Konteksty, committed to the high standards of academic publishing, expects all contributors and collaborators to adhere to the principles set forth in The European Code of Conduct of Research Integrity, with special emphasis on:

reliability at all stages and in all aspects of the research;
honesty in developing, reviewing, and communicating the research;
respect and care for all involved in the research;
accountability for the research from the idea through the design to publication.

The editors are committed to keeping their knowledge of best practices in editorial, reviewing, publishing ethics up to date with openness to new ethical perspectives. In our regularly updated “Publication Ethics and Publication Malpractice Statement,” we follow guidelines of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and refer to Committee’s documents: https://publicationethics.org/, which are available on Creative Commons license (© 2021-2025 Committee on Publication Ethics (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0)) For all matters unspecified in this statement, the COPE guidelines, which are tracked by the editors on an ongoing basis, will be applied.

Contacts for Raising Concerns

Any concerns regarding Konteksty publishing integrity and complaints against the journal, its editorial team or publisher can be addressed to the director of the Institute of Art of the Polish Academy of Sciences: ispan@ispan.pl. The journal will handle complaints and appeals concerning publication ethics appropriately. All concerns should be addressed either to the editorial team: konteksty@ispan.pl or directly to the publisher, Institute of Art of the Polish Academy of Sciences: wydawnictwo@ispan.pl. Depending on the reported problem, the response of the head of the institute, the editor-in-chief of the journal or a representative of the publisher is given in writing as soon as possible, but no later than within 30 days. For detailed information on the procedures, see section “Appeals and Complaints” in this statement.

II. EDITORIAL PROCESS

In Konteksty, all editorial processes are organized to ensure editorial freedom and full independence of publication decisions. We are constantly improving our editorial practices to effectively serve the principles of diversity, inclusivity, and equity in the academic debate. The editors are being advised on matters regarding the mission of the journal by an international Academic Advisory Board.

We never discriminate against authors, editors, or reviewers based on personal characteristics or identity, such as race and ethnicity, age, gender, sexual orientation, nationality, citizenship, social class, religion, beliefs, or disabilities.

The whole editorial team upholds the journal’s mission. Editors are responsible for content development; they review submitted manuscripts to make a preliminary selection; they may also curate thematic sections. Editors strive to select content objectively, based on the quality of research and writing as well as likely interest to Konteksty’s readers, and not with an eye toward promoting a specific point of view or interest.

All preliminary selected scholarly manuscripts (research/review articles) are evaluated through a double blind peer review process by at least two independent peer reviewers. The review process is managed by the editors. On request of the editors, a member of the Academic Advisory Board, appointed as an expert, may make further recommendations about manuscripts, independently from peer reviewers. The final publication decision is taken jointly by the editorial team on the basis of the quality of the manuscript, its significance for Konteksty readers, peer-reviewers’ comments, and legal requirements. The editors reserve the right to make corrections and/or abbreviations to the manuscript.

The editors are responsible for sending feedback (especially editors’ and peer reviewers’ comments and revision suggestions) to the author, for plagiarism checking (Crossref Similarity Check), as well as for the whole process of preparation of the accepted texts for publication. No one involved in the editorial or review processes may use the submitted manuscript for one’s own purposes in an unauthorized way. For description of policy and procedures regarding appeals against editorial decisions, see section “Appeals and Complaints” in this statement.

