- Focus and Scope
- Section Policies
- Peer Review Process
- Publication Frequency
- Open Access Policy
- Reviewers
- Code of publication ethics of STUDIA IURIDICA LUBLINENSIA
- Standards of proceeding in the event of suspected infringement of ethical rules
- Policy on the Use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) Tools
- Archiving and Content Preservation
Focus and Scope
The scope of the journal’s interest covers studies in the discipline of science of law. The journal's profile also includes scientific publications in political science and public administration, if the research results presented relate to law or if the research is carried out from the perspective of this discipline. The Editorial Board accepts for publication original papers that present high cognitive value for the study of law and legal practice and may be of interest not only to the national but also to the international academic community.
Studia Iuridica Lublinensia is a journal that publishes research results in particular in the fields of civil and commercial law, criminal law, administrative law and international law. The thematic scope of the journal includes papers on the theory and philosophy of law, political and legal doctrines, history of state and law, and Roman law.
Studia Iuridica Lublinensia publishes also commentaries on judicial decisions of national and European courts, appreciating the importance of dialogue between courts and scholars. In addition, the Editorial Board accepts reviews on Polish and foreign studies in the field of legal sciences (law) as well as information (reports) about the developments which take place within the legal scientific community both in Poland and abroad.
The mission of the journal is to disseminate nationally and internationally, on an open access basis, the results of research conducted by legal researchers and professionals, taking into account the importance of the impact of legal sciences (law) on the socio-economic environment.
Section Policies
Introduction
 Open Submissions |
Indexed |
Peer Reviewed |
Articles
 Open Submissions |
Indexed |
Peer Reviewed |
Commentaries on judicial decisions
| Open Submissions |
Indexed |
Peer Reviewed |
Review articles
| Open Submissions |
Indexed |
Peer Reviewed |
Reports
| Open Submissions |
Indexed |
Peer Reviewed |
Chronicle
| Open Submissions |
Indexed |
Peer Reviewed |
References
| Open Submissions |
Indexed |
Peer Reviewed |
Tabula Gratulatoria
| Open Submissions |
Indexed |
Peer Reviewed |
Peer Review Process
§ 1
1. The Editorial Board sends the following texts for review: scientific articles, commentaries on judicial decisions (glosses), reviews (review articles), and reports from scientific conferences.2. Before sending for review, all texts submitted for publication are verified using anti-plagiarism software, the report from the verification being made available to reviewers by the Editorial Board, without revealing the identity of the Author.
§ 2
1. To assess each publication, at least two independent reviewers shall be appointed from outside the scientific unit affiliated by the author and from outside the Faculty of Law and Administration of the Maria Curie-Skłodowska University.2. From manuscripts submitted in a foreign language only, at least one of the reviewers shall be a reviewer affiliated to a foreign academic institution.
§ 3
The author and reviewers shall not know the identities of one another (double-blind review process).
§ 4
Reviewers shall be appointed by the Editor-in-Chief in cooperation with the Managing Editor or the Head of the Editorial Board in consultation with the Editorial Board members (section editors). Where necessary, the relevant members of the Academic Advisory Board shall be consulted.
§ 5
1. The reviewer, when accepting the request to review a manuscript submitted to Studia Iuridica Lublinensia, shall make a declaration of the lack of conflict of interest.2. A conflict of interest shall be deemed to be the relationship arising from a competitive activity, cooperation or other personal, financial or professional relationships of the reviewer with any of the authors or institutions related to the manuscript submitted.
§ 6
1. The review shall be made in writing and shall be concluded with one of the recommendations referred to in paragraph 4.2. The reviewer shall prepare the review in electronic form on his individual account on the www.studiaiuridica.umcs.pl website, and shall publish it in the journal's system. The journal's system does not allow the identification of both the author of the manuscript and the reviewer.
3. Within the journal's system, the reviewer is given individual access to the author's text file and the report on the verification of the submitted manuscript with anti-plagiarism software. The file with the author's text and anti-plagiarism software report provided to the reviewer does not allow identification of the author.
4. The reviewer may choose the following recommendations concerning the peer-reviewed manuscript: Accept Submission; Revisions Required; Resubmit for Review; Decline Submission.
5. In situations of controversy or in the event of inconsistent reviews, the admission to publication shall be decided by an editorial board, which may appoint an additional reviewer or reviewers.
6. Only manuscripts which have got two positive reviews shall be allowed for publication.
§ 7
1. Once the review is received, their content shall be communicated to the author without disclosing the identity of the reviewers.2. The author of the text is obliged to respond substantively to all comments and conclusions posted in the review.
3. In the case of conditional reviews, the editorial board may allow the manuscript for publication provided that the author modifies the text as indicated by the reviewer and confirms this fact in the relevant statement, which should be submitted to the editor.
§ 8
1. The names of reviewers of individual articles shall not be disclosed.2. The journal shall publish once a year a list of all cooperating reviewers.
Guidelines for Reviewers
DECISION TO PREPARE A REVIEW
§ 1
1. [Expressing consent to the preparation of the review]Before agreeing to prepare the review, the reviewer should consider whether the topic and subject matter of the text are consistent with his/her competence or research interests. The reviewer should refuse to prepare a review if he/she finds himself/herself as not having sufficient knowledge to draw up a reliable and substantive opinion.
2. [Timeliness]The reviewer should refuse to prepare a review if he/she cannot spare enough time to meet the deadline for its preparation. The intended time to write a review of one manuscript is 4 weeks. If the complexity of the subject matter or the number of texts sent for review requires a longer time to prepare the review, one should notify the editor and possibly agree upon the postponement of the deadline. If the reviewer finds it impossible to timely draw up the review is not possible, he/she should notify the editor without undue delay so as other potential reviewers can be contacted.
3. [Conflict of interest]The reviewer should not undertake to review texts about which there is a reasonable suspicion of a conflict of interest resulting from competition, cooperation or other personal, financial or professional relationships with any of the authors or institutions related to the submitted manuscript.
ASSESSMENT CRITERIA FOR MANUSCRIPTS TO BE REVIEWED
§ 2 [Assessment criteria]
The reviewer should assess the manuscript taking into account: 1) the compliance of the reviewed text with the journal's profile; 2) the substantive side of the text and compliance of the article with the IMRAD structure (Introduction, Materials & Methods, Results and Discussion); 3) the correctness of the selection and application of research methods and their innovativeness; 4) the number and correctness of the selection of sources and literature, in particular bibliographic items on the lists of SCOPUS and Web of Science; 5) compliance of the abstract, keywords and references with the requirements of the journal; 6) the level of research tools; 7) the consistency and clarity of the text; 8) the language level.
§ 3 [Compliance of the reviewed text with the journal's profile]
1. The reviewer shall assess the manuscript in terms of compliance of the reviewed text with the journal's profile.2. The reviewer finds whether the thematic scope of the reviewed text falls within the scientific discipline of law or the discipline of politics and administration. For manuscripts in the field of political science and administration, the presented research results should refer to or be the result of research conducted from the perspective of legal science (law).
§ 4 [The substantive side of the text]
1. The reviewer shall state whether the reviewed manuscript is an original scientific work that provides high cognitive value for legal science (law) or legal practice.2. The reviewer shall assess whether the reviewed manuscript is sufficiently innovative and of interest for the national or international academic community.
