Pedagogika Katolicka - Principles of publication

FCwSW Publishing House applies the highest publishing standards and is guided by ethical principles aimed at counteracting unfair publishing practices. We follow the guidelines of the Committee on Publication Ethics COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics) publicationethics.org (instructions of conduct in Polish) and the recommendations of the Ministry of Science and Higher Education included in the study Good Practices in Review Procedures in Science (Warsaw 2011) . If scientific dishonesty is detected, the FCwSW Publishing House documents all its manifestations and informs the appropriate entities.

ETHICAL PRINCIPLES OF THE JOURNAL OF CATHOLIC PEDAGOGY”
The journal's principles of publication ethics in accordance with the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) Code of Conduct and Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors [1] and Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing [2]. In cases not covered by these Principles of Publication Ethics, the Editors apply the relevant conduct schemes prepared by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) [3]. The standards outlined below apply to the ethical principles applicable to Authors, Editors, Reviewers and the Scientific Council at each stage of the publication of texts in the journal. All articles submitted for publication in the journal are checked for ethical compliance, integrity, transparency, value and scientific utility.

RULES CONCERNING MEMBERS OF THE EDITORIAL BOARD
Members of the Editorial Board are constantly concerned with the well-being, consistency, regularity, accessibility and quality of the journal. They are guided by scientific integrity and impartiality. The Editorial Board strives to raise scientific, editorial and ethical standards. Editors should take responsibility for everything that is published in the journal.

Monitoring ethical standards
The editorial team constantly monitors compliance with ethical standards and principles related to the publication of scientific texts and counteracts practices that do not comply with accepted standards.

Fair play principle
Texts submitted for publication are evaluated by the Editorial Board, first and foremost, in terms of content, form and technical aspects. The Editorial Board's decisions must be based on scientific values, and issues such as race, gender, religion, ethnicity, citizenship or political beliefs of the Authors must not in any way influence the evaluation of articles [4].

Publication decisions
The editorial team decides which materials will and will not be published. The following criteria are crucial in making the decision: the scientific significance of the paper, the originality of the treatment of the problem, clarity and compliance with the scope of the journal, compliance with ethical principles, compliance with the substantive and formal requirements described in the Instructions for Authors, and the indications formulated by the Reviewer during the scientific review process. The Editorial Board of the journal is obliged to inform the Author(s) of the result of the editorial evaluation of the submitted text.

Principle of confidentiality
Members of the Editorial Team adhere to the principle of confidentiality, that is, they do not disclose to unauthorized persons any information about the work submitted for publication. Only the Authors themselves, selected Reviewers, authorized Editors and members of the Scientific Council, and the Publisher remain authorized to have this information.

Addressing conflicts of interest
Unpublished articles may not be used by members of the Editorial Team or by any other persons involved in publishing procedures without the written consent of the Authors. The Editorial Board, when appointing a Reviewer, must take into account the principle of preventing conflicts of interest. A conflict of interest in the case of a Reviewer may occur when circumstances arise that may raise doubts about his or her impartiality or influence his or her actions during the review procedure, e.g., business, financial, legal ties, opinions of the Reviewer, scientific rivalries, family relations.When a member of the Editorial Board or Scientific Council submits a text to a journal, the Editorial Board makes maximum efforts to maintain impartiality in the editorial and review processes. Another Editor of the journal takes care of these processes, and the person submitting the text is excluded from them[5]. The Editor shall make known to the Reader information about the sources of publication funding and institutional or support from organizations and other individuals or entities (financial disclosure) in published research.

Complaints, grievances, appeals
If complaints, grievances or appeals are received, the Editorial Board of the journal is required to record and archive them. The editors ask that the matter be described in detail in the submission and indicate what content or activities it concerns. The editors are obliged to maintain the anonymity of the submitter's data, unless the submitter himself wishes to disclose his data. Only the submitter, authorized Editors and the Publisher remain authorized to have this information. The Editor is obliged to respond in writing to complaints, grievances and appeals submitted to the Editor within a period not exceeding 30 days from the date of receipt of such document. The response of the Editorial Board must include at least an assessment of the case and a description of the actions taken or planned by the Editorial Board in connection with the case.