Konteksty usually publishes articles in thematic sections. In the most of cases, these are curated by the editorial team or one of journal’s editors. Themes may be based either on the CFP or the thematic affinities of the submitted articles. Thematic sections may also be curated by a guest editor approved by the editor-in-chief. All the journal’s usual ethical rules, principles, and standard procedures apply to the guest edited article collections. The editor-in-chief, supported by the editorial team, considers whether the topic proposed by a guest editor falls within the aims and scope of the journal and contributes to the journal growth (e.g. by examining previously unaddressed aspects or developing new approaches to the subject area etc.). The editor-in-chief is responsible for verifying the guest editor’s subject expertise, research integrity, and editing experience. Any potential conflicts of interest must be disclosed. Guest editor is explicitly informed about, and obliged to comply with, the journal’s policies, publication ethics, and editorial procedures. Guest editors can either propose an open CFP, which will be published on Konteksty’s website, or invite potentially relevant authors, ensuring that the different viewpoints are represented and the rate of endogeny is low. Submissions to guest edited collections are reviewed like any other submissions and there is no guarantee that the invited articles will be selected for peer review or be accepted for publication. The review process is managed by the Konteksty editorial team, and not by the guest editor. While the guest editor may suggest potential reviewers for an article collection, the editorial team selects the actual reviewers and does not disclose their identity to the guest editor. Invited peer reviewers cannot be employed at the institution with which the guest editor is affiliated or work in a current research project with them, and they also cannot have been co-authors of a book or an article, or co-editors of a book or special issue, with the guest editor within the last 3 years. If a member the Konteksty editorial team curates a thematic section, they are treated in the same way as guest editors during the review process. A guest editor who submits their own article to the collection is excluded from all the stages of the review process of their submission. If any unethical practices are suspected (such as citation manipulation, peer review manipulation, undisclosed conflict of interest, etc.), the peer review or editing process will be stopped and the potential misconduct will be investigated by the editor-in-chief or an appointed member of the editorial team. Final decision (publication, revision, or rejection) is taken jointly by the editorial board. The editor-in-chief, supported by the editorial team and (if relevant) by the publisher’s representative, will address any concerns raised before or after publication regarding the article collection, following standard procedures as they would for any other content. For submissions that do not meet the criteria of a scholarly article, the editors reserve the right to determine the appropriate course of action: such texts may be desk-rejected or accepted on the basis of internal reviews and subsequently marked as non-refereed. This pathway is intended primarily for non-academic texts that are particularly relevant to the theme of an issue. Such a text is usually published only in the extended printed version of Konteksty (ISSN: 1230-6142).

See: COPE Council. COPE Guideline — Guest edited collections — English. https://doi.org/10.24318/Bp64sd1c

Konteksty will never be complicit in censorship and is fully committed to the principle and promotion of freedom of speech and expression. At the same time, our ethical oversight takes into account the fact that the subject of our research may be vulnerable, and the research conduct should respond to that. Mindful of the power of the written word, we strive to ensure that the right to privacy of the people mentioned in the texts we publish is taken into account, and that their sensitivities are respected. The editors are committed to ensuring that no one is exposed to abusive behaviour or correspondence during the editorial processes and reserve the right to take measures to protect all participants from any abuse. This may include, for example, withdrawal of a manuscript from consideration, or challenging and/or omitting clearly abusive peer reviewer’s comments.

Should any misconduct be suspected with regard to authorship, reviewing, or editing, the publication process to which the allegations or concerns relate will be suspended and the relevant persons will be asked for clarification. Once these are obtained, a decision will be made by the editors. If the allegations or doubts concern a person on the editorial board, she or he will be excluded from the decision-making process. The successive stages of case clarification are carried out in accordance with COPE guidelines. The examples of such situations are discussed later in this statement.

III. REVIEW PROCESS

Fair, unbiased, competent, rigorous, and constructive peer review is critical to maintaining the standards of our publications. Peer review is an activity carried out by scholars as a means of contributing to the academic fields we cover. Konteksty uses double-blind peer review (the authors do not know the identity of the reviewers, and the reviewers do not know the identity of the authors at the time of the review) and requires a minimum of two independent peer reviewers, representing different locations and not employed at the institution where the author is affiliated, to review manuscript of research/review article for consideration in the journal. Texts such as book reviews, reminiscences, editorials, interviews, columns, polemics, and literary essays that are only internally assessed, are marked as non-refereed on the website.

Rules of the Peer Review Process

We invite reviewers on the basis of their competence and professional expertise. The reviewers are asked to provide a fair, honest, and respectful assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of the manuscript, containing possible suggestions for further work which the editors will forward to the author ensuring that anonymity is maintained.
We make every effort to avoid selecting reviewers who may have competing interests that might prevent them from providing a fair and unbiased opinion. In case of identifying a competing interest, the reviewer is asked to notify the editors immediately and refrain from looking at the manuscript and associated material until they agree with editors how to proceed in this particular case.
We respect the confidentiality of the peer review process. The manuscripts are fully anonymized before reviewing; at all stages of the review process the author and reviewers remain anonymous, their identity is strictly confidential to members of the editorial team. Reviewers may not use the manuscript they evaluate in any unauthorized way.
We provide reviewers with substantive and ethical reviewing principles (based on COPE recommendations), which they accept by agreeing to perform the review. We obligate reviewers to report misconduct. Any suspected breach of ethics by an author or an editor should be reported to the editorial board without delay. The editorial team commits to recognize warning signs of fraudulent or manipulated peer review or peer reviewer’s unauthorized use of manuscripts for their own purposes; any suspected case will be investigated and acted on according to the COPE guidelines.
We publish the names of peer reviewers who collaborate with the journal at the end of each year on the journal’s website.
The editors of Konteksty and guest editors who submit their texts to the journal are completely excluded from all stages of the review process.