3. The reviewer should specify, in particular, whether the text contains research results of international or national significance, and whether the obtained research results stand out from other results of research conducted within a given scientific discipline.
4. The reviewer shall state whether the scientific article consists of separate parts, in accordance with the IMRAD structure: (Introduction, Materials &Methods, Results and Discussion).
5. The review should especially state:
1) whether the title is consistent with the research problems presented in the article;
2) whether the introduction defines: the aim and subject matter of the article; the essence of the problem; research hypotheses; the current state of research; innovativeness of the discussion;
3) whether the author described and correctly selected and applied research methods; whether the charts or tables contained in the article are legible and correctly presented;
4) whether the research process was correctly carried out by the author and whether the obtained results constitute elements of new knowledge;
5) whether in the summary and conclusions, the author presents theses and formulates answers to the questions posed in the introduction, points to elements of new knowledge, refers to the results of other scientists' research, determines the significance of the research in the field of legal sciences (law).
6. The reviewer of a commentary on a judicial decision (gloss) shall state whether the commentary to the court ruling is of a scientific nature and whether the reviewed text concerns a ruling that addresses controversial, ground-breaking and important problems for the shaping of judicial practice. The reviewer assesses whether the author of the commentary has correctly characterised the legal problem tackled in the commented ruling, properly analysed the reasoning of the adjudicating court and duly formulated the conclusion.7. The reviewer of a review article should state whether the reviewed text relates to a publication significant for science or practice, and whether the author referred to the methodological correctness and substantive aspects of the reviewed item.
8. The reviewer of a conference report states whether the text specifies the subject and aim of the conference, presents theses or elementary content of the papers delivered and specifies the significance of the conference for science or practice.
§ 5 [Literature and sources]
The reviewer shall assess whether the author of the manuscript has appropriately taken into account in his research the relevant sources and literature on the subject and whether he has used bibliographic items listed on SCOPUS and Web of Science.
§ 6 [Abstract and keywords]
1. The reviewer shall state whether the abstract of the manuscript being reviewed complies with the requirements set out in the guidelines for authors, in particular:1) whether the abstract of the scientific article specifies: the nature of the article; the subject of research; the main theses; the aim of research; the originality of research results; the scope of research, the cognitive value for science or practice;
2) whether the abstract of the commentary of a judicial decision (gloss) specifies: the nature of the commentary; the research problem with a synthetic presentation of facts and law; the main theses; originality of the results; the cognitive value for science or practice;
3) whether the abstract of the review (review article) specifies: the subject matter and significance of the peer-reviewed work for science or practice; the assessment of the methodological correctness of the reviewed item; the assessment of the logical correctness of the reviewed item; the assessment of the originality of the reviewed item; the reviewer's conclusions;
4) whether the abstract of the conference report specifies: the topic, date and place of the conference; the subject matter and aim of the conference; the significance of the conference for science or practice.
2. The reviewer shall assess the correctness of the keywords selected by the author.§ 7 [Language and technical standards of the text]
1. The reviewer shall assess the linguistic level, stylistic values, consistency and clarity of the text.2. The reviewer shall state whether the manuscript is in line with the rules for text formatting, footnotes and references set out in the guidelines for authors.
ETHICS RULES
§ 8 [Suspected redundant (duplicate) publication]
1. If the reviewer suspects that the reviewed text is a redundant (duplicate) publication, he/she shall notify the editor.2. A redundant (duplicate) publication is to be understood as a manuscript in which the author reproduces his/her own previously published papers in the form of a literal or partial repetition of his/her own publications or the submission of a text published in another language.
3. The reviewer should make available to the editor the relevant evidence which forms the basis for the suspicion that the publication is redundant (duplicate).
4. Where the reviewer reports a suspected redundant (duplicate) publication, the editor shall carry out a proceeding compliant with the relevant rules set out by COPE (The Committee on Publication Ethics) referred to at https://publicationethics.org/guidance/Flowcharts.
§ 9 [Suspected plagiarism in a submitted manuscript]
1. The reviewer should inform the editor of the suspected plagiarism.2. Plagiarism is defined as either the acquisition of someone else's work in whole or in large part in its unchanged form or with minor modifications (explicit plagiarism), or the presentation of someone else's work in a modified form, while retaining the creative and individual characteristics given to it by the actual author (hidden plagiarism).
3. The reviewer should make available to the editor the relevant evidence which forms the basis for the suspicion of plagiarism.
4. Where the reviewer reports a suspected plagiarism, the editor shall carry out a proceeding compliant with the relevant rules set out by COPE (The Committee on Publication Ethics) referred to at https://publicationethics.org/guidance/Flowcharts.
§ 10 [Suspected fabricated data in a submitted manuscript]
1. If the reviewer suspects that the data used in the submitted manuscript have been fabricated, should notify the editor of this.2. Data fabrication occurs where the author of the manuscript presents the results of research work which has not taken place or changes the results of the research carried out in an arbitrary or unjustified manner.
3. The reviewer should present to the editor appropriate evidence, which is the basis for suspicion that the data used in the submitted manuscript has been fabricated.
4. Where the reviewer reports suspected fabrication of data, the editor shall carry out a proceeding compliant with the relevant rules set out by COPE (The Committee on Publication Ethics) referred to at https://publicationethics.org/guidance/Flowcharts.
§ 11 [Suspected ghost, guest or gift authorship]
1. If the reviewer suspects that a manuscript was written by someone who was not on the list of authors or who was not properly included in the acknowledgements or lists authors that should not be credited (guest or gift authors), he/she should inform the editor.2. The evaluation of ghost, guest or gift authorship shall be performed pursuant to relevant rules defined by COPE (The Committee on Publication Ethics) (https://publicationethics.org/guidance/Flowcharts):
1) A ghost author is someone who is omitted from an authorship list despite qualifying for authorship.
2) A guest or gift author is someone who is listed as an author despite not qualifying for authorship. Guests are people brought in to make the list look more impressive (despite having little or no involvement with the research or publication). Gift authorship involves including colleagues on papers in return for being listed on theirs.
3. The reviewer should make available to the editor any relevant evidence that is a basis for the suspicion of ghost, guest or gift authorship.4. Where the reviewer reports the suspected ghost, guest or gift authorship, the editor shall carry out a proceeding compliant with the relevant rules set out by COPE (The Committee on Publication Ethics) referred to at https://publicationethics.org/guidance/Flowcharts.
§ 12 [Undisclosed conflict of interest in a submitted manuscript]
1. If the reviewer suspects an undisclosed conflict of interest in the submitted manuscript, he/she shall notify the editor.2. A conflict of interest may arise from a competitive activity, cooperation or other personal, financial or professional relationships with any of the authors or institutions related to the manuscript submitted.
3. Where the reviewer reports the suspicion of an undisclosed conflict of interest in the submitted manuscript, the editor shall carry out a proceeding compliant with the relevant rules set out by COPE (The Committee on Publication Ethics) referred to at https://publicationethics.org/guidance/Flowcharts.
§ 13 [Ethical problem with a submitted manuscript]
1. If the reviewer suspects a specific ethical problem with a submitted manuscript, he/she shall notify the editor.2. Where the reviewer reports that there is an ethical problem with a submitted manuscript, the editor shall carry out a proceeding compliant with the relevant rules set out by COPE (The Committee on Publication Ethics) referred to at https://publicationethics.org/guidance/Flowcharts.