Principle of scientific integrity
Members of the Editorial Team are obliged to make every effort to maintain integrity in the matter of scientific integrity of published papers. To this end, they may make appropriate corrections and, in the case of suspected fraudulent practices (plagiarism, falsification of research results, etc.) or unethical actions, decide to withdraw the text from publication.
All manifestations of scientific dishonesty (scientific misconduct), in particular: ghostwriting; guest authorship; plagiarism; making up or falsifying data; data manipulation; the Matilda phenomenon; the St. Matthew effect [6]; erroneous and unprincipled conduct of research proceedings; and violations of the principles of ethics in science are unacceptable and must be immediately transferred and dealt with by the Editor-in-Chief and the Scientific Council. The editors of the journal are required to record and archive such cases. The Editorial Board asks you to report when such practices are detected. It is suggested that the notification include a detailed description of the case and an indication of what content is involved. The Editorial Board, upon receipt of the report, contacts the Author, asks for clarification, gathers and reviews the collected and provided evidence of scientific dishonesty, and then formulates a decision to withdraw, to correct/correct, to inform the relevant authorities and/or institutions.

A barrage of ghostwriting and guest authorship
The editors, concerned with the scientific integrity of the published texts, conduct the selection of submitted articles in accordance with the principles of the barrage of ghostwriting and guest authorship. We deal with the phenomenon of ghostwriting when someone has made a significant contribution to the publication, but his participation as one of the authors was not disclosed or his role was not indicated in the acknowledgments included in the publication. Guest authorship (honorary authorship) is a case when someone who had a negligible contribution to the publication, or none at all, is nevertheless marked as an Author/Coauthor of the publication. To counteract cases of ghostwriting and guest authorship, the journal's Editorial Board implements appropriate procedures. The Editorial Board requires Authors and Co-authors to submit statements [7], in particular, a declaration of the type and extent of the contribution (percentage) of each Author and Co-author to the work, along with their details (name, affiliation, ORCID ID). Ghostwriting and guest authorship are manifestations of scientific dishonesty, and any detected cases will be unmasked, including notification of relevant entities (institutions employing authors, scientific societies, associations of scientific editors, etc.). The editors require information about the sources of publication funding and institutional support of published research by organizations and other entities (financial disclosure).

Text correction
The Editorial Board, the Author(s) and the Reviewers may, at the stage of the editorial process (before the text is published) by way of discussion, revise texts. The author(s) may require the Editorial Board to make corrections to the text as submitted by them. The Editorial Board also reserves the right to correct texts after publication, without informing Readers and Authors. This applies only to so-called minor changes. Minor changes include, for example, correction of formatting and spelling. These are not major corrections that affect the reception or scope of the content presented. Significant changes, such as withdrawal of an article due to an error, addition or removal of an Author, improvement of data affecting the interpretation of research results after publication, can be implemented according to the procedures indicated by COPE [3]. The editors invite all interested parties to engage in debates and discussions on published content. The editors may post the content of the debate in the journal, on the journal's website or on an external site.

Withdrawal of text
The editorial team may consider withdrawing a text if:
- there is clear evidence of unreliability of study results, fabrication of data, as well as unintentional errors (e.g., calculation errors, methodological mistakes);
- the research results have been previously published elsewhere without proper reference to previous sources or disclosure of such information to the Editor, without permission for re-publication or without justification (cases of redundant publication);
- it contains materials or data without appropriate consents for their use (e.g., the right to use illustrations, the right to dispose of an image, other licenses or sublicenses - also the wrong half-use or temporal scope of such consents/licenses);
- it violates copyright or subsidiary rights;
- ethical procedures were not followed or international, national and institutional level regulations were not complied with during the research;
- the principle of non-conflict of interest of Authors, Reviewers or Editors has been violated, which affects the interpretation of texts;
- the work bears the signs of plagiarism, self-plagiarism or violates other ethical principles.
The notice of withdrawal of the text should be treated as equivalent to the withdrawal of the article. This notice should contain information about the person (the headline should include at least the title(s) and name(s) of the Author(s) of the paper) and the reasons (to distinguish unintentional errors from intentional misuse) deciding to withdraw the text. Withdrawn texts are not removed from the published version of the journal, but the fact and reason for their withdrawal will be clearly marked. This does not apply to situations in which the legitimate legal interest of the Author, the Editor, the Publisher or third parties is violated, in which case the text may be withdrawn and the Editor is obliged to publish an explanatory notice. The author has the right to appeal the decision of the Editorial Board. In other cases, the Editor follows the recommendations indicated in the COPE Retraction Guidelines [8] and COPE Flowcharts [3].