See: COPE Council. COPE Ethical guidelines for peer reviewers — English. https://doi.org/10.24318/cope.2019.1.9 Version 2: September 2017; COPE Council. COPE Flowcharts and infographics — Peer review manipulation suspected during the peer review process — English. https://doi.org/10.24318/cope.2019.2.20; COPE Council. COPE Flowcharts and infographics — Peer review manipulation suspected after publication — English. https://doi.org/10.24318/dvuDitEV.

Stages of the Review Process

Internal reviewing and preliminary selection of submitted manuscripts by the editorial team, within 8 weeks after submission (manuscripts may be desk rejected, sent back to the author for correction or further elaboration, or qualified for peer review).
Inviting qualified peer reviewers in line with editorial policy and ethics.
Double blind peer reviewing process (6 weeks or longer, if required). The reviewers assess the manuscripts in writing, using a criteria available on the journal’s OJS platform. They evaluate, in particular, the originality of approach in the light of recent research, the relevance of methodology and its application as well as the soundness of argumentation and clarity of exposition. A review must include an overall recommendation to: accept manuscript for publication, accept with minor or major revisions, or reject it.
Optional additional review in case of diverging recommendations.
Final decision (publication, revisions, or rejection) taken jointly by the editorial board on the basis of:

the quality of manuscript and the research it presents;
importance of the work for the research community and the readers of Konteksty;
the peer reviewers’ comments;
legal requirements that are currently in force regarding libel, copyright infringement, and plagiarism.

The editors provide authors with comments and suggestions from reviewers, taking care to maintain the principle of anonymity. The editors also provide authors with their own comments. Revised versions of the authors’ texts are placed in the OJS system or sent to konteksty@ispan.pl. For procedures regarding appeals against editorial decision, see “Appeals and Complaints” section in this statement.

IV. AUTHORSHIP AND PUBLICATION

We welcome proposals from scholars of diverse backgrounds, both experienced and those at the beginning of their academic careers. To ensure greater diversity, inclusivity, and equity in academic debate, no fees are charged for submitting, processing, reviewing, or publishing manuscripts in Konteksty.

Authorship and Contributorship

Konteksty comply with the COPE definition of authorship. In the process of submitting a manuscript to our journal, a written statement of authorship is required. Corresponding author (i.e. the one submitting manuscript and responsible for ensuring that contribution descriptions are accurate and agreed by all authors) is obliged to disclose all individuals who have made substantial contribution to the submitted manuscript, that is anyone who has made a significant contribution to: the conception of the text in whole or in parts, the research leading to the text, or the preparation of the text. If two or more persons are listed as authors, each should clearly state their contribution to the manuscript and the correspondent author is responsible for agreeing on the order in which the authors’ names are listed. The declaration of authorship is tantamount to a commitment to be responsible for all aspects of the work and to ensure that all stages of the work have been carried out with professional integrity and transparency.

All persons who made contributions to the work reported in the manuscript (such as technical help, writing and editing assistance, general support) but who do not meet the criteria for authorship must not be listed as an author.

Any concerns/discussions regarding authorship and contributorship will be handled in line with the “Dealing with Allegations of Research Misconduct” section in this statement and COPE guidelines.

See: COPE Council. COPE Discussion Document: Authorship. September 2019. https://doi.org/10.24318/cope.2019.3.3.

Affiliations

The author affiliation identifies where the author worked or studied when the research was conducted. If an author’s affiliation has changed, current affiliation will be provided in the author note. It is possible to submit a manuscript without the author’s affiliation, as an independent scholar. Knowingly providing false or fraudulent affiliation information is considered a form of misconduct and may lead to manuscript withdrawal or article retraction.