§ 14 [Confidentiality]
1. Texts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. They may not be disclosed or discussed with other persons, unless the reviewer has obtained the editor's consent.2. Non-published materials disclosed in the submitted manuscript may not be used in the reviewer's own research without the express written consent of the author.
3. Where there is a suspicion that the reviewer misappropriated the author's ideas or data, the editor shall carry out a proceeding compliant with the relevant rules set out by COPE (The Committee on Publication Ethics) referred to at https://publicationethics.org/guidance/Flowcharts.
§ 15 [Objectivity of a review]
1. Reviews should be conducted objectively.2. Personal criticism of the author is unacceptable.
Publication Frequency
Studia Iuridica Lublinensia is issued four times a year:
No 1 - scheduled date of issue: before the end of March
No 2 - scheduled date of issue: before the end of June
No 3 - scheduled date of issue: before the end of September
No 4 - scheduled date of issue: before the end of December
The Editorial Board may decide to release an additional special issue beyond the publishing schedule or a thematic issue as part of the regular publishing schedule.
Open Access Policy
Studia Iuridica Lublinensia is an open access journal 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 (Budapest Open Access Initiative) definition of open access. The articles are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY).
Code of publication ethics of STUDIA IURIDICA LUBLINENSIA
CHAPTER I. GENERAL PROVISIONS
§ 1. Purpose of the Code
1. This Code sets out the ethical standards observed in Studia Iuridica Lublinensia (hereinafter: the Journal) and the procedures by which those standards are applied, monitored and enforced.
2. The Code has been drafted by the editorial team of the Journal. It describes the Journal's own working practices and is not a restatement of the policies of any other journal or publisher.
3. The Code is published in Polish and in English on the Journal's website and forms part of the terms on which manuscripts are accepted for consideration.
§ 2. Persons bound by the Code
1. The Code binds the Editor-in-Chief, the Deputy Editor-in-Chief, the Managing Editor (Secretary), the Section Editors, the Statistical Editor, the Network Editor, the members of the Editorial Board and of the Scientific Council, guest editors, reviewers, authors and co-authors, and the staff of the Maria Curie-Skłodowska University Press (hereinafter: the Publisher) involved in the publication of the Journal.
2. Submitting a manuscript to the Journal, accepting an invitation to review, and accepting an appointment as a guest editor are each treated as an undertaking to observe this Code.
§ 3. Relationship to external standards
1. The Journal is guided by the Core Practices of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and takes account of the recommendations of the World Association of Medical Editors (WAME) in so far as they concern editorial independence, the disclosure of conflicts of interest and the use of automated tools.
2. Where this Code refers to a document issued by an external organisation, the reference is made for guidance only. The standard binding in the Journal is the content of this Code, and responsibility for applying it rests with the editorial team.
3. Any question not regulated by this Code is decided by the editorial team in the manner laid down in § 10, drawing on the guidance referred to in paragraph 1 and on the rules of academic integrity binding at the Maria Curie-Skłodowska University.
§ 4. Definitions
For the purposes of this Code:
1. manuscript – a text submitted to the Journal in any of the categories referred to in point 2, together with its attachments, until such time as it is published or the procedure concerning it is closed;
2. categories of texts – a scholarly article, a commentary on a judicial decision (glosa), a review of a scholarly publication, and a report on a scholarly conference;
3. author – a person who satisfies the criteria set out in § 25; in the case of multi-author texts, the term also covers each co-author;
4. corresponding author – the author designated in the submission as responsible for contact with the editorial team;
5. reviewer – a person invited by the editorial team to prepare an external, anonymous assessment of a manuscript;
6. editorial file – the entirety of the documentation of a manuscript held in the Open Journal Systems (OJS) platform, including the text, the attachments, the reviews and the editorial correspondence;
7. AI tool – a system based on machine learning, in particular a generative system, capable of producing or substantially transforming text, data, images or references.
§ 5. Editorial independence
1. Decisions on the publication of manuscripts are taken solely by the persons indicated in this Code, on scholarly grounds.
2. Neither the Publisher, nor the Faculty of Law and Administration, nor any funding body, institution or person co-operating with the Journal may influence the assessment of an individual manuscript.
3. The Journal does not carry sponsored content, and no advertising, subscription or other commercial consideration may affect an editorial decision. The Journal does not charge authors any fee for the submission, review or publication of a text.
CHAPTER II. THE EDITORIAL TEAM AND THE COURSE OF THE EDITORIAL PROCEDURE
§ 6. Division of tasks
1. The Editor-in-Chief bears final responsibility for the content of the Journal, takes decisions on publication, decides on cases of suspected breach of this Code and represents the Journal in dealings with the Publisher and with external bodies.
2. The Deputy Editor-in-Chief performs the tasks of the Editor-in-Chief in the latter's absence and in every case in which the Editor-in-Chief is excluded under § 11.
3. The Managing Editor (Secretary) conducts the editorial file, supervises the observance of the time limits laid down in § 7, communicates with authors and reviewers, and maintains the register referred to in § 12(4).
4. Section Editors are responsible for particular fields of law. Their task is to assess the scholarly relevance of a manuscript to the Journal's scope, to propose reviewers, to formulate a recommendation for the Editor-in-Chief and to supervise the author's revisions. Section Editors do not prepare reviews of manuscripts submitted to the Journal.
5. The Statistical Editor assesses manuscripts containing quantitative or empirical material. The Network Editor is responsible for the correctness of the Journal's digital resources and metadata.
6. The Editorial Board and the Scientific Council give opinions on the Journal's editorial policy, including on the thematic scope of issues and on proposed amendments to this Code. They do not take decisions on individual manuscripts.
7. A current list of the persons performing the functions referred to in paragraphs 1–6, together with their institutional affiliations, is published on the Journal's website and is updated whenever a change occurs.
§ 7. Course of the editorial procedure
1. A manuscript is submitted exclusively through the OJS platform, together with the attachments required by the Instructions for Authors, and in particular the declaration referred to in § 31(3).
2. Within 14 days of submission the Managing Editor carries out a formal check, verifying the completeness of the attachments, compliance with the editorial requirements and the anonymisation of the text.
3. Every manuscript that has passed the formal check is subjected to the similarity check described in § 9.
4. The manuscript is then referred to the competent Section Editor for a preliminary scholarly assessment, which is completed within 21 days of the referral. At this stage the manuscript may be rejected without review on the grounds set out in § 8.
5. A manuscript that has been given a positive preliminary assessment is referred for review in accordance with Chapter III.
6. Once the reviews have been received, the Editor-in-Chief takes a decision: to accept the text, to accept it subject to revisions, to refer it back to the author for reworking and repeated review, or to reject it. The decision is communicated to the corresponding author through the OJS platform together with the anonymised reviews.
7. The author submits the revised version within the time limit indicated in the decision, together with a response addressing each of the reviewers' comments. Failure to observe that time limit without giving a reason results in the closure of the procedure.
8. Before publication the author receives the text for authorial proofreading. Changes made at that stage may not alter the substance of the text as reviewed.