Corrigenda, clarifications, additions to texts, errata
The editors, if necessary, are always ready to publish appropriate corrigenda, clarifications or apologies. They will be published on the journal's website and/or in the published version of the journal. In cases where - according to these Principles of Publication Ethics and COPE's recommendations - the text does not qualify for retraction or correction of minor changes, the Editorial Board allows the publication of errata, additions and/or corrigenda. Any addendum concerning material changes (affecting the reception or scope of the content presented and the determination of authorship) should be accompanied by a corrigendum from the Editor indicating the scope of the addition and the reason for the addition. The Editorial Board undertakes to analyze and document all manifestations of scientific dishonesty. Any detected and confirmed cases of scientific dishonesty will be unmasked, including notification of relevant entities (institutions employing Authors, scientific societies, associations of scientific editors, etc.).

The principle of openness and permanent access
The editors support the open access policy. The journal is published in open access (Open Access), which means that all content is available to users and institutions. All texts are published electronically. The editors strive to archive texts in a variety of databases.

Policies on data sharing and data reproducibility
The Editorial Board encourages Authors to archive research data in open research data repositories. The Editorial Board does not require Authors to include research data. However, in selected cases, the Editorial Board may ask the Author to provide research data (e.g., problems reported to the Editorial Board with the integrity of the data presented or duplication of data).

Advertisements
The journal does not publish advertisements.

Fees for Authors and Reviewers
The Editorial Board of the journal informs that it does not charge author fees only can accept as donation (APC - article processing charges) for submission (submission fee), publication (publication fee), review (review fee), article processing (processing fee) and does not provide honoraria.

Contact the Editorial Board of the journal:
Doubts about scientific integrity should be directed to: Ten adres pocztowy jest chroniony przed spamowaniem. Aby go zobaczyć, konieczne jest włączenie w przeglądarce obsługi JavaScript.
Discussions, comments, should be directed to: Ten adres pocztowy jest chroniony przed spamowaniem. Aby go zobaczyć, konieczne jest włączenie w przeglądarce obsługi JavaScript.
Research ethics questions and submissions should be directed to: Ten adres pocztowy jest chroniony przed spamowaniem. Aby go zobaczyć, konieczne jest włączenie w przeglądarce obsługi JavaScript.
In cases not described in this Publication Ethics Policy, the Editors follow the recommendations indicated in the COPE Retraction Guidelines [8] and COPE Flowcharts [3].