Duplicate or Redundant Publication / Acceptable Secondary Publication

Konteksty does not consider submissions that have already been published. We regard it as good scholarly practice not to submit the same manuscript to more than one journal at a time. If a submission is currently under review elsewhere, the author is obliged to inform the Konteksty editorial team. If the manuscript or its relevant parts are published at least once by its author(s) without clearly stating the relevant information, a text is considered a duplicate or redundant publication and as thus rejected. Minor overlap of content with author’s previous publications must be reported transparently in the article submitted. This applies to publications in the same or different languages. To avoid the risk of duplicate or redundant publication, authors are asked to provide a formal declaration as part of the submission process. Both editors and reviewers undertake to report any suspected duplication or redundancy of a publication by contacting the relevant editor or e-mailing konteksty@ispan.pl.

Konteksty may publish a Polish translation of a text previously published in another language in another journal or online if such a publication is beneficial for research culture and academic discussion in Polish academic context. To be accepted as a justified secondary publication, the translation must include 1) precise reference to original work; 2) details of the translator; 3) details of any funding; 4) statement about the permission from the copyright holder; 4) acknowledgment of the original source.

See: COPE Council. COPE Flowcharts and infographics — Redundant (duplicate) publication in a submitted manuscript — English. https://doi.org/10.24318/cope.2019.2.12. COPE Council. Publishing translations of previously published articles and resources - English. https://doi.org/10.24318/mlcziig7. COPE Council. Determining acceptable levels of plagiarism/duplication - English. https://doi.org/10.24318/acj3T7sU. COPE Council. Publishing translations of previously published articles and resources - English. https://doi.org/10.24318/mlcziig7

Cases of Research Misconduct

The editorial team shall take reasonable actions to identify research misconduct and prevent the publication of papers where research misconduct has occurred, including plagiarism (i.e. presenting someone else’s ideas or words as one’s own and intentionally omitting the relevant reference), any form of citation manipulation, or data falsification/fabrication, among others. We reserve the right to check all submissions through appropriate checking tools for plagiarism. Submissions containing plagiarism, in whole or part, will be rejected. See: “Dealing with Allegations of Research Misconduct” section in this document. In all cases unspecified in this statement, COPE guidelines will be followed. We also expect our readers, reviewers, and editors to raise any suspicions of plagiarism by contacting the editorial team or emailing konteksty@ispan.pl.

Disclosure of Competing Interests and Funding

The editorial team, striving to ensure that any publication is free from undue influence, requires authors, editors, and reviewers to disclose any competing interests and potential conflict of interests. Competing interests may be financial, non-financial, professional, contractual, or personal in nature. Conflict of interest occurs when author, editor, or reviewer can have personal or professional benefits that could interfere with the objectivity or integrity of a publication or its assessment. Conflict of interests may result from competition or collaboration or other relationships between persons or/and institutions connected to the manuscript (e.g. family relationships, supervisor/doctoral candidate relationship, professional dependence and interdependence, close professional collaboration, competition between institutions, among others). Funding received for the research work described in the manuscript must be clearly declared within the publication.

Examples of dealing with competing interests of editors, peer reviewers, and publisher:

We never invite as a peer reviewer a person who is affiliated with the same institution as the author or is currently collaborating with the author in a research grant. The peer reviewers cannot have been co-authors of a book or an article, or co-editors of a book or special issue, with submission’s author within the last 3 years.
Editors and guest-editors recuse from the review process of texts that they submitted themselves as authors, as well as the manuscripts with which they may have a competing interest (resulting, for example, from close professional collaboration, personal relations, etc.).
Texts whose authors are affiliated with the Institute of Art of the Polish Academy of Sciences, the journal’s publisher, are evaluated on the same basis as all others, without any preference.
Researchers employed by the Department of Film Studies, Audiovisual Arts and Anthropology of Culture at the Institute of Art of the Polish Academy of Sciences, where the majority of editors is affiliated, are never appointed as peer reviewers in Konteksty; persons employed by other departments of this institution may be invited to review in exceptional and merit-based cases.

We also expect that anyone who suspects undisclosed competing interests regarding a work published or under consideration by Konteksty should inform the relevant editor or email konteksty@ispan.pl.

See: COPE Council. COPE Flowcharts and infographics — Undisclosed conflict of interest in a submitted manuscript — English. https://doi.org/10.24318/cope.2019.2.6; COPE Council. COPE Flowcharts and infographics — Undisclosed conflict of interest in a published article — English. https://doi.org/10.24318/cope.2019.2.7; https://publicationethics.org/competinginterests.

Appeals and Complaints

The below procedure applies to appeals against editorial decisions, complaints about failure of processes, and complaints about publication ethics. The concerns should in first instance be handled by Konteksty’s Editor-in-Chief. If they are the subject of the complaint, please approach the publisher’s representative at wydawnictwo@ispan.pl.