9. The time limits laid down in this paragraph may be extended by the Editor-in-Chief where the subject-matter of the manuscript or the number of texts under consideration so requires. The author is informed of any such extension.
§ 8. Rejection without review
The Editor-in-Chief may reject a manuscript without referring it for review where:
1. the subject-matter of the text falls outside the scholarly scope of the Journal;
2. the text does not meet the requirements applicable to a scholarly text in the category concerned, in particular where it is devoid of its own argument or reproduces well-established findings without adding to them;
3. the text has serious defects of construction, documentation or language which make a substantive assessment impossible;
4. the result of the similarity check gives rise to reservations which the author has not dispelled (§ 9(4));
5. the author has not provided the declarations required under § 26, § 29 or § 34 despite having been requested to do so;
6. the text has previously been rejected by the Journal and has been resubmitted without material amendment.
§ 9. Verification of originality
1. Before a manuscript is referred for review, the editorial team checks it in the iThenticate – Crossref Similarity Check system, to which the Publisher provides access.
2. The result generated by the system is a piece of information, not an assessment. It is always analysed by the Managing Editor or the Section Editor, who takes into account, in particular, quotations that are properly marked and attributed, the citation of legislation and of the operative parts and grounds of judicial decisions, and standing formulae specific to legal language.
3. Where the analysis reveals matter that has been taken over from other texts without being marked as such, the Managing Editor requests the author to provide an explanation within 14 days.
4. Where the explanation is not provided or does not dispel the reservations, the Editor-in-Chief rejects the manuscript and, where there are grounds for suspecting a breach of this Code, initiates the procedure under Chapter VIII.
5. The check under paragraph 1 is repeated on the final version of a text where the revisions made by the author have been extensive.
6. The report from the check referred to in paragraph 1 is made available to the reviewers together with the anonymised manuscript, in a form which does not permit the identification of the author.
§ 10. Decisions and deliberations of the editorial team
1. Decisions on publication are taken by the Editor-in-Chief on the basis of the reviews and of the Section Editor's recommendation, taking into account the originality of the manuscript, the correctness of its argument, its relevance to the state of scholarship in the field concerned and its fit with the profile of the Journal. A text may be accepted for publication only where it has received two positive reviews.
2. Where the assessment of a manuscript raises doubts of an ethical nature, or where a question arises which is not regulated by this Code, the Editor-in-Chief refers the matter to a deliberation of the editorial team, in which the Deputy Editor-in-Chief, the Managing Editor and the competent Section Editor take part. The Editor-in-Chief may seek the opinion of an additional expert.
3. The Managing Editor records a note of the deliberation and of the position adopted in the editorial file.
§ 11. Conflicts of interest on the part of editors
1. A member of the editorial team is excluded from all steps concerning a manuscript where:
a) they are its author or co-author;
b) they are related to the author by marriage, kinship or affinity, or by a relationship of a personal nature such as might give rise to doubt as to their impartiality;
c) they are or, in the last three years, have been the author's superior or subordinate, their doctoral supervisor or doctoral candidate, or their co-author or co-investigator in a research project;
d) they have a financial or professional interest in the publication or non-publication of the text;
e) any other circumstance exists which might reasonably be perceived as compromising their impartiality.
2. The person concerned notifies the Editor-in-Chief of the ground for exclusion as soon as they become aware of it. Where the ground concerns the Editor-in-Chief, the notification is made to the Deputy Editor-in-Chief, who takes over the conduct of the matter.
3. A person excluded under paragraph 1 has no access to the editorial file, does not take part in the deliberations concerning the manuscript and receives no information as to the identity of its reviewers.
4. A member of the editorial team may publish in the Journal. Such a manuscript is submitted through the OJS platform on the same terms as any other, and the procedure concerning it is conducted by the Editor-in-Chief or, where the manuscript is the Editor-in-Chief's own, by the Deputy Editor-in-Chief. The reviewers are selected from among persons who are not connected with the Journal.
5. The Journal keeps within the limits of good practice the proportion of texts by members of its own editorial team and by employees of the Maria Curie-Skłodowska University, and monitors that proportion for each volume.
§ 12. Impartiality and confidentiality
1. A manuscript is assessed solely on its scholarly merits. The author's sex, age, nationality, place of employment, academic degree or title, membership of any organisation, and the views expressed in the text - including views departing from those held by members of the editorial team - may not influence the assessment.
2. Information concerning a manuscript under consideration is made available only to those persons who are taking part in the procedure. The fact that a text has been submitted, its content, the identity of its reviewers and the content of the reviews are not disclosed to third parties.
3. Material that has not been published, and ideas obtained through the editorial procedure, may not be used by a member of the editorial team in their own scholarly work or communicated to another person, either during the procedure or after its conclusion.
4. The Managing Editor keeps a register of declarations of exclusion and of the ethical matters dealt with. The register is available to the Editor-in-Chief and to the Publisher and is retained for ten years.
§ 13. Prohibition of influencing bibliometric indicators
1. The Journal does not undertake any measures designed artificially to increase the number of citations of the texts it publishes or of the Journal itself.
2. Neither the editorial team nor a reviewer may make the acceptance of a text conditional upon the addition of citations to works published in the Journal, or to their own works, or to the works of persons indicated by them. A recommendation to take account of a particular publication may be made only where its subject-matter is relevant to the argument of the manuscript and the recommendation is reasoned.
3. The Journal does not participate in arrangements with other journals concerning the mutual citation of texts.
CHAPTER III. REVIEW
§ 14. Model of review
1. Every text submitted in one of the categories referred to in § 4 point 2 is reviewed by at least two reviewers.
2. The review is external: a reviewer may be neither a member of the editorial team of the Journal, nor a person employed at the Faculty of Law and Administration of the Maria Curie-Skłodowska University in Lublin, nor a person employed at the unit with which the author is affiliated. The Journal does not conduct internal review.
3. The review is conducted in the double-blind model: the identity of the author is not disclosed to the reviewer and the identity of the reviewer is not disclosed to the author. The author is responsible for the anonymisation of the text, and the Managing Editor verifies it before the text is dispatched.
4. Texts published in sections which are not subject to peer review, indicated in the Section Policies on the Journal's website (in particular editorial introductions and the chronicle), are assessed by the competent Section Editor and by the Editor-in-Chief.
5. A list of the persons who have co-operated with the Journal as reviewers is published on the Journal's website once a year, without any indication of which manuscripts they assessed.
§ 15. Selection of reviewers
1. A reviewer is selected on the basis of their scholarly output in the field to which the manuscript relates.
2. A person may not be invited to act as a reviewer where any of the circumstances set out in § 11(1) applies to them in relation to the author, and in particular where they have been a co-author of the author within the last three years or have been the author's doctoral supervisor.
3. Where a manuscript has been submitted in a foreign language only, at least one of the reviewers is a person affiliated with a foreign academic institution.
4. The author may indicate persons whom they ask not to be appointed as reviewers, giving reasons. The editorial team takes that request into account so far as it is possible to do so. The Journal does not accept proposals of particular persons as reviewers.
5. The editorial team verifies the identity, affiliation and contact address of every person invited for the first time. Correspondence is conducted at institutional addresses.