RULES CONCERNING AUTHORS

Principles regarding authorship of a work
Authorship can refer to individuals or groups who create an idea or develop a publication that disseminates intellectual or creative work [9]. All persons listed as Authors in the submitted work must have had an actual significant participation in the creation of the text (design, idea, planning, execution, interpretation of results). In addition, all persons who influenced the final form of the work should be listed as Co-Authors. It is the responsibility of the Author submitting the text for publication to make sure that those who contributed to the article accept its final form. Other persons who do not meet the above condition of Authorship and whose contribution to the text was insignificant (e.g., general mentoring, coordinating research, collecting data may give permission to be included in the Acknowledgments section. The order of Authors must be established and accepted by all Authors of the text. The change of authorship or order in unpublished texts requires the consent of all Authors of the text, Reviewers and the Editor-in-Chief, as well as an explanation of the reason for such changes. Once the text is published, changes to the Authors' information can be implemented according to the procedures indicated by COPE [3]. The editors recommend the use of CRediT (Contributor Roles Taxonomy) [10] in determining Authors' contributions. The editors require authors to submit statements [11], in particular a declaration of the type and extent of each author's contribution to the work, along with details (name, affiliation, ORCID ID). The Author(s) shall, prior to the publication of the text, sign the appropriate agreement with the Publisher and provide the Editor with a Statement of Authorship, confirming that they meet the criteria for authorship set forth in this Publication Ethics. The contribution of the individual Author(s) to the publication is outlined; a certification that no other persons deserving authorship have been named, and responsibility for the completeness and accuracy of the statements made. The author, by submitting the text for publication, undertakes to make editorial corrections, to respond to reviews within the deadline set by the Editor, and declares that he will fulfill his obligation to respond to the discussion or polemics undertaken, if called upon by the Editor. The author may require the Editor to make corrections to the text submitted by him. The author of scientific texts can only be a human being. AI tools cannot be considered an author or co-author.

The principle of scientific integrity
Authors of texts submitted for publication are obliged to provide a fair description of the research work performed and to interpret the results objectively. The papers should contain enough information to identify the sources of data, as well as to repeat the research. Unreliable or unethical presentation and interpretation of data and research results is unacceptable and may result in the withdrawal of the text. Any manifestation of scientific dishonesty (scientific misconduct), in particular: ghostwriting; guest authorship; plagiarism; fabrication or falsification of data; manipulation of data; the Matilda phenomenon; the St. Matthew effect [6]; erroneous and unprincipled conduct of research proceedings; and violations of the principles of ethics in science are unacceptable and must be immediately transferred and dealt with by the Editor-in-Chief and the Scientific Council. The journal's editors are obliged to record and archive such cases. Texts that do not meet the principles of scientific integrity will not be accepted for publication. Texts that do not meet the principles of scientific integrity will not be accepted for publication. If the unreliability has been reported/observed already after the publication of the text, the Editorial Board - upon receipt of such a report - contacts the Author, asks for an explanation, collects and reviews the collected and provided evidence of scientific unreliability, and then formulates a decision on withdrawal, correction/correction, to inform the relevant authorities and/or institutions. The author has the right to appeal the decision of the Editor.

Principle of reliability of sources
Authors of submitted papers are always obliged to indicate the publications and other sources that they have used in the creation of the article.

Principles of originality of the work
Authors may only submit their own original texts for publication. These texts cannot be submitted concurrently to another journal/publication or be part of an already published journal/publication. When using research or citing the data or words of others, authors should use appropriate markings to indicate citation. Plagiarism or fabrication of data is not acceptable.

Principle against conflicts of interest of Authors
Unpublished articles may not be used by members of the Editorial Team or any other persons participating in publishing procedures without the written consent of the Authors. Authors, submitting the text, provide information about the sources of funding for publication and support of the published research by institutions, organizations or other persons and entities (financial disclosure). In addition, they submit a declaration of no conflict of interest [12]. Authors may be asked by the Editor to submit the submitted text in an anonymized version in order to preserve the confidentiality of data in the review process.

Principle of data sharing
Authors may be asked to submit unprocessed research results, so they should be prepared to provide access to these data. It is not required to attach research data to articles. You can archive these data in open research data repositories [13] and then incorporate the correct citation of these data in your publications, in particular by providing a DOI number or other identifier.

Rules on errors in published works
If the Author discovers significant errors or inaccuracies in his text, he is obliged to immediately notify the Editor of the journal in order to withdraw the text, make an errata or correct the errors that have occurred. The author, declaring his intention to publish the article, at the same time declares that he will fulfill his obligation to respond to the Editor's call for clarification of any complaints, grievances, allegations of scientific unreliability regarding the published text.