Appeal against Editorial Decision

We welcome genuine appeals regarding editorial decisions. However, the authors will need to 1) provide specific responses to any of the editor’s and/or reviewers’ comments they disagree with; 2) provide any new information or data that should be taken into consideration; 3) provide the evidence, if they believe that a reviewer has made an error in their assessment or may have a conflict of interests.

The Editor-in-Chief, after considering the authors’ argument against the reviewer’s assessments and consulting journal’s Academic Advisory Board (if appropriate), may decide to 1) confirm the editorial decision; 2) seek the additional independent peer-review; 3) invite a revised manuscript.

The complainant will be given information about the decision. Editors will consider one appeal per article and decisions on appeals are final. Priority is given to active submissions under consideration. As new submissions take priority over appeals, decisions on appeals may take longer.

Complaint about Processes

Complaints about failure of processes, such as long time taken to review or editors’ unresponsiveness etc., will be handled by the Editor-in-Chief and/or publisher’s representative (if appropriate). The complainant will be given appropriate feedback. Feedback will also be provided to relevant editorial staff members to improve processes and procedures.

Complaint about Publication Ethics

If any complaints arise over author’s, editor’s, or reviewer’s misconduct, such as undisclosed conflicts of interest, duplicate publication, omission from the authorship list, misuse of privileged information etc., the Editor-in-Chief (or the publisher’s representative, if the Editor-in-Chief is the subject of the complaint) follows relevant guidelines published by the Committee on Publication Ethics, while investigating the matter. The Editor-in-Chief may ask the Academic Advisory Board or publisher’s representative for advice on complicated cases. The Editor-in-Chief will provide feedback to the complainant. If the complainant remains dissatisfied with the handling of their complaint, they can submit the complaint to the director of the Institute of Art (at ispan@ispan.pl) or to the Committee on Ethics in Science of the Polish Academy of Sciences.

Corrections, Apologies, Retractions, and Post-Publication Discussions

In case of minor errors in published articles, Konteksty will issue corrigendum (related to author’s error) or erratum (related to editor’s error). The editors will consider retraction of the published article, if there is clear evidence that findings and conclusions are not to be relied upon (and it is not sufficient to publish corrections or concerns). An article will be retracted from online edition if there is clear evidence that it constitutes plagiarism, contains materials without authorization to use, infringes copyrights, or there are other legal issues (i.e. libel, confidentiality laws). The retraction will be properly identified and the notice of retraction should contain a statement about who and why is an retracting article, written in an objective and not inflammatory manner.

We are open to post-publication discussion of articles published in Konteksty. We provide authors with the opportunity to address polemical voices, and we mark all texts that make up the discussions accordingly.

See: COPE Council. COPE Guidelines: Retraction Guidelines. November 2019. https://doi.org/10.24318/cope.2019.1.4

V. CODE OF ETHICS

Konteksty code of ethics refers to editorial and peer review processes, authorship and contributorship. The journal (and/or publisher) will handle complaints and appeals concerning publication ethics appropriately. All concerns should be addressed either to the editorial team: konteksty@ispan.pl, or directly to the publisher, Institute of Art of the Polish Academy of Sciences: wydawnictwo@ispan.pl. The complaining party should receive written information on the resolution of the matter submitted within 30 days of the letter. See also section “Appeals and Complaints” in this statement. Detailed COPE guidelines in this matter can be found here.

Rules Applying to Konteksty Editorial Team

Editors assess the merits of submitted manuscripts taking care to treat all the authors equally and without any bias.
Editors, striving to ensure that any publication decision is free from undue influence, require authors, editors, and peer reviewers to disclose any competing interests and potential conflict of interests.
Editors choose peer reviewers in a way that ensures unbiased assessment of submitted manuscripts.
Editors make sure that the peer review process is anonymous and that information about submitted manuscripts is disclosed exclusively to their authors, peer reviewers, or appointed experts.
Editors are obliged to respect the principle of confidentiality throughout the process of working on the submitted texts, and in particular they must not use the texts for their own purposes in an unauthorized way.
Editors may not upload submitted unpublished manuscripts, including any associated information, into Generative AI tools.
Editors are obliged to react appropriately, i.e. in accordance with the guidelines provided by COPE and the Committee on Ethics in Science of the Polish Academy of Sciences, to any instances of a contributor’s, editor’s, or reviewer’s lack of integrity. The first step is always asking the person in question for an explanation.
All submitted articles are screened for plagiarism (Crossref Similarity Check). Editors will inform all relevant authorities and institutions (including the institution with which the contributor is affiliated) about any documented serious instances of the lack of scholarly integrity (such as plagiarism, ghostwriting, and guest/gift authorship).
Editors are always willing to publish corrections, clarifications, retractions, and apologies when needed. If there is a need to retract an article from publication, its electronic version will be marked accordingly (with a comment to that effect).