§ 16. Acceptance and preparation of a review
1. A person invited to act as a reviewer confirms, on accepting the invitation, that no ground for exclusion applies to them and that they are able to prepare the review within the time limit indicated.
2. Where the reviewer concludes that the subject-matter of the manuscript goes beyond their competence, or that they will not be able to meet the time limit, they inform the editorial team without delay, so that another reviewer may be invited. Notification given at an early stage is not treated as a failure to co-operate.
3. The time limit for the preparation of a review is 30 days from acceptance of the invitation. The Managing Editor sends a reminder 7 days before the expiry of that period. Where a review is not received within 14 days after the time limit has expired, the editorial team invites a further reviewer, informing the author of the delay.
4. The review is prepared on the form available in the reviewer's account on the OJS platform. The form contains the assessment criteria, the ethical rules under this Chapter and a field for the disclosure of a conflict of interest.
5. A review concludes with an unambiguous recommendation: accept submission; revisions required; resubmit for review; decline submission.
§ 17. Standards of a review
1. A review is an assessment of the text and not of its author. Statements concerning the person of the author, their competence, institution or presumed identity are inadmissible.
2. Every reservation is to be reasoned and, where possible, related to a specific passage of the text. It should be apparent from the review which of its comments are conditions of publication and which are suggestions.
3. A difference between the reviewer's own scholarly position and the position defended in the manuscript is not a ground for a negative assessment. What is subject to assessment is the correctness of the argument, the completeness of the material used and the accuracy of the conclusions, not the acceptability of the thesis.
4. A reviewer should indicate relevant legislation, case law or literature which has been overlooked by the author, and should signal any language which is offensive or discriminatory.
5. Where a reviewer suspects that a text infringes the rules laid down in Chapter IV, and in particular that it has been taken over from another work, they inform the editorial team of this rather than dealing with the matter in the body of the review.
§ 18. Duties of the reviewer in relation to the manuscript
1. A manuscript received for review is confidential. It may not be made available to third parties, discussed with them, cited, reproduced or retained after the review has been completed, unless the editorial team consents to a specified person being consulted; that person is then bound by the same rules and is named in the review.
2. A reviewer may not make use of the findings, ideas or materials contained in the manuscript in their own work before the text is published, and after publication may do so only by citing it.
3. A manuscript may not be entered into an AI tool (§ 35).
4. A reviewer who, after accepting the invitation, becomes aware of a circumstance giving rise to a conflict of interest withdraws from the review and informs the editorial team.
§ 19. Divergent assessments and the author's position
1. Where the reviews contain divergent recommendations, the Editor-in-Chief invites a further reviewer or refers the matter to a deliberation under § 10(2).
2. The author has the right to disagree with a review. Their reasoned position is submitted through the OJS platform and is examined by the Section Editor and the Editor-in-Chief, who may make it available to the reviewer with the author's identity withheld.
3. Where a decision to reject a text has been taken, the author may lodge an appeal in accordance with § 49.
CHAPTER IV. DUTIES OF AUTHORS
§ 20. Reliability of the text
1. An author warrants that the findings presented in the text are the result of their own scholarly work and that they have not omitted material known to them which is at variance with the thesis they advance.
2. Legislation, case law and the positions taken by other authors are to be rendered in the text in a manner which does not distort their meaning, indicating the version in force and the date of the state of the law on which the text is based.
3. Where a text draws on foreign law or on foreign-language literature, the author is responsible for the accuracy of the translation of the passages cited.
4. Where a text contains empirical, statistical or archival material, the author describes how it was obtained and processed in a manner permitting verification, and indicates the size and the manner of selection of the sample.
5. The fabrication of material, the alteration of the content of a source and the selective presentation of material with a view to supporting a predetermined thesis constitute a gross breach of this Code.
§ 21. Sources and citation
1. Every use of the work of another person - whether by quotation, paraphrase, borrowing of a construction of an argument or reliance on their findings - must be indicated in the text and in the apparatus.
2. Quotation is admissible within the limits laid down by copyright law, in a manner making it clear which part of the text is a quotation.
3. Where a text reproduces material to which third parties hold rights, and in particular tables, illustrations or extensive extracts, the author obtains the necessary consents and submits them together with the manuscript.
4. An author should cite the works which have in fact influenced the shape of their argument, including works which are at variance with the position they defend. Citations which are not connected with the content of the text, and in particular citations added in order to increase the number of references to a given author or journal, are inadmissible.
5. Where an author relies on a source which they have not consulted directly, they indicate the source from which the reference has been taken.
§ 22. Plagiarism
1. An author submits a text which is their own work.
2. The editorial team of the Journal treats as plagiarism both the taking over of another person's work, in whole or in a substantial part, in an unaltered form or with minor modifications (explicit plagiarism), and the presentation of another person's work in an altered form which nevertheless retains the creative and individual features conferred upon it by its actual creator (hidden plagiarism).
3. Failure to indicate the authorship of a passage taken over is a breach of this Code irrespective of the intention of the person who took it over and irrespective of the extent of the passage.
4. The use of a text generated by an AI tool as if it were the author's own work is treated in the same way as the taking over of another person's work.
§ 23. Duplicate publication and text recycling
1. An author may not pursue publication of the same text in more than one journal or collective work at the same time. The submission of a manuscript to the Journal amounts to a representation that no such other procedure is pending.
2. The editorial team of the Journal treats as a redundant, multiple (duplicate) publication a manuscript in which the author reproduces their own previously published works by way of a literal or partial repetition of those works, or the submission of a text which has already been published in another language version.
3. The reuse by an author of passages from their own earlier publications is admissible only to the extent necessary for the intelligibility of the new argument, and provided that the earlier publication is cited. The reuse of the results of an analysis or of a substantial part of an argument without indicating the earlier publication constitutes a breach of paragraph 2.
4. Publication of the text of a conference paper, a working paper or a preprint does not preclude the submission of a manuscript, provided that the author informs the editorial team of that circumstance at the time of submission and indicates where the earlier version is available.
§ 24. Publication of a translation
1. The Journal may publish a translation of a text previously published in another language only where all of the following conditions are satisfied:
a) the author holds the rights necessary for that purpose and the publisher of the first version has consented;
b) the fact of the earlier publication and the place where it appeared are indicated in a footnote to the title of the text;
c) publication of the translation is justified by the significance of the text for a readership other than that of the first version;
d) the Editor-in-Chief has taken a decision in the matter after examining the case.
2. A text published in breach of paragraph 1 is subject to retraction under § 42.
§ 25. Authorship
1. An author is a person who has made a substantial contribution to the creation of the text, and in particular who has formulated the research problem or the thesis, selected and interpreted the legislation, case law and literature, constructed the argument, or drafted the text or reworked it substantially.
2. Persons who satisfy the criterion set out in paragraph 1 are listed as authors. Persons who do not satisfy it are not so listed, irrespective of their function, position or contribution of an organisational or financial nature.
3. Assistance which does not amount to authorship - and in particular the provision of material, technical assistance, translation, linguistic editing or comments on a draft version - is acknowledged in a note of thanks, with the consent of the person concerned.
4. All the authors bear responsibility for the text as a whole and are obliged to co-operate in clarifying any doubt as to the reliability of any part of it.
