The following information on ethical standards and abuses in publishing practice, which the Declaration of the Scientific Works of INiG – PIB Publishing House of the Oil and Gas Institute - National Research Institute (hereinafter: Wydawnictwa INiG – PIB) declares to be respected, have been prepared based on the guidelines of the Publication Ethics Committee (COPE), available at www.publicationethics.org
The mission of the Oil and Gas Institute - National Research Institute is to share knowledge. Part of this mission is inter alia; publication of scientific monographs presenting achievements in the oil and gas sector (all activities related to oil and natural gas and related disciplines, including: exploration and exploitation of hydrocarbon fields, through storage, transport, distribution and use of natural gas, crude oil and products up to the development and improvement of technologies for the production of liquid fuels).
All Scientific works published by INiG – PIB Publishing House are reviewed (double blind review).
Editorial of the Scientific Works of INiG – PIB will disclose and condemn any violation of editorial ethics by parties involved in the publishing process: authors, members of the Scientific Council, editorial board, editors, reviewers and editors.
The thematic scope of scientific works covers topics in the field of: geology, geophysics, geochemistry, drilling, production, gas engineering and oil technologies. Scientific works discussing other issues than those already mentioned will not be approved for publication.
Publication of scientific works
The decision to accept the scientific work and to start the publishing procedure, including sending a monograph for review, is made by the Editor-in-Chief of the Scientific Work of the INI - PIB Publishing House or its deputy. After the Editor in Chief or deputy state that the submitted manuscript can be sent for review (on finding that it meets the formal requirements as well), it is sent to two independent reviewers (double blind review).
The decision on publication of the monograph is made after analysis of the review by the Editor in chief or deputy. In controversial cases, e.g. on receiving two extremely different reviews – one positive and the other negative, The editors, together with the editor-in-chief and thematic editors, may appoint another reviewer to resolve the problem. The decision to accept a monograph or to reject it may also be taken by the Editor-in-Chief after consultation with the thematic editor responsible for the topic of the given work.
In the event of receiving two negative reviews of a monograph or plagiarism, infringement of copyright or defamation, the Editors shall withdraw the monograph from the publishing process.
Principle of fair play
The Scientific Council of INiG - PIB publishing houses, editorial committee,, thematic editors and reviewers are obliged to maintain objectivity when accepting the article for printing. Sex, race, sexual orientation, religious denomination, nationality and political views of the authors of papers submitted for publication have no influence on the monograph's assessment.
Duties of authors
Requirements for article submission
When submitting a Scientific Work to the Editorial Office of the INiG – PIB Publishing House, authors are required to attach a statement on the non-infringement by them of copyrights of other people and about the fact that their work has not been published or intended for publication in another publishing house. In the case of a monograph prepared by several authors, they should also determine the substantive and percentage contribution of individuals to its creation.
In the case of submitting graphic elements (drawings, tables, etc.) published to the editorial office earlier, the authors of the scientific work are required to present the consent of their owner / publisher for their re-use. This applies in particular to photos and graphics downloaded from the Internet. Every case of scientific misconduct - especially plagiarism - will be disclosed, including using the procedure of notifying the relevant institutions.
Guidelines for the preparation of scientific work and submitting it to the editorial staff of INiG - PIB publishing houses are available in electronic form on the website at the address INSTRUCTIONS FOR AUTHORS.
Originality
The authors can present for publication only their own original works, otherwise the work will not be accepted for printing or it will be withdrawn (demonstration of unethical conduct of the authors after the work has been published). All forms of plagiarism are unacceptable – including appropriation of somebody else's work, reimbursements, data, theoretical concepts or conclusions of other authors, or self-plagiarism – which comprises repeat publication of excerpts of own, previously published works as new work. Simultaneous submission of the manuscript to more than one periodical is recognized as unethical and reprehensible conduct.
The originality of the text submitted in the publishing house can be verified by an online anti-plagiarism system. The authors bear responsibility for the contents presented in scientific works.
The works or words of other authors need to be used as a quotation. Authors should also specify all conceptual inspirations, including publications which contributed to origination of the work.
As an exception, reprinting or translation of already published article is possible, and such a publication must be suitably marked and needs a consent for copyright.
The editorial team warns against:
- copying texts from other scientific papers, monographs, publications (including those available on websites) and their compilation. Text that has been rewritten without explicitly marking it using quotes or italics will be considered plagiarism (even if it will be marked with a footnote, and there will be no explicit marking of the passage cited);
- giving in the list of literature, publications not referred to in the text in the reference list. The list should include only publications to which the author refers in the content of the monograph.
Authorship of the manuscript
Only those individuals who made a real contribution to the origination of the scientific work may be named its authors. In a letter to the Editorial Staff concerning publication of the scientific work/monograph, its co-authors specify the type and scope of work on the submitted work. At the end of the article, the authors can insert the names of the people who participated in the tests which served as the basis for the scientific work/monograph (but who did not take part in its preparation).