Rules Applying to Konteksty Peer Reviewers

A reviewer should inform the editorial team as soon as possible about any risk of the conflict of interest involving the paper received for review and of any other reason why the reviewer would wish to withdraw from the review process.
Throughout the process of manuscript review and evaluation, reviewers are obliged to observe the strictest confidentiality.
Reviewers shall evaluate the manuscripts objectively, refraining from any subjective or personal comments. A review, whose purpose is to support the author in improving their manuscript, should include a clearly stated explanation of the recommendation.
Reviewers should point out where the manuscript under review lacks pertinent references or bibliographical information. Whenever possible, reviewers are obliged to inform the editorial team if the manuscript or its part is similar to any other work which has already been published.
Reviewers may not use the manuscripts under review for any purpose other than the review itself. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage.
Reviewers may not upload unpublished manuscripts, including any associated information, into Generative AI tools.
Reviewers consent to their full names being published once a year on the journal’s website.

Rules Applying to Konteksty Authors

By submitting a manuscript, the author vouches that it is an original work that does not infringe on the copyrights of third parties and has not been published or submitted for publication with any other publisher.
The author is obliged to inform of everyone involved in the work on the manuscript.
The author is obliged to disclose any potential conflict of interests and all information about the funding and other contributions provided by scholarly or research institutions, non-governmental organizations, or other bodies.
The submitting of manuscript is tantamount to ensure that all stages of the research have been carried out with ethical insight and professional integrity and transparency, in line with The European Code of Conduct of Research Integrity and/or Committee on Ethics in Science of the Polish Academy of Sciences guidelines.
The author is allowed to use generated AI exclusively to polish the language of their, they should disclose the use of AI tools to editors when submitting the manuscript, and they are fully responsible for the content of their manuscript
Should the author discover any error or violation of research integrity or code of ethics that involves a manuscript that has already been submitted or the published article, they must notify the editorial team immediately.
The author is obliged to collaborate with the editorial team in the process of preparing the manuscript for publication (by responding to the comments and suggestions of peer reviewers and editors and by making corrections).

Rules Applying to Konteksty Publishers

The Publisher is obliged to collect and share with journal editors all complaints and appeals against the journal, its staff, editorial board, and the Publisher itself.
The Publisher is obliged to handle appropriately all issues of publishing integrity that have been referred directly to them.

VI. DEALING WITH ALLEGATIONS OF RESEARCH MISCONDUCT

In dealing with any research misconduct allegations made by authors, editors, reviewers, readers, or other whistleblowers, we follow guidelines provided in flowcharts by COPE as well as the rules of the Committee on Ethics in Science of the Polish Academy of Sciences. In investigating allegations of potential research misconduct we shall proceed with sensitivity and responsibility to get full documentary evidence before reaching any conclusions. The cases described below and in other sections of this document do not exhaust all possibilities. In other cases, we will apply the COPE rules that we follow on an ongoing basis.

Suspected Plagiarism

In case of suspected plagiarism in a submitted manuscript, we will investigate the degree of unattributed use of text, data, or ideas, before contacting the author(s) to discuss necessary corrections. In case of clear plagiarism and lack of satisfactory explanation, we will reject the manuscript and contact the author’s institution.

See: COPE Council. COPE Flowcharts and infographics — Plagiarism in a submitted manuscript — English. https://doi.org/10.24318/cope.2019.2.1.

In case of suspected plagiarism in a published article, we will investigate the degree of unattributed use of text, data, or ideas, before contacting the author(s). In case of minor unattributed copying, we will discuss corrections. In case of clear plagiarism and lack of satisfactory explanation, we will retract the article and contact the author’s institution.