Text correction, additions
The author, as well as the Editor and Reviewers, may, at the stage of the editorial process (prior to publication of the text), by way of discussion, revise texts. The author, by submitting a text for publication, undertakes to actively participate in discussions with the Editorial Board of the journal. The Editorial Board reserves the right to correct texts after publication of the text without notifying the Authors. This applies only to so-called minor changes. Minor changes include, for example, correction of formatting and spelling. These are not major corrections that affect the reception or scope of the content presented. Significant changes, such as withdrawal of an article due to an error, addition or removal of an Author, improvement of data affecting the interpretation of research results after publication, can be implemented according to the procedures indicated by COPE [3].Authors are required to promptly report and correct any perceived errors, inaccuracies or misleading statements.

Discussions
In accordance with these Principles of Publication Ethics, the Editor invites all interested parties to engage in discussions about published content. The editors may post the content of the debate in the pages of the journal, on the journal's website or on an external site. The author, while declaring his intention to publish the article, at the same time declares that he will fulfill his obligation to respond to the discussion undertaken, if called upon to do so by the Editor.

Withdrawal of the text by the Author
The author has the right to withdraw the text submitted to the Editor in case of gross negligence of the Editor during editorial work. In case of significant delays in the editorial work, the Authors should be informed of the reason for the delay. The Editorial Board should provide the Author with information about the assumed maximum time for the processing of the article. Complaints and grievances about the negligence of the Editorial Board and requests to withdraw an article should be addressed directly to the Editor-in-Chief.

Rules for compliance with ethical oversight
If the text describes a study conducted on humans, animals, embryos, dual-use (dual-use) products, and if it contains confidential data or describes issues that may have harmful effects on the environment and living organisms, the Author is obliged to provide the Editor with declarations and certifications that all procedures and international, national and institutional regulations (e.g., NCN, CDBI - Steering Committee for Bioethics) have been taken into account in the study.

Principles of personal data protection
If personal data are processed in the text for scientific purposes, it is necessary to ensure that the rights of the data subject are safeguarded or appropriate consents are obtained for the processing of such data, in particular, bearing in mind international and national laws, with emphasis on Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of April 27, 2016 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data and repealing Directive 95/46/EC (General Data Protection Regulation).If necessary, the author should provide the Editor with a personal data entrustment agreement or relevant authorizations.

The principle of respecting intellectual property rights
The author submitting a text for publication must declare that the article is original, does not infringe on the rights or personal rights of third parties, and that he has obtained permission from the persons whose images or statements, artistic or photographic works have been fixed/used in the work to use them in the text and make them available online and in print.

Basic formal requirements for publication
The author, submitting a text for publication, undertakes in particular to provide the documents and statements required by the Editor and/or Publisher. Authors before publishing a text:
- sign a contract with the Publisher (the obligation applies to all Authors of the article);
- deliver to the Editor a statement of authorship indicating:
      o the contribution of individual Authors to the publication;
      o meeting the criteria for authorship set forth in these Publication Ethics Rules;
      o not mentioning any other persons deserving authorship;
      o responsibility for the integrity and completeness of the information contained in the statement;
- provide a declaration of non-conflict of interest (obligation applies to all Authors of the article);
- provide a statement on the originality of the work;
- provide information on the sources of publication funding and institutional support of the published research by organizations and other individuals and entities (financial disclosure);
- provide relevant declarations, licenses, sublicenses, consents or agreements required by law (e.g., permission to use illustrations, statement of right to dispose of image);
- provide other required declarations and affidavits, including that all ethical procedures were included in the research.
All required forms in downloadable versions can be found on the journal's website. In cases not described in this Ethics Policy, the Editor follows the recommendations indicated in the COPE Retraction Guidelines [8] and COPE Flowcharts [3].

