Ethical principles which are followed in the “Architectus” journal
The journal has adopted
the principle
sof publication ethics that are consistent with the guidelines of the
Committee for Publication Ethics (COPE). COPE.PDF 
(external link).
1. Principles and duties
concerning the scientific council and editorial team:
– preventing practices which are inconsistent with the
standards in force in science
– responsibility for deciding whether to qualify an article
for
publication (the criteria for accepting articles for publication are as
follows: compliance with the thematic scope of the journal and with
ethical principles in force in science, opinion of reviewers,
scientific value of the article, originality of the problem,
transparency and logic of the argument, scientific workshop of the
authors)
– being guided at work with honesty, diligence and
objectivity as
well as substantive considerations, without discrimination on the basis
of race, gender, sexual orientation, religious and political beliefs,
geographical or cultural origin of the authors
– respecting confidentiality, not disclosing to unauthorized
persons any information about the works submitted to the journal
– striving to maintain the highest possible scientific
accuracy
and being ready to publish corrections, amendments and apologies, if
there is a justified need to do so
– counteracting conflicts of interest (non-use of unpublished
articles by anyone associated with the publishing process without the
written consent of the authors).
2. The rules for authors:
– ensuring the originality of the work (only
authors’ own
unpublished texts may be submitted for publication; research by other
scientists used in the work must be clearly marked as a citation with
the source; plagiarism and fabrication of data are unacceptable)
– maintaining scientific integrity (making every effort to
describe the research performed and the objective interpretation of the
results in the best possible way; ghostwriting and guestauthorship are
unacceptable manifestations of scientific misconduct and will be
exposed as such; reliability of sources– the obligation to
mention other works used in the writing of the article in the
bibliography)
– guarantee of the authorship of the work (in multi-author
works,
disclosure of the contribution of individual authors in their creation
– not percentage, but substantive; the obligation of authors
submitting the article to ensure that the other authors accept the
final version of the work)
counteracting conflicts of interest (authors should not publish texts
describing the same research in more than one journal)
– informing the editorial office of any possible conflicts of
interest
– readiness to notify the editorial office of the journal in
the
event of discovering errors or inaccuracies in the article and for
possible errata or even withdrawal of the article.
3. The rules for reviewers:
– confidentiality (the texts of articles and their reviews
are
confidential, and their disclosure to unauthorized persons / not
participating in the publishing process is unacceptable)
– objectivity (substantive evaluation of the text; personal
criticism of the authors is unacceptable; all comments should be
properly argued)
– counteracting conflicts of interest (using the
peer-reviewed
papers for your own purposes and for your own benefit is unacceptable;
if the reviewer discovers the possibility of a conflict of interest,
she/he is obliged to inform the editors about it)
– reliability (in the event of any significant similarities
between the reviewed article and other papers, the reviewer should
inform the editors about it; it is also advisable – if
necessary
– to mention relevant important papers not quoted by the
author
and related to the subject of the article)
– punctuality (obligation to provide a review within a
predetermined period or inform the editorial office of any changes in
this respect or the impossibility of fulfilling the entrusted
task).