Principles of ethics

Ethical principles

The Editorial Board attaches particular importance to scientific integrity and adherence to the ethical principles applicable to science and scholarship. In terms of good practice and publication ethics, the Editorial Board follows the recommendations of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE)  The Polish version of the recommendations is available in translation by Ewa Rozkosz and Sylwia Ufnalska. Additionally, in order to ensure the originality of scientific publications, the Editorial Office uses the anti-plagiarism system Crossref Similarity Check (

All persons involved in the publication process of the journal are obliged to observe these ethical principles.

 Responsibilities of Authors

Authors are expected to:

  • comply with the relevant copyright legislation, to respect the integrity and originality of the manuscripts submitted for publication, which have not been previously published, either in part or in full, and have not been submitted to another journal
  • disclose conflicts of interest, if any such exist
  • provide information on the source of research funding if the text is the result of an externally funded project
  • provide the details on the specific percentages of co-authorship of the work if there is more than one author
  • provide information on affiliation, employment or collaboration in order to avoid links with reviewers, and so that reviewers can be selected more objectively

Responsibilities of the members of the Editorial Board, Editorial Committee and Scientific Council

1. The Editorial Board only accepts:

  • manuscripts that are original and in line with the profile, scope and purpose of the journal, and which adhere to the adopted ethical principles
  • manuscripts that are free from legal defects, linguistic defects; in particular, any cases of plagiarism, self-plagiarism, ghost-writing and guest authorship must be detected and communicated to the relevant bodies (i.e. the authors’ employing bodies and other organizations, e.g. scientific societies, associations of scientific editors)

The editors assess the manuscript in terms of its quality and merits, the level of knowledge contained in it, the importance, relevance and timeliness of the issues raised, and its appeal to the widest possible global audience. The assessment of the manuscript is not influenced by the nationality, gender, ethnicity, race, sexual orientation, religious beliefs or political convictions of the authors.

2. The editors will appoint at least two reviewers that are not affiliated with the author’s institutional affiliations.

3. In the case of interdisciplinary texts, the Editorial Board will appoint an additional reviewer, with the reviewer’s knowledge and scientific achievements used as the criterion for selection. Reviews are double-blind. Due to the subject matter of the articles submitted to Agricultural Law Review, in the absence of a suitable reviewer, a member of the Scientific Council may be appointed as reviewer.

4. If a reviewer fails to prepare a review on time, refuses to prepare a review, or for ethical reasons cannot prepare a review of a particular manuscript, the editors will appoint a new reviewer.

5. The editors will only accept reviews that are honest, factual and prepared in accordance with good manners.

6. In the event of a diametrically opposed assessment of a manuscript by two reviewers, the editors may appoint a third reviewer.

7. The editors will only accept manuscripts for publication that have received two unequivocally positive reviews.

8. The editors guarantee confidentiality of the review process and of the personal data of authors and reviewers.

The obligations of reviewers

The reviewer’s primary duty is to evaluate the manuscript objectively. Personal criticism is not acceptable. All comments, evaluations and suggestions should be indicated clearly and supported by arguments.

Reviewers prepare reviews that:

  • are honest, substantive with concrete conclusions, and in accordance with good practice
  • comply with the journal’s review procedure, i.e. reviews are to be drawn up on forms available in the relevant language versions on the Open Journal System (OJS) platform; reviews remain anonymous; reviewers write them according to the criteria contained in the review sheet
  • are returned within the prescribed period, i.e. one month
  • are free of charge (according to customary practice)

If reviewers are unable to prepare a review, they shall inform the editor of this within one week of receiving a request for a review.

Reviewers shall inform the editor:

  • of a conflict of interest, if any becomes apparent
  • about detected scientific dishonesty of the author (plagiarism, self-plagiarism, ghost-writing, guest authorship).

Reviewers must not use any data or results of the reviewed research contained in the manuscript for purposes other than preparing the review.

The procedure for dealing with violations of ethical principles

1. The Editorial Board shall document cases of scientific dishonesty, in particular violations and infringements of copyright, as well as of ethical principles applicable to scholarship. Cases of scientific dishonesty include plagiarism and self-plagiarism, ghost-writing and guest authorship.

2. To ensure the originality of scientific publications, the Editorial Board uses the tools of the Crossref Similarity Check anti-plagiarism system. The results of the anti-plagiarism check are analysed. If plagiarism or self-plagiarism is detected, the submitted text is rejected and the author is informed of the basis for the rejection of the text.

3. If reviewers report a suspicion of plagiarism or self-plagiarism to the editor, the editor checks the validity of the suspicion. The Editorial Board then informs the reviewer of the results of the check. If the validity of the suspicion is confirmed, the submitted text is rejected and the author is informed of the basis for the rejection.

4. If readers of Agricultural Law Review report a suspicion of plagiarism or self-plagiarism to the Editorial Board, the Editorial Board checks the validity of the suspicion and informs the author of the results of the check in response to the allegations of unreliability. The published text is withdrawn from all online platforms where Agricultural Law Review is available. The basis for the withdrawal of the text is communicated on the electronic platforms and in the printed version of the Review.

5. In cases of confirmed plagiarism, the Editorial Office will inform the respective author’s employer or other affiliated institutions, e.g. scientific societies, associations of scientific editors.

6. In cases of ghost-writing and guest authorship, the text is rejected. The Editorial Board will inform the author(s) of the decision and its basis, as well as the relevant institutions employing the author(s) or the scientific societies with which the author(s) is/are affiliated.