RULES FOR REVIEWERS

Review process
Reviewers participate in the work of the editorial team and influence the decisions made by the Editorial Board. They can also, in consultation with the Authors, influence the final shape and improvement of published works. The review is conducted in double blind mode, which means that the Authors and Reviewers do not know each other's identities. The identities of the Authors are unknown to the Reviewer, but known to the Editor. The names of reviewers of individual publications/journals are not disclosed in a given issue of the journal. Once a year, the journal makes public the list of collaborating reviewers. All scientific texts are reviewed (does not apply to: non-scientific reviews, reports, communications, popular science articles, editorials). The review takes place before the publication of the text, after the Author submits the text to the Editorial Board for evaluation. The Editorial Board appoints to evaluate each publication at least two independent Reviewers from outside the scientific unit affiliated by the Author of the publication (external reviews). Texts in a foreign language are evaluated by at least one Reviewer affiliated with a foreign institution other than the Author of the reviewed work. The selection of Reviewers is the responsibility of the Editor and the Editors of the Journals, guided in particular by the research interests, scientific achievements and competence of the Reviewer in the scientific field to which the text under review belongs. A Reviewer may refuse to perform a review for formal (e.g., conflict of interest, inability to meet deadlines for the review) or informal (research interests do not coincide with the subject matter undertaken in the text) reasons. In such a case, the Reviewer is obliged to notify the Editor without delay. It is unacceptable to appoint a member of the Editorial Board or a member of the Scientific Council as a Reviewer. The Editors do not use reviews from other journals, commercial review platforms, online forums, etc. Reviewer selection is made by the Editorial Board and Notebook Editors. External Reviewers suggested and selected by the Editors, other Reviewers, other Editorial Boards with similar topics are selected for reviewing. When the Author of the text is a member of the Editorial Board or the Scientific Council, the selection of a Reviewer rests with another member of the Editorial Board who is not the Author. Such a person is bound by the rules and responsibilities of the Author, but is not bound by the privileges of a member of the Editorial Board or Scientific Council to participate in editorial work, in the review process and in making decisions related to the text. The review must be in writing. The reviewer may provide a review form or complete the review using the appropriate online form. The review must contain a clear assessment as to whether the article should be accepted for publication or rejected. Only texts that are subject to the review process and have received two positive reviews may be accepted by the Editor for publication.
Texts that have received one negative review, for which the reviewer indicates the possibility of admitting the text for publication after correcting it, may be sent back with recommendations to the Author. The author makes the appropriate corrections, then the text is sent for a second review (second round of reviews). Then the second reviewer should be informed of the result of the first round. However, texts that have received one negative review may be rejected by the Editor without conducting a second round of review. The evaluation criteria considered during the review process are indicated in the review form. The Editor provides the Reviewer with a review form, which is the basic document for expressing the Reviewer's conclusions. The Reviewer may additionally provide with the review form other materials (e.g., written comments, text content with comments). The content of the review is not disclosed to the public. Review reports are available to the Authors (after anonymization) and the Editor of the journal. No direct interaction between Authors and Reviewers is allowed. Contact is anonymized. Conclusions and review reports, as well as Authors' responses, are communicated through the Editorial Office or using a suitable system that ensures anonymization of data in double blind review mode.

Principle of confidentiality
All reviewed papers are confidential, which means that disclosure to third parties is not permitted (except to those authorized to do so).

The principle of maintaining standards of objectivity
Reviews should be objective in nature. Personal criticism of Authors of works is considered inappropriate. All observations of the Reviewer should be adequately argued.

The principle of scientific integrity
Reviewers are required to make every effort to comply with the standards and ethical principles related to the publication of scientific texts and to counteract practices that are inconsistent with accepted standards. To this end, they may make appropriate corrections and, in the case of suspected fraudulent practices (plagiarism, falsification of research results, etc.) or unethical actions, decide not to accept the text for publication.

The principle of reliability of sources
Reviewers, if necessary, should identify relevant works not cited by the Author. Any relevant similarities to other works should also be indicated and reported to the Editor.

The principle of fair play
Issues such as race, gender, religion, origin, citizenship or political beliefs of the Authors shall in no way affect the outcome of the review. Texts submitted for publication are evaluated primarily in terms of content, form and technical aspects. Reviewers' decisions must be based on scientific values [4].