Quoting the sources
The authors should provide the sources of presented data and make references in the text of the scientific work in respect of all essential findings. The method of quoting, in accordance with the guidelines of the INiG - PIB Publishing House, is available on the Publishing House's website. GUIDELINES FOR AUTHORS
Scientific deception
The authors are obliged to present the results of their work in a transparent, reliable and honest way – submitted works may only contain the data, statistical analysis and the results which were recognized as accurate. Deliberate publication of untrue or unverified results is unethical and unacceptable.
Disclosing a conflict of interests
The authors must disclose to Editors any potential conflict of interests which may have an impact on the results contained in the manuscript or may influence their interpretation. The authors should also ensure there are no proprietary claims related to the content and photos inserted in the text submitted to the Editorial Office which might adversely affect its publication.
Publication errors
If, after the publication of the scientific work / monograph, the authors find a mistake in the text, they should inform the Editorial Office immediately in order to correct and / or withdraw from the sale, the said publishing position.
Duties of reviewers
The primary responsibility of the reviewer is an objective evaluation of the text. All comments, evaluations and suggestions should be indicated clearly and supported by appropriate arguments. Criticism or remarks for personal reasons are unacceptable. The publication decision is influenced only by the substantive content of the material provided and the thematic compliance with the profile of scientific papers published by the Oil and Gas Institute- National Research Institute. In the process of reviewing, only the following criteria are taken into account: originality of the work and its scientific character, compliance of the submitted manuscript with the subject area of scientific work correctness of calculations and terminology used, correct verification of hypotheses and justification of conclusions.
Disclosing a conflict of interests
Editors and reviewers may not use the information contained in the submitted scientific works for the purpose of their own research without prior explicit consent of its author. If a conflict of interests is found resulting from competition, cooperation or other relationships with any of the authors or institutions associated with the submitted scientific work text, the responsibilities of the Editor in Chief (the decision related to publication) are taken over by the thematic editor or another member of the Scientific Board of the Editorial of the Scientific Work. The editors are obliged to disclose any potential conflict of interests and publish such information after the work has been published, whenever such a conflict is found to occur. When necessary, other actions will be taken as well, such as publication of revoke (retraction) or disclaimer.
Judicial remedy
If the author decides to appeal against the decision not to publish his scientific work, the final decision in this matter belongs to the editor-in-chief or his deputy. The Editor in Chief, after consulting the associate/thematic editors and reviewers who assessed the work, may change the initial decision on non-publication of the article.
Withdrawal of scientific work
In case the scientific work is published and then an essential error is found in it or substantial parts of it are considered to be invalid, the work will be withdrawn from printing and the reason will be given (e.g. cheating, error, plagiarism, the so-called double publications). Retraction of the scientific work will take place also when in the scientific work already published, confident information is found obtained by the author from a third person and used in the work without the person's consent.
The decision to withdraw the scientific work is taken by the editor-in-chief or the deputy after consultations with the editorial committee, thematic editors or the Scientific Council of Oil and Gas Institute – National Research Institute (INiG – PIB) Publishing Houses and reviewers who reviewed the work. DUTIES OF REVIEWERS
Confidentiality
The reviewers are obliged to maintain confidentiality with regard to all unpublished works and materials related to them.
Objectivity
The reviewers must undertake to make all efforts to reliably and objectively assess the academic value of the scientific work. If the reviewer decides that they do not have sufficient competence to assess the article, they should notify the Editors of the fact and abstain from reviewing the text. It is the reviewer's duty to give the authors clear, constructive and detailed remarks by means of the editorial staff, also in the case of works which in their opinion are not suitable for printing. It is reprehensible to limit oneself to informing the authors only of the conclusions of the review, and in particular not to inform them of essential objections or accusations, also in positive reviews.
Meeting deadlines for reviews
The reviewer should carefully assess how much time they need to perform the review by a fixed date, and in case of doubt, abandon the review. The editorial staff expects the review within 60 working days of acceptance of the task by the reviewer.
Disclosing a conflict of interests
The reviewer cannot be in close personal or professional relationship with the author of the scientific work. When such a situation occurs, the reviewer is obliged to abandon the review of such a text and immediately notify the Editors of the fact and to refuse running the review.
Originality
If, in the course of the review or verification of the manuscript, considerable similarity is discovered to other people's articles or infringement on their intellectual property right is found, it is the duty of the reviewer to notify the Editors of the fact. The Editor-in-Chief of Scientific Works of INiG – PIB Publishing House or the deputy, after learning the details of the violation found, will take a final decision on the publication of the work.
Quoting the sources
The reviewer should point out to the authors all themes and publications which are vital in their opinion but which were not covered or quoted in the work.
In disputable situations that may arise during the publishing process, the Editors will follow the procedures set out by COPE:
https://publicationethics.org/files/Full%20set%20of%20Polish%20flowcharts.pdf
https://publicationethics.org/files/Full%20set%20of%20English%20flowcharts_9Nov2016.pdf