§ 26. Ghostwriting and guest authorship
1. Ghostwriting consists in the omission from the list of authors of a person who has made a substantial contribution to the text; guest (gift) authorship consists in the listing as an author of a person whose contribution has been negligible or non-existent. Both practices are breaches of this Code.
2. In order to counter those practices, a declaration of the percentage contribution of each of the co-authors to the creation of the publication, signed by all of them, is to be attached to a multi-author manuscript. The form of the declaration is available on the Journal's website.
3. In the case of a single-author text, the author submits a declaration that no other person has made a contribution justifying their being listed as an author.
4. Where a suspicion of ghostwriting or guest authorship arises, the Editor-in-Chief initiates the procedure under Chapter VIII and informs the institution employing the author of the outcome.
§ 27. Changes to the list of authors
1. The list of authors, their order and the designation of the corresponding author may be altered after submission only before the decision to accept the text is taken, and only upon a joint application of all the persons hitherto listed and of the person to be added.
2. The application is to state the reasons for the change and to indicate the contribution of the person concerned. It is examined by the Editor-in-Chief.
3. After publication, a change to the list of authors is possible only by way of a correction under § 41 and only where a manifest error is demonstrated.
§ 28. Duties of the corresponding author
1. The corresponding author ensures that all the co-authors have become acquainted with the final version of the text, have consented to its being submitted to the Journal and have been informed of its content, and that the declarations referred to in § 26 are consistent with the true state of affairs.
2. The corresponding author transmits to the co-authors the correspondence from the editorial team, and in particular the reviews, the decision and the proofs.
3. Where contact with the corresponding author is lost, the editorial team may address itself to any of the co-authors.
§ 29. Conflicts of interest and sources of funding
1. An author discloses in the manuscript any circumstance which might be perceived as affecting the content of the text, and in particular: remunerated participation in a case connected with the subject-matter of the text, the provision of opinions or advice to a party interested in the resolution of the legal question analysed, membership of a body whose decisions are the subject of assessment, and any financial link with an entity affected by the findings of the text.
2. An author indicates the sources of funding for the text, the name of the research project and the grant number, as well as the contribution of any institution, association or other entity (financial disclosure).
3. The information referred to in paragraphs 1 and 2 is published together with the text. Where there is no such circumstance, that fact is stated in a note.
4. In a commentary on a judicial decision, the author is obliged to state whether they have taken part in the case in which the decision under commentary was given, in whatever capacity.
§ 30. Empirical research and personal data
1. Where a text is based on research involving persons - and in particular on questionnaires, interviews or the analysis of case files - the author confirms that the research was conducted with respect for the dignity and autonomy of the participants and, where required, with the consent of the competent body.
2. Personal data and other information permitting the identification of a natural person are to be anonymised, unless the person concerned has consented to their disclosure and disclosure is necessary for the purposes of the argument.
3. Where a text makes use of court files, files of administrative proceedings or other material of restricted availability, the author indicates the basis on which it was obtained.
4. The Journal encourages authors to make available the material underlying their empirical findings, so far as this is permitted by the law and by the terms on which the material was obtained. An author may be requested to make such material available to the editorial team for the purposes of the assessment of the text.
§ 31. Submission and declarations
1. By submitting a manuscript the author represents that the text has not previously been published in the form submitted, that it has not been submitted to another journal, and that it does not infringe the rights of third parties.
2. The author consents to the publication of the text under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) licence and retains the copyright in it.
3. The manuscript is to be accompanied by: the declaration referred to in § 26(2) or (3), the disclosure referred to in § 29, and the declaration concerning the use of AI tools referred to in § 34.
§ 32. Errors in a published text
1. An author who becomes aware of a significant error in their published text is obliged to inform the editorial team of it without delay, irrespective of the source from which they learned of it.
2. The editorial team and the author agree upon the manner of correcting the error in accordance with Chapter VII. An author who reports an error on their own initiative is not thereby exposed to the consequences provided for in § 47, unless the error is the result of conduct referred to in § 20(5), § 22 or § 23.
CHAPTER V. USE OF ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE TOOLS
§ 33. General principle
1. The Journal permits the use of AI tools solely as an aid. Responsibility for the content of a text, for a review and for an editorial decision always rests with a human being.
2. An AI tool may not be listed as an author or a co-author of a text, since it is incapable of assuming responsibility for its content, of consenting to publication or of participating in the procedures provided for in this Code.
§ 34. Authors
1. Use of an AI tool for the correction of language, style, punctuation or formatting does not require disclosure.
2. Use going beyond the scope indicated in paragraph 1 - and in particular for the generation or reworking of passages of text, the searching for and selection of legislation, case law or literature, the summarising of sources, the translation of substantial parts of the text, or the analysis of empirical material - requires disclosure in a note containing the name of the tool, its version and an indication of the manner in which it was used.
3. An AI tool may not be cited as a source of a legal proposition, of a normative statement or of the content of a judicial decision. Every reference obtained by means of such a tool is to be verified against the original source.
4. The author bears full responsibility for the content of a text produced with the aid of an AI tool, including for the accuracy of citations and references. The presence in a text of references to non-existent legislation, judicial decisions or publications is treated as a breach of § 20(5).
5. Content generated by an AI tool and presented as the author's own work falls within § 22(4).
§ 35. Reviewers and editors
1. A reviewer and a member of the editorial team may not entrust to an AI tool the preparation of a review, of an editorial recommendation or of a decision.
2. A manuscript, a review and any other part of the editorial file may not be entered into an AI tool, since this amounts to disclosure of the text to an external entity and constitutes a breach of the confidentiality required by § 12(2) and § 18(1).
3. The use of a tool operating locally, without transmission of data outside the user's device, for the linguistic correction of the reviewer's own text is admissible.
§ 36. The Journal and the Publisher
1. The Journal makes use of automated tools in the process of verifying originality and metadata. Every result produced by such a tool is verified by a member of the editorial team, and no decision concerning a manuscript is taken solely on the basis of such a result.
2. The Journal does not make use of tools for the automated detection of AI-generated content as the sole basis for an allegation, having regard to their unreliability. Where a suspicion arises, the editorial team conducts the procedure under Chapter VIII, in the course of which the author is invited to explain how the text came into being.
3. Information as to the automated tools used on a permanent basis in the editorial process is published on the Journal's website.
§ 37. Consequences
A breach of the rules laid down in this Chapter may result in the rejection of the manuscript, the withdrawal of the decision to accept it, or the retraction of the published text under § 42.
CHAPTER VI. SPECIAL ISSUES AND GUEST EDITORS
§ 38. Appointment and scope of tasks
1. A special issue is prepared upon a decision of the Editor-in-Chief specifying its subject-matter, the timetable and the composition of the guest editorial team.
2. Guest editors are appointed for a specified issue. Their tasks consist in proposing its thematic framework, evaluating the relevance of the manuscripts submitted to that framework, proposing reviewers and preparing an editorial introduction. Guest editors do not take decisions on publication; those are taken by the Editor-in-Chief.
3. Manuscripts submitted to a special issue are subject to the same procedure, including the same model of review, as all other texts. A special issue may not be a route to publication on more lenient terms.
§ 39. Transparency and conflicts of interest
1. The names of the guest editors and their full institutional affiliations are stated on the page of the special issue and in the editorial introduction to it.