The principle of preventing conflicts of interest in Reviewers
Reviewers may not use the reviewed works for their personal needs and benefits. They also must not evaluate texts where there may be a conflict of interest with the Author(s). Conflict of interest in the case of a Reviewer may occur when there are circumstances that may raise doubts about his/her impartiality or influence his/her actions during the review procedure, e.g. business, financial, legal ties, reviewer's opinions, scientific rivalries, family relations.

Principle of timeliness
Reviewers are obliged to provide reviews within the established deadline. If for some reason (substantive, lack of time) they are unable to meet the deadline or undertake the review, they should immediately inform the Editorial Team. In cases not described in this Publication Ethics Policy, the Editors follow the recommendations indicated in the COPE Retraction Guidelines [8].and COPE Flowcharts [3].

Rules for Scientific Council members
Members of the Scientific Council should be recognized experts in a field consistent with the scope of the journal.The names and affiliations of Scientific Council members are published on the journal's website. The editors undertake to update the information on the composition of the Scientific Council without delay.

Responsibilities of the members of the Scientific Council
The duties of the members of the Scientific Council include:
1. to take care of the observance of standards and ethical principles applicable to Authors, Editors, Reviewers at every stage of the publication of texts in the journal, with emphasis on scientific integrity, transparency of procedures, striving to present valuable and useful scientific texts.
2. setting and updating the goals and mission of the journal, controlling the implementation of the journal's mission.
3. striving to implement best best practices, adapting to the recommendations and requirements for editorial work and scientific information.
4. identifying and selecting members of the Editorial Board and reviewing the activities of the Editorial Board.
5. identification of the journal's audience.
6. promotion of the journal.
7. Periodic review of the journal's solutions and practices.
8. Encouragement of Authors and Reviewers to cooperate with the journal.
9. cooperation with other members of the Scientific Council.
10. mentoring, defining policies for the development of the journal.
11. cooperating with the Editorial Board of the journal and the Publisher.
12. resolving disputes and disagreements, contacting external bodies (e.g. COPE).
13. Supporting, at the request of the Editorial Board, its activities, especially in case of any violations.

Rules for Readers

Open access
The journal is published in open access, which means that all content is available free of charge to users and institutions at a time and place of their choosing. Access to content published online in the journal does not require a login. All texts from the journal are published electronically under a Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) license, which means that works can be copied and distributed in any medium and format, modified, remixed, adapted (more at: https://pedkat.pl/catholic-pedagogy/archives

Discussions
The editors invite all interested parties to engage in discussions on published content. The editors may post the content of the debate in the pages of the journal, on the journal's website or on an external site. All questions, comments and polemics should be addressed to the Editor.

Detection of manifestations of scientific misconduct
The editors ask to be informed in case of detection of any manifestation of scientific dishonesty (scientific misconduct), in particular: ghostwriting; guest authorship, plagiarism, fabrication or falsification of data, manipulation of data, Matilda phenomenon, St. Matthew effect6, erroneous and unprincipled conduct of research proceedings and violation of ethical principles in science. Journal editors are required to record and archive such cases.It is suggested that the submission include a detailed description of the case and an indication of what content is involved.Such submissions must be immediately transferred and reviewed by the Editor-in-Chief and the Scientific Council. The Editorial Board, upon receipt of the submission, contacts the Author, asks for clarification, reviews the collected and provided evidence of scientific unreliability, and then formulates a decision on withdrawal, correction/correction, to inform the relevant authorities and/or institutions. The Editorial Board contacts the whistleblower and/or makes the decision available to the public.

Contacting the Editorial Board of the journal:
Doubts about scientific integrity should be addressed to: Ten adres pocztowy jest chroniony przed spamowaniem. Aby go zobaczyć, konieczne jest włączenie w przeglądarce obsługi JavaScript.
Discussions, comments should be directed to: Ten adres pocztowy jest chroniony przed spamowaniem. Aby go zobaczyć, konieczne jest włączenie w przeglądarce obsługi JavaScript.

