The Statement of the Editorial Board of “Zagadnienia Rodzajów Literackich” ("The Problems of Literary Genres") regarding Publication Ethics and Publication Malpractice is based on the Code of Conduct and Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors developed by the Committee on Publications Ethics (COPE).

To provide the highest ethical standards in our publishing activity, we are guided by the following principles.


  1. The Journal has an Editorial Board (editor-in-chief and co-editors), composed of members who are experts in the field of social sciences and who actively contribute to the development and good management of the Journal. Their task is to search for the best Authors and reviewers and decide which of the articles submitted to the Journal should be published.
  2. The Editorial Board takes full responsibility for the content of all published articles and other texts.
  3. The Editorial Board gives unbiased consideration to all articles offered for publication, judging each paper exclusively on its academic merits, regardless of the Author’s gender, race, nationality, sexual orientation, religious belief, or institutional affiliation.
  4. The final decision about accepting or rejecting the article for publication rests with the Editorial Board. Such decision is based on the paper’s importance, originality, and clarity, the study’s validity, and its relevance to the Journal’s profile. Should Authors decide to appeal against the decision concerning a rejection of the article , the final decision also rests with the Editorial Board. After consulting with the Editorial Board members and the reviewers, the Editorial Board may change the original decision.
  5. The Authors are provided with full information about the editorial requirements and the description of the peer review process on the Journal’s website.
  6. In the event of justified suspicion of the Author’s unethical behavior, which may take the form of copyright infringement, plagiarism, falsification of research results or other unethical actions, the Editorial Board is obliged to inform the relevant academic institutions or other appropriate body so that further investigation can be conducted.. The Editorial Board should publish corrections, clarifications and apologies and withdraw an article if its Author(s) have committed any unethical acts.
  7. The Editorial Board and any other members of editorial staff must not disclose any information about a submitted article to anyone other than the corresponding author, reviewers, or other editorial advisers.
  8. The Editorial Board should develop and maintain a database of suitable reviewers, updating it if necessary on the basis of reviewers’ performance, personal academic contacts, academic bibliographic database, etc. A list of reviewers of articles published during the year is included in the last issue of the journal issued in a given year.


  1. An article can be rejected by the Editorial Board without seeking the opinion of reviewers on the basis of an internal evaluation prepared by the relevant member(s) of the Editorial Board if it does not fit the profile of the Journal, does not meet minimum quality standards, or does not comply with the editorial requirements provided in the Instructions/Guidelines for Authors, available at the Journal’s website.
  2. Articles are reviewed by two independent experts representing the same scholarly area to which the subject of the article relates. Reviewers should have significant scientific achievements in the subject area of the article.
  3. The preferred way for reviewing the articles is the model of double-blind review process. Reviewers are unaware of the identity of the authors and vice versa – Authors are unaware of the  identity of reviewers. In any case, a reviewer is obliged to sign a declaration stating that there is no conflict of interest.  A conflict of interest between the reviewer and the Author occurs if there: A) there is a direct personal relationship (kinship, legal relationships, conflict); B) there exists a relationship of professional subordination; C) there has been direct scientific cooperation in the past two years preceding the preparation of the review.
  4. Reviews should be submitted according to a written format and should be prepared in an objective manner. Personal criticism of an Author is inappropriate. Reviewers ought to provide the Author with their clear, constructive, and detailed opinions in a way that allows the Author to respond to the comments contained in a review. A review should end with an explicit conclusion as to whether the article should be published in its original form, after taking into account suggested amendments, or should not be accepted for publication.
  5. Reviewers should identify relevant published works that have not been cited by the Author. A reviewer should also call to the Editorial Board’s attention any substantial similarity or overlap between the reviewed article and any other published paper of which they have personal knowledge.
  6. Where articles, according to the reviewers, require significant adjustments, reviewers should refer to the revised version of an article to make a recommendation to accept or reject it. In the case of conflicting assessments by appointed reviewers, the article is passed to a third party for review.
  7. Any selected reviewer who feels unqualified to prepare an objective opinion or who does not have time to prepare a review within a specified time frame (one month following the day of taking up the task) should immediately inform the Editorial Board about that and excuse him/herself from the review process.
  8. Each reviewed article is covered by the principle of confidentiality in relation to its entire content.


  1. The authorship of a submitted article should be limited only to persons who have made a significant contribution to its writing. The names of Co-Authors and their affiliations should be listed in the heading of the article. In the case of co-authorship, the corresponding author must declare to the Editorial Board in sufficient detail the type and extent of contribution of each individual Co-Author to the content, assumptions, methods, design, execution, or interpretation of the reported study. The names of persons who have been engaged in the study but cannot be considered as Authors should be presented in the "Acknowledgement" section. The final version of the article should be approved by all Co-Authors who should agree to its submission for publication.
  2. Authors should include in the article proper citations of all publications that had a significant impact on the content of the article and other sources used during the preparation of the article. Where requested, the authors should provide the data source and research methods used in the article.
  3. Authors should respond to the opinions of reviewers and can appeal editorial decisions. In the event they do not agree with the comments contained in the review, they should provide the Editorial Board with relevant comments and explanations.
  4. All sources of financial funding of the research work presented in the article should be explicitly stated in the article.
  5. By deciding to submit an article for review, the Authors declare that they have read the review procedures and other information available on the Journal's website and agree with the rules adopted by the Editor and Publisher.