2. The introduction states the composition of the guest editorial team, the origin of the concept of the issue and the source of its funding, if any.
3. A guest editor may publish their own text in the issue for which they are responsible only where the Editor-in-Chief consents. In such a case the entire procedure concerning that text — including the selection of the reviewers and the taking of the decision — is conducted by the Editor-in-Chief, and the guest editor has no access to the editorial file and receives no information as to the identity of the reviewers.
4. Texts by guest editors and by persons connected with them within the meaning of § 11(1) may not constitute more than one fifth of the content of a special issue.
5. Where a text by a guest editor is published in the issue, that fact is stated in the introduction, together with a statement as to the manner in which the procedure was conducted.
CHAPTER VII. CORRECTION AND RETRACTION OF PUBLISHED TEXTS
§ 40. Forms of intervention
Where a defect in a published text is established, the editorial team applies one of the following measures, in proportion to the gravity of the defect: a correction, an expression of concern, or a retraction.
§ 41. Correction
1. A correction is published where a text contains an error which does not affect its principal findings, and in particular an editorial error, an error in the description of a source, or an error in the data of an author or of a source of funding.
2. A correction is published as a separate notice, with its own bibliographical description, containing an indication of the text to which it relates, a description of the error and its corrected form.
3. The published version of the text is not replaced, save where the error occurred at the stage of preparation for publication and is attributable to the Journal. In such a case a corrected version is placed on the website, together with a note as to the date and the scope of the change.
§ 42. Retraction
1. A text is retracted where:
a) plagiarism has been established (§ 22);
b) it has been established that the text is a duplicate publication or has been published in breach of § 24;
c) it has been established that the material has been fabricated or falsified;
d) the findings of the text are erroneous to a degree which deprives it of scholarly value, and the error cannot be remedied by a correction;
e) it has been established that the text has been published in breach of the rules of authorship (§ 25, § 26) in a manner which cannot be remedied by a correction;
f) the publication of the text infringes the rights of a third party.
2. Retraction is effected by a decision of the Editor-in-Chief, taken after the procedure under Chapter VIII has been conducted, and in the case referred to in paragraph 1(f) also after the position of the Publisher has been obtained.
3. The text remains available on the Journal's website. The record of it is marked with the word "RETRACTED", together with the date of retraction and a link to the notice of retraction. The DOI number and the bibliographical description are not altered.
4. The notice of retraction states which text it concerns, the ground for retraction and the person at whose request the retraction was made, and states whether the authors agree with the retraction. The notice is published in the current issue of the Journal and is made freely available.
5. Retraction is not conditional upon the consent of the authors. The authors are informed of the intention to retract and have 21 days within which to present their position, which is taken into account in the notice.
6. The editorial team informs the databases indexing the Journal and, where the case concerns conduct referred to in paragraph 1(a), (c) or (e), the institution employing the author, of the retraction.
§ 43. Expression of concern
1. An expression of concern is published where there is a well-founded suspicion of a defect referred to in § 42(1) but it has not been possible to establish the facts, and in particular where the explanatory procedure is prolonged for reasons beyond the control of the editorial team or where the institution to which the matter has been referred has not taken a position.
2. The notice states what the doubt consists in and what steps have been taken. After the case has been clarified, the notice is supplemented with information as to its outcome and, where appropriate, is replaced by a notice of retraction or by a statement that the doubt has been dispelled.
§ 44. Removal of a text
The removal of a text from the Journal's website is admissible only where its further availability would infringe the personal rights of a third party, would result in the disclosure of protected data or would be contrary to an enforceable judicial decision. In place of the text a note is left containing its bibliographical description and an indication of the ground for its removal.
CHAPTER VIII. PROCEEDINGS IN THE EVENT OF A SUSPECTED BREACH OF THE CODE
§ 45. Initiation
1. A procedure is initiated by the Editor-in-Chief of the Journal of their own motion or upon a notification by an author, a reviewer, a member of the editorial team, the Publisher, a reader or any other person.
2. A notification is submitted to the address of the Editor-in-Chief (beata.jezynska@mail.umcs.pl) or of the Managing Editor and should indicate the text concerned, describe the conduct alleged and state the material relied upon.
3. An anonymous notification is examined where it indicates verifiable material.
4. A notification concerning a member of the editorial team is examined by the Editor-in-Chief with the exclusion of the person concerned; a notification concerning the Editor-in-Chief is dealt with by the Deputy Editor-in-Chief, who informs the Publisher.
§ 46. Course of the procedure
1. The Editor-in-Chief examines whether the notification indicates matter which requires clarification. Where it does not, the procedure is closed and the notifier is informed.
2. The person to whom the notification relates is informed of its content and is invited to present a position within 21 days. Where the notification concerns a multi-author text, all the co-authors are so invited.
3. The Editor-in-Chief may seek an expert opinion, request the production of source material and — where the matter concerns conduct amounting to a breach of the rules of academic integrity — refer the matter to the institution employing the person concerned, informing that person accordingly.
4. The procedure is concluded within three months of its initiation. Where a longer period is required, the Editor-in-Chief informs the notifier and the person concerned, indicating the anticipated date of conclusion, and may publish a notice under § 43.
5. The parties to the procedure are informed of its outcome in writing, with reasons.
6. The documentation of the procedure is retained for ten years.
§ 47. Consequences of establishing a breach
Depending on the gravity of the breach, the Editor-in-Chief may: reject the manuscript; withdraw the decision to accept the text; retract the published text under § 42; refuse to accept manuscripts from the author for a period of up to five years; withdraw a person from the group of the Journal's reviewers; apply to the Publisher and to the institution employing the person concerned to take the measures provided for by the rules binding upon them. The measures applied are proportionate to the breach; the fact that the person concerned reported the matter of their own motion and co-operated in clarifying it is taken into account.
§ 48. Auxiliary guidance
In conducting a procedure under this Chapter the editorial team makes auxiliary use of the flowcharts published by COPE, adapting them to the course of proceedings laid down in this Code. The flowcharts are presented on the Journal's website under the tab Standards of proceeding in the event of suspected infringement of ethical rules, which serves as an annex to this Chapter.
CHAPTER IX. COMPLAINTS AND APPEALS
§ 49. Appeal against a decision
1. An author may appeal against a decision to reject a manuscript within 30 days of its being communicated to them.
2. An appeal is submitted through the OJS platform or to the address of the Editor-in-Chief and should indicate the reasons why the assessment is regarded as erroneous. A polemic with the substantive position of a reviewer, unsupported by an indication of an error in the assessment, does not constitute a ground for an appeal.
3. An appeal is examined by the Editor-in-Chief together with the Deputy Editor-in-Chief and a Section Editor other than the one who conducted the matter. An additional reviewer may be invited.
4. An appeal is dealt with within 30 days. For as long as it is being examined, the procedure concerning the manuscript is treated as pending (§ 23(1)); submission of the text to another journal at that stage is treated as withdrawal of the appeal.
§ 50. Complaints
1. A complaint may concern the activity of the Journal, of the members of its editorial team, of its staff or of the Publisher, and in particular the neglect or improper performance of tasks and the infringement of the interests of the complainant.