Footnotes
[1] COPE Council, Code of Conduct and Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors, https://publicationethics.org/files/Code_of_conduct_for_journal_editors_Mar11.pdf, accessed 14.02.2023.
[2] The Committee on Publication Ethics, DOAJ, the Open Access Scholarly Publishing Association, the World Association of Medical Editors, Principles of transparency and best practice in scholarly publishing, https://doaj.org/apply/transparency/, accessed 14.02.2023.
[3] COPE Council, Polish: all flowcharts, https://publicationethics.org/resources/flowcharts/polish-all-flowcharts, DOI: https://doi.org/10.24318/cope.2019.2.36, accessed 14.02.2023.
[4] The Committee on Publication Ethics, DOAJ, the Open Access Scholarly Publishing Association, the World Association of Medical Editors, Principles of transparency and best practice in scholarly publishing, https://doaj.org/apply/transparency/, accessed 14.02.2023.
[5] COPE Council, Editor as author in own journal, https://publicationethics.org/case/editor-author-own-journal, accessed 14.02.2023.
[6] Examples of scientific dishonesty:
- Plagiarism - consists in “appropriating authorship or misrepresenting the authorship of all or part of another's work or artistic performance” (Journal of Laws 2018 item 1668, Article 287).
- Plagiarism - consists in “appropriating authorship or misrepresenting the authorship of all or part of another's work or artistic performance” (Journal of Laws 2018, item 1668, Article 287).
- “Autoplagiarism - giving a misleading impression about the originality of one's own work in relation to one's previous, and in fact copied works” (J. Doliński, Autoplagiarism, “Legal Education” 2012, No. 3 (132), https://www.edukacjaprawnicza.pl/autoplagiat/).
- Matilda phenomenon - the phenomenon of discrimination against women in science (more: A. Derra, Silenced and forgotten. On the Matilda phenomenon, or the systemic belittling of the role of women in science, “Ethos. Quarterly of the John Paul II Institute of the Catholic University of Lublin,” 2016, Vol. 29, No. 1 (113), pp. 203-220, https://czasopisma.kul.pl/ethos/article/view/5314).
- The Matthew effect - occurs when “certain psychosocial processes affect the allocation of rewards to scientists for their contributions - an allocation that in turn affects the flow of ideas and discoveries in the communication networks of science” (R.K. Merton, The Matthew effect in science: The reward and communication systems of science are considered, “Science” 1968, 159 (3810), p. 56, https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/1723414.pdf).
[7] For a list of necessary documents, see Principles for Authors. Basic formal requirements for publication.
[8] COPE Council, COPE Guidelines: Retraction Guidelines, DOI: https://doi.org/10.24318/cope.2019.1.4, accessed 14.02.2023.
[9] COPE, Authorship, https://publicationethics.org/resources/discussion-documents/what-constitutes-authorship-english-june-2014, accessed 14.02.2023.
[10] CRediT, https://credit.niso.org/, accessed 14.02.2023.
[11] Necessary documents are described in Authorship Rules.Basic formal requirements for publication.
[12] “A conflict of interest in an Author occurs when the Author has certain financial interests or affiliations, direct or indirect, or there are other situations that may cast doubt on his or her impartiality or influence his or her actions,” e.g., when the validity of the research depends on the Author's personal relationships, private opinions, scientific rivalries, etc.” Quoted in Oxford Academic, Conflicts of interest, https://academic.oup.com/pages/authoring/journals/preparing_your_manuscript/conflicts_of_interest , accessed 03.04.2023.
[13] Authors are encouraged to archive research data in open research data repositories:
- Open Research Data Repository of Krakow Universities: https://rodbuk.pl/.
- Research Data Catalog: https://mostwiedzy.pl/pl/open-research-data/catalog.
- RepOD Open Research Data Repository: https://repod.icm.edu.pl/info/.
- Zenodo: https://zenodo.org/.
- Figshare: https://figshare.com/.
- Mendeley Data: https://data.mendeley.com/.

Principles of publication ethics applied by The Campus Foundation Publishing House in Stalowa Wola