Folia Praehistorica Posnaniensia is a peer-reviewed academic journal that adheres to the highest standards of research integrity and publication ethics. The Editorial Team follows the principles developed by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and guidelines concerning good academic practices, ensuring a fair, transparent, and independent publishing process.
The principles of publication ethics apply to authors, the Editorial Team, reviewers, members of the Scientific Board, and the publisher. Their aim is to ensure the high quality of publications, prevent research misconduct, and strengthen trust in the research findings published in the journal.
The Editorial Team accepts only original scholarly contributions that have not been previously published or simultaneously submitted to other journals. All manuscripts are evaluated based on their scientific merit, originality, methodological quality, and compliance with the scope of the journal, while ensuring confidentiality, impartiality, and equal treatment of authors.
In cases where violations of publication ethics are suspected, the Editorial Team follows COPE procedures concerning, among others, plagiarism, self-plagiarism, duplicate publication, data fabrication or falsification, unauthorized authorship, and conflicts of interest. Depending on the nature of the case, appropriate actions may be taken, including clarification of the circumstances, rejection of the manuscript, publication of a correction, retraction of the article, or notification of relevant institutions.
- Authors’ Responsibilities
Authors submitting articles for publication in FPP are responsible for the scientific integrity of the presented research and for ensuring that the submitted manuscript complies with the principles of publication ethics.
Submission of an article indicates that it constitutes an original work, has not been previously published either in whole or in a substantial part, and has not been simultaneously submitted for publication elsewhere. If research results, data, illustrations, tables, or fragments of works by other authors are used, authors are obliged to properly acknowledge them and provide appropriate citations in accordance with accepted academic standards.
Authors are responsible for the reliability of the presented data, the correctness of the applied research methods, and the objective interpretation of results. Fabrication, falsification, or deliberate distortion of data constitutes a serious violation of publication ethics and may result in rejection of the manuscript, retraction of the published article, or notification of relevant institutions.
Authorship should reflect the actual contribution of individual persons to the conception of the research, its implementation, analysis of results, and preparation of the manuscript. All individuals who have made a significant scholarly contribution should be listed as co-authors. Persons whose contribution does not meet authorship criteria but who have contributed to the development of the publication should be acknowledged in the acknowledgements section.
The Editorial Team does not accept practices such as ghostwriting, guest authorship (honorary authorship), or any other forms of unjustified attribution of authorship. If such practices are identified, the Editorial Team undertakes actions in accordance with COPE guidelines.
Authors are obliged to provide appropriate references for all quoted or discussed fragments of research, arguments, or ideas originating from other authors.
Authors must disclose any conflicts of interest that could influence the research results, their interpretation, or the publication process. This includes, in particular, financial, professional, institutional, or personal relationships. Authors should also provide information on sources of research funding and the project or grant number if the research was supported by external funding.
Authors are responsible for obtaining all necessary permissions for the use of copyrighted materials and are responsible for the legality of using illustrations, photographs, maps, tables, and other materials included in the publication.
If a significant error or inaccuracy is identified after publication, the author is obliged to promptly inform the Editorial Team and cooperate in the publication of a correction, erratum, or—if necessary—the retraction of the article.
- Editors’ Responsibilities
The Editorial Team of FPP is responsible for ensuring a fair, transparent, independent, and ethically compliant publishing process. All editorial decisions are made solely on the basis of the scientific value, originality, methodological quality, significance of the research findings, and the manuscript’s compatibility with the scope of the journal.
The Editorial Team ensures equal treatment of all authors, regardless of their gender, age, nationality, ethnic origin, citizenship, institutional affiliation, academic degree, religious or political beliefs, or other characteristics unrelated to the scientific quality of the submitted article.
Each submitted manuscript undergoes an initial editorial assessment. The Editorial Team may reject a manuscript before it is sent for peer review if it falls outside the thematic scope of the journal, does not meet formal requirements, or does not fulfil basic standards of scholarly quality.
The Editorial Team ensures the confidentiality of all information concerning submitted manuscripts. Information regarding the publishing process may only be shared with authors, reviewers, and persons directly involved in the editorial process.
Members of the Editorial Team must not use unpublished data, research findings, or concepts presented in submitted manuscripts for their own research or any other purposes without the explicit consent of the authors.
In cases of a conflict of interest, the editor shall withdraw from managing the editorial process of the respective manuscript, and responsibility for the manuscript shall be transferred to another member of the Editorial Team.
The Editorial Team takes measures to prevent all forms of research misconduct, identifies potential violations of publication ethics, and follows procedures recommended by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). Where necessary, the Editorial Team publishes corrections, errata, or retractions of articles.
- Reviewers’ Responsibilities
Reviewers participating in the evaluation process of articles submitted to FPP are obliged to comply with the principles of research integrity and the highest ethical standards.
Reviewers should evaluate manuscripts in an objective, impartial, and substantive manner, treating the reviewed text as a confidential document. Information obtained during the review process must not be used for personal research purposes or disclosed to unauthorized persons.
Reviewers should identify relevant publications that may be considered by the author and should inform the Editorial Team of any suspected cases of plagiarism, data manipulation, or other violations of publication ethics.
Reviewers are obliged to inform the Editorial Team of any potential conflict of interest that may affect the impartiality of their evaluation and should decline to review a manuscript if their professional, personal, or academic relationship with the author could compromise the objectivity of their assessment.