2. A complaint concerning the Journal, a member of the editorial team or a member of the staff of the Journal is submitted to the Editor-in-Chief (beata.jezynska@mail.umcs.pl) or to the Deputy Editor-in-Chief (jaroslaw.kostrubiec@mail.umcs.pl).
3. A complaint concerning the Editor-in-Chief or the Deputy Editor-in-Chief is submitted to the Maria Curie-Skłodowska University Press (wydawnictwo@umcs.eu).
4. A complaint concerning the Maria Curie-Skłodowska University Press is submitted to the Rector of the Maria Curie-Skłodowska University in Lublin (rektor@umcs.pl).
5. The competent body informs the person or entity whose activity is the subject of the complaint of its content and requires that person or entity to respond to the allegations made.
6. A complaint is to be dealt with not later than within one month of its submission, and the complainant is to be informed of the manner in which it has been dealt with. Where the matter requires a longer period, the complainant is informed of the reasons for the delay and of the anticipated date of its conclusion.
CHAPTER X. THE PUBLISHER
§ 51. Role of the Publisher
1. The publisher of the Journal is the Maria Curie-Skłodowska University Press, whose website is available at https://wydawnictwo.umcs.eu.
2. The Publisher provides the Journal with: access to and technical support for the OJS platform, access to the iThenticate – Crossref Similarity Check system, the registration of DOI numbers, legal advice, and support in the archiving of published content.
3. The Publisher does not take part in the assessment of individual manuscripts and does not influence editorial decisions.
§ 52. Involvement of the Publisher in ethical matters
1. Where a breach of this Code is established, the Publisher, at the request of the Editor-in-Chief, provides support in the conduct of the correction, retraction or removal of a text, and in matters concerning the infringement of the rights of third parties also legal support.
2. In a matter in which a conflict of interest arises within the editorial team, the Publisher takes over the conduct of the case at the request of the Deputy Editor-in-Chief or of the complainant.
3. The Publisher observes the rules laid down in this Code within the scope of the tasks it performs in connection with the publication of the Journal.
§ 53. Availability and archiving of texts
1. The Journal is published in open access, and its texts are made available under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) licence.
2. The rules governing the archiving of and permanent access to published content are laid down in the archiving policy published on the Journal's website.
3. An author may make their text available in a repository or on a personal website in the version published by the Journal, indicating its bibliographical description and its DOI number.
CHAPTER XI. FINAL PROVISIONS
§ 54. Language versions
The Code is published in a Polish version and in an English version. Both versions have the same content. In the event of a discrepancy in interpretation, the English version prevails.
§ 55. Amendments and review
1. The Code is adopted and amended by the Editor-in-Chief after consultation of the Editorial Board.
2. The editorial team reviews the Code at least once every two years, taking into account the experience gained in applying it and any changes in the standards referred to in § 3(1).
3. A manuscript is subject to the version of the Code in force on the date of its submission, unless a subsequent version is more favourable to the author.
§ 56. Entry into force and contact
1. The Code enters into force on 1 August 2026 and applies to manuscripts submitted from that date onwards.
2. Questions concerning the application of the Code are to be addressed to the Managing Editor of the Journal at the address sil@mail.umcs.pl.
Standards of proceeding in the event of suspected infringement of ethical rules
If any manifestation of scientific unreliability is detected, the Editorial Board shall apply the following rules of procedure, based on guidelines in the form of diagrams (https://publicationethics.org/guidance/Flowcharts) developed by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and made available under licence CC BY-NC-ND 3.0.
§ 1
[Rules of procedure in the case of a suspected redundant (duplicate) publication]
A redundant (duplicate) publication is to be understood as a manuscript in which the author reproduces his/her own previously published papers in the form of a literal or partial repetition of his/her own publications or the submission of a text published in another language.
§ 2
[Rules of procedure in the cases of suspected plagiarism]
Plagiarism is defined as either the acquisition of someone else's work in whole or in large part in its unchanged form or with minor modifications (explicit plagiarism), or the presentation of someone else's work in a modified form, while retaining the creative and individual characteristics given to it by the actual author (hidden plagiarism).
Proceeding in the case of suspected plagiarism in a submitted and published manuscript
§ 3
[Rules of procedure in the case of suspected fabrication of data]
Data fabrication occurs where the author of the manuscript presents the results of research work which has not taken place or changes the results of the research carried out in an arbitrary or unjustified manner.
Proceeding in the case of suspected fabrication of data in a submitted and published manuscript
§ 4
[Rules of procedure in the case of an application to modify the list of authors]
§ 5
[Rules of procedure in the case of suspected ghost, guest or gift authorship]
1) A ghost author is someone who is omitted from an authorship list despite qualifying for authorship.
2) A guest author is someone who is listed as an author despite not qualifying for authorship. Guests are people brought in to make the list look more impressive (despite having little or no involvement with the research or publication).
3) A gift author is someone who is listed as an author despite not qualifying for authorship. Gift authorship involves including colleagues on papers in return for being listed on theirs.
Proceeding in the case of suspected ghost, guest or gift authorship
§ 6
[Rules of conduct in the event of a suspected undisclosed conflict of interest]
A conflict of interest shall be deemed to be the relationship arising from a competitive activity, cooperation or other personal, financial or professional relationships of the reviewer with any of the authors or institutions related to the manuscript submitted.
§ 7
[Rules of conduct in the case of a suspected ethical problem with a submitted manuscript]
Proceeding where the editor suspects that there is an ethical problem with a submitted manuscript
§ 8
[Rules of procedure in the case of a suspected misappropriation of author's ideas or data by the reviewer]
§ 9
[Rules for responding to whistleblowers]
Rules for responding to whistleblowers who have raised their concerns directly or via social media
Policy on the Use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) Tools
§ 1
“The journal permits the use of artificial intelligence (AI) tools, including generative AI systems, only as supportive instruments, while maintaining full human responsibility for the content of publications and the editorial process.”
For authors
§2
- Authors must disclose any use of AI that goes beyond language editing, stylistic revision, or formatting.
- Authors are fully responsible for the accuracy, integrity, and verification of all content, including AI-generated material.
- AI tools cannot be listed as authors and may not be cited as scientific sources.
For reviewers and editors
§ 3
- Reviewers and editors should not use AI to generate reviews, evaluations, or editorial decisions due to risks such as breaches of confidentiality, bias, and the generation of inaccurate or fabricated information.
- Limited use of AI for language editing is acceptable, provided confidentiality is maintained.
For the journal and publisher
§ 4
- Any routine use of automated tools is disclosed and subject to prior testing.
- Automated processes (e.g., similarity checks, detection of integrity issues) are conducted under human oversight (“human in the loop”), and their results are verified by editorial staff.
§5
Failure to comply with this policy may result in rejection of the manuscript or retraction of the publication.
Archiving and Content Preservation
§ 1
The journal Studia Iuridica Lublinensia ensures long-term preservation and access to published scholarly content.
§ 2
The journal operates using the Open Journal Systems (OJS) platform, which enables:
a) permanent storage of publications,
b) metadata archiving,
c) management of journal publications and resources,
d) continuity of access to digital resources.
§ 3
1. The publisher performs regular backups of journal data and publication materials (UMCS Digital Library).2. All published articles remain available in the journal archive under the principles of open and permanent access.
3. If additional digital preservation systems are implemented, relevant information will be published on the journal website.