and opinions on the material published in the Review. Those submitting comments are asked to assist the Editorial Committee in registering and documenting the claim (e.g. plagiarism, fabrication of data or misconduct in research).
8. If a conflict of interest is discovered after publication of an article, the Editorial Committee should disclose all information and take appropriate action by publishing corrections and appropriate amendments.
9. The editorial committee should investigate and take appropriate action in every case of suspected or alleged ethical misconduct in publications, as well as in cases of suspected violation of ethical standards in the editorial and review process.
10. Members of the Editorial Committee of “Review of Enforcement Law” who are authors and/or co-authors of a scientific article submitted for publication are excluded from the internal and external review process.

Rules for Reviewers

The review process in the journal “Review of Enforcement Law” is conducted using a double-blind review system, in which the author of the text and the reviewers do not know each other’s identities. At least two reviewers are assigned to each text.

1. Article reviewers cooperate with the Editorial Committee and, through communication during the review process, may have a final say on the shape of the published works.
2. If a selected reviewer is unable to review a work or knows that they will not be able to meet the deadline for the review, they should inform the Editorial Secretary.
3. The reviewer should withdraw from the review process in the event of a conflict of interest arising from competitive relationships, cooperation or other connections with any authors, companies or institutions related to the submitted article.
4. The reviewer should carefully read the reviewed text and make every effort to assess its professional and cognitive value, originality and innovation in a reliable and honest manner, in accordance with the current state of science and the requirements imposed on reviewers.
5. Reviews should be objective. All observations and recommendations made by the reviewer should be substantiated. Personal criticism of the author of the text is considered inappropriate.
6. Reviewers should indicate publications that have not been cited by the author. If the text contains statements similar to those in other papers, the bibliographic references should be indicated in the review.
7. Reviewers should indicate any significant similarities to other works and assess whether the text uses elements of someone else’s work. The reviewer is obliged to notify the Editorial Board of the possibility of plagiarism.
8. Reviewers are required to treat all texts as confidential. Sharing them with third parties is unacceptable. Confidential information obtained in the review process must be kept secret and may not be used for personal gain.
9. The reviewers of individual articles are not disclosed. The list of reviewers is published in the journal and posted on the website once a year.

Rules Concerning the Publisher

Currenda Publishing House is obliged to document, archive and provide the Editorial Committee with all information about complaints regarding the “Review of Enforcement Law”, the Editorial Board, Scientific Council, and the Publishing House itself.