See: COPE Council. COPE Flowcharts and infographics — Plagiarism in a published article — English. https://doi.org/10.24318/cope.2019.2.2

Suspected Ghost, Guest, or Gift Authorship

We make author(s) aware of the authorship and contributorship criteria. In case of suspected ghost authorship (when a person who made a significant contribution to the submitted work is not listed as an author) or guest/gift authorship (when a person who did not made a significant contribution to the submitted work is listed as an author), the editors will suspend peer review/publication and request information from the author. In case of identifying ghost or guest/gift authorship, the corrections of authors list and/or acknowledgement section and new written statement(s) of authorship are required before peer review/publication can be continued.

See: COPE Council. COPE Flowcharts and infographics — Ghost, guest, or gift authorship in a submitted manuscript — English. https://doi.org/10.24318/cope.2019.2.18.

VII. BUSINESS MODEL AND ETHICAL BUSINESS PRACTICES

Financial and Organizational Support

Konteksty quarterly is published, financed, and organizationally supported by the Institute of Art of the Polish Academy of Sciences in partnership with a non-profit organization Liber Pro Arte. The journal is also partly subsidized by programs or grants of the Polish Ministry of Culture and National Heritage. All information about any additional specific support is always displayed on the website. The journal does not publish advertisements or any other paid content.

The editorial board is fully independent in all decisions; publication decisions are not influenced by the publisher. Articles submitted by researchers employed at the Institute of Art, Polish Academy of Sciences are processed and reviewed like any other, without any kind of preference. Publication decisions are not determined by any factors of political or censorship nature.

Print and Online Editions, Open Access Policy, and Copyright

Konteksty is published quarterly in two versions: a freely accessible online version (ISSN: 2956-9214), which offers scholarly articles, and a paid extended print version (ISSN: 1230-6142), with all the texts from online version and other materials thematically relevant for the issue (such as literary and artistic essays, interviews, justified secondary editions of archival texts or translations). Authors submitting scholarly articles can choose between two modes of publication: 1) simultaneous publication in both the open access online edition and the print edition (submission only through OJS system), or 2) publication in the print edition only. The journal does not charge publication fees. Both versions are published simultaneously, and the print edition serves as the version of record.

Our online publication model follows the principles of the Budapest Open Access Initiative (BOAI). Articles published online are made immediately available in full open access under the CC BY 4.0 license (from issue 1/2025; from issue 1/2023 through issue 4/2024, articles were published under the CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 license). Authors retain full copyright while granting Konteksty a non-exclusive, royalty-free license to publish their text. Authors agree to indicate Konteksty as the place of first publication when reusing their work (a sample license agreement is available for download). In special cases, individual articles may be published under a different license; notice of such an exception will be included in the appropriate places in the print and online versions of the journal. The journal does not charge any fees to authors.

All content is available free of charge, without embargo, content access does not require registration. Any kind of use of the content is permitted as long as all license and copyright information remain intact, and the authors are indicated as the copyright holders.

Archiving and Selv-archiving

Long-term access to Konteksty is ensured through the archiving of open-access articles in POLONA, the digital library maintained by the National Library of Poland. All articles published on the journal’s website (https://czasopisma.ispan.pl/index.php/k/index) are also archived in POLONA, including in the event that Konteksty ceases publication.

Complete digital editions of issues dating back to 2005 are available via the Central and Eastern European Online Library (CEEOL), either by individual subscription or free of charge through university and institutional licenses.

We encourage authors publishing in our online edition to self-archive publisher’s version of the article on Internet, that includes personal or institutional websites and academic repositories, after publication, while providing bibliographic details (with DOI) that credit its publication in Konteksty.

Dissemination and Promotion

We disseminate and promote Konteksty content using the fan pages on Facebook and Instagram managed by the editors. We do not tag private profiles of the authors on social media without their consent. We promote our content in appropriate, well targeted, and unobtrusive manner, in line with the International Public Relations Code of Conduct.

Personal Data Protection

With regard to personal data protection, in fulfilment of the information obligation specified in Article 13 of the Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Directive 95/46/EC, we inform that the personal data controller is The Institute of Art of the Polish Academy of Sciences in Warsaw, with its registered seat at ul. Długa 26/28, 00-950 Warsaw. The personal data controller has appointed a Data Protection Officer to supervise the correctness of personal data processing, who can be contacted via e-mail at: iod@ispan.pl.

Journal's policy

KONTEKSTY PUBLICATION ETHICS AND PUBLICATION MALPRACTICE STATEMENT

I. GENERAL INFORMATION

General Principles of Research and Publication Integrity