Reviews should be prepared in a reliable, constructive, and substantive manner, with the aim of supporting the improvement of the quality of published research.
- Peer Review Process
FPP applies a double-blind peer review process, in which the identity of the author is not disclosed to reviewers, and the identity of reviewers remains unknown to the author.
Submitted manuscripts undergo an initial editorial assessment regarding their compliance with the scope of the journal and are subsequently sent for review by at least two independent experts in the relevant field, representing Polish and international academic institutions and not affiliated with the author’s home institution. Reviewers evaluate manuscripts in terms of their scientific value, originality, methodological correctness, and the quality of the presentation of research results.
Reviews are prepared using the FPP review form and must include an explicit recommendation regarding the acceptance of the article for publication, the necessity of introducing revisions, or rejection of the manuscript. Reviewers may recommend acceptance of the article without changes, acceptance after minor revisions, reconsideration after major revisions, or rejection of the manuscript.
A condition for accepting an article for publication is obtaining two positive reviews, including those indicating the need for revisions. In the case of one positive and one negative review, the Editorial Team appoints an additional reviewer. The final decision regarding publication is made by the Editor-in-Chief, taking into account the results of the entire review process and the reviewers’ opinions.
A reviewer who does not possess appropriate expertise to evaluate a given manuscript or who is unable to prepare a review within the specified deadline should promptly inform the Editorial Team and withdraw from the review process.
The list of reviewers is published in each volume of the journal.
- Conflict of Interest
Authors, reviewers, and members of the Editorial Team of FPP are obliged to disclose any circumstances that may affect the impartiality and independence of the publication process.
A conflict of interest may include, in particular, direct professional or personal relationships, joint research activities, previous co-authorship of publications, financial or institutional dependencies, as well as other situations that may influence the evaluation of a manuscript.
In cases where a conflict of interest occurs, the Editorial Team takes appropriate measures to ensure the independence, objectivity, and integrity of the evaluation process.
- Violations of Publication Ethics
The Editorial Team of FPP does not accept any forms of research misconduct and, in cases of suspected violations of ethical principles, follows procedures recommended by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).
Violations of publication ethics include, in particular, plagiarism, self-plagiarism and republication of previously published results without appropriate justification and indication of the source, fabrication or falsification of data, manipulation of research results, unauthorized authorship, and concealment of the actual contribution of authors or collaborators.
In the case of publications concerning archaeological research, an unethical practice may also include an unreliable presentation of the provenance of archaeological materials, field documentation, or research data.
Depending on the nature and scale of the violation, the Editorial Team may take actions including requesting explanations from the author, rejecting the manuscript, publishing a correction, retracting the article, or informing the relevant institutions.
- Corrections and Retraction of Publications
The Editorial Team of FPP ensures the possibility of correcting or retracting published articles in cases where errors, inaccuracies, or violations of publication ethics are identified.
Corrections are applied when errors are identified that do not fundamentally affect the interpretation of the results, as well as in situations requiring the completion or correction of information provided by the authors.
Article retraction is applied in cases of serious errors, research misconduct, or ethical violations that undermine the credibility of the publication.
In cases of justified concerns regarding a published article that require further clarification, the Editorial Team may publish an expression of concern regarding the publication until the completion of the investigation.
Information concerning corrections, retractions, and expressions of concern remains permanently linked to the original publication, ensuring transparency of the article’s history.
- Access, Licensing, Archiving and Availability of Research Data
FPP provides open access to published content under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) license. The Editorial Team ensures permanent access to published materials through the PRESSto platform and the applied archiving solutions.
Authors are obliged to retain documentation concerning the conducted research and, where possible and in accordance with applicable regulations, provide access to information enabling the assessment and verification of the presented results.
In the case of publications presenting the results of archaeological research, authors should indicate, where required or possible, the location where research documentation is stored, the institution responsible for the storage of materials, and the principles governing access to data and documentation.
- Policy on the Use of Artificial Intelligence Tools
Authors may use artificial intelligence tools supporting the preparation of publications; however, they bear full responsibility for the content of the article, the accuracy of data, and the interpretation of results.
The use of generative artificial intelligence tools should be disclosed if it has had a significant impact on the preparation of the text, data analysis, translation, or the preparation of illustrations. Such tools may not be listed as authors of publications or replace independent scholarly analysis, critical evaluation of sources, and the research responsibility of authors.
Authors using artificial intelligence tools are obliged to inform the Editorial Team and indicate the tool used and the scope of its application.
In the case of not using artificial intelligence tools, the following statement should be included:
“I/we have not used artificial intelligence tools at any stage of the work related to the preparation of the submitted manuscript.”
In the case of using such tools, the following statement should be included:
“I/we have used artificial intelligence tools during the preparation of the submitted article. Tool used: [name of the tool]. Scope of use: [description of activities, e.g. language support, text correction, translation, data analysis, preparation of illustrations].”
- Complaints and Appeals
Authors have the possibility to appeal against editorial decisions or submit a complaint concerning the publication process. An appeal should include a justification and indicate specific elements of the review process or editorial decision that are being challenged.
Each complaint or appeal is considered by the Editorial Team in an independent, objective, and transparent manner. The case is reviewed by the Editor-in-Chief or a designated member of the Scientific Board, and the decision taken is documented and communicated to the author.