I. Principles of ethics

1. The Editorial Board of Agricultural Law Review undertakes to observe standards of ethical conduct in all its activities.
2. The Editorial Board attaches particular importance to scientific integrity and adherence to the ethical principles applicable to science and scholarship. In terms of good practice and publication ethics, the recommendations of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) are followed. They may be found at https://publicationethics.org/guidance/Guidelines.
3. Additionally, in order to ensure the originality of scientific publications, the Editorial Office uses the anti-plagiarism system Crossref Similarity Check (crossref.org/services/similarity-check/).
4. All persons involved in the publication process are obliged to observe the ethical principles adopted in Agricultural Law Review.

II. Responsabilities of Authors

Authors are expected to:

1. comply with the relevant copyright legislation, to respect the integrity and originality of the manuscripts submitted for publication, which must not have not been published previously either in part or in full, and have not been submitted for publication in another journal;
2. ensure correct and legible citation of works used or quotations from other authors in the text: no form of unlawful attribution of authorship to the whole or part of another's work or deliberate misrepresentation of the authorship of a work (whether overt or covert plagiarism) shall be acceptable;
3. correctly and legibly mark in the text excerpts from own previously published works (no form of self-plagiarism is allowed);
4. disclose conflicts of interest, if any, which may affect the results of the research or their interpretation;
5. provide information on the source of research funding if the text is the result of an externally funded project;
6. provide specific percentages of co-authorship of the work if there is more than one author; disclosure as co-authors of all persons who have made significant contributions to the text in terms of its conception, design, execution, interpretation of research results, conclusions, etc.;
7. include a note of acknowledgement to persons or institutions who have contributed to the text but are not co-authors;
8. prevent 'ghostwriting' and 'guest(gift) authorship' practices, in particular by ensuring that no person who is not a co-author of the manuscript is listed as a contributor;
9. provide information on the affiliation, employment or collaboration in order to avoid links with reviewers in order to enable their objective selection;
10. comply with the open data requirements set out in the Agricultural Law Review, in particular, be prepared to make the data publicly available if possible;
11. to participate in the review process, in particular to correct all errors indicated, to make suggested changes. Should the Author disagree with the Reviewer's or Editor's comments, a written justification of the objection should be provided;
12. at the Editorial Board's request, provide the research data referred to in the manuscript under review;
13. inform the Editorial Board if a significant error or inaccuracy is detected in the published work, and cooperate with the relevant Editor in order to publish a correction or, if necessary, withdraw the article from circulation.

III. Responsabilities of the members of the Editorial Board

1. The Editorial Board of Agricultural Law Review supervises the observance of ethical principles throughout the entire publication process of the manuscript in the journal and takes measures to address violations of these principles.
2. The Editorial Board only accepts:

• original manuscripts that are in line with the profile, scope and purpose of the journal and comply with the adopted ethical principles;
• manuscripts that are free from legal defects or linguistic defects; plagiarism, self-plagiarism, ghost-writing and guest authorship if any must be detected and communicated to relevant bodies (the Author’s employer, a scholarly or academic society, an associations of scientific editors or the like) as provided for in the standards adopted by Agricultural Law Review when a suspected breach of ethical principles occurs.

3. The decision to publish or reject a submitted manuscript is taken by the Editor-in-Chief, based on compliance of the text with the objective and scope of Agricultural Law Review, satisfaction of the publication requirements, the Reviewers’ recommendations and their reviews.
4. The Editorial Board assess the manuscript in terms of its quality and merits, the level of knowledge contained in it, the importance, relevance and topicality or timeliness of the issues raised, and their appeal to the widest possible global audience. The assessment of the manuscript is not influenced by the nationality, gender, ethnicity, race, sexual orientation, religious beliefs or political convictions of the Authors.
5. In the event of a conflict of interest between the Editor and the Author, the Editor will refrain from the evaluation of the submitted manuscript and forward it to another member of the Editorial Board.
6. Editors are not involved in decisions about papers which they have written themselves. Any such submission is subject to the journal's usual procedure, with peer review handled independently of the relevant editor.
7. Prior to its submission for review, the Editorial Board check the manuscript using the Crossref Similarity Check anti-plagiarism system.
8. The Editor-in-Chief ensures the proper conduct of the review process, in particular with regard to its fairness, confidentiality, timeframe and anonymity, and acts as an intermediary between the Authors and the Reviewers.
9. The Editorial Board will appoint at least two reviewers that are not affiliated with the Author’s institutional affiliations. In the case of interdisciplinary texts, the Editorial Board will appoint an additional reviewer, with the reviewer’s knowledge and scientific achievements used as the criterion for selection. Reviews are double-blind. Due to the subject matter of the manuscripts submitted to Agricultural Law Review, in the absence of a suitable reviewer, a member of the Scientific Committee may be appointed as reviewer.
10. If a reviewer fails to prepare a review on time, refuses to prepare a review, or for ethical reasons cannot prepare a review of a particular manuscript, the Editorial Board will appoint a new reviewer.
11. The Editorial Boards will only accept reviews that are honest, factual and prepared in accordance with good practice.
12. In the event of a diametrically different evaluation of a manuscript by two reviewers, the Editorial Board may appoint a third reviewer.
13. The Editorial Board will only accept for publication manuscripts that have received two unequivocally positive reviews.
14. The Editorial Board guarantee confidentiality of the review process and of the personal data of authors and reviewers.
15. In the event of a suspicion of a breach of ethics by an author or information of such a breach, the Editor-in-Chief shall initiate proceedings in accordance with the standards of conduct adopted by Agricultural Law Review.
16. A discussion of published articles is permitted by sending a letter to the Editorial Board at ppr@amu.edu.pl. 
17. If necessary, the Editorial Board shall publish any necessary corrigenda, corrections, clarifications or information regarding the removal of an article and shall issue an apology.

IV. The obligations of the Reviewers

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

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

3. If reviewers are unable to prepare a review, (in particular due to a conflict of interest, incompatibility of the text with their research interests and field of study, inability to produce a timely review) they shall inform the Editorial Board of this within one week of receiving a request for a review.
4. Reviewers shall inform the Editorial Board:

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

5. Reviewers must not use any data or results of the reviewed research contained in the manuscript for purposes other than preparing the review.
6. Reviewers should treat all texts and information relating to the review process as confidential and must not disclose them to others without the permission of the Editorial Board.

V. The procedure for dealing with violations of ethical principles

1. The Editorial Board shall document cases of scientific dishonesty, in particular violations and infringements of copyright, as well as of ethical principles applicable to scholarship. Cases of scientific dishonesty include in particular plagiarism and self-plagiarism, ghost-writing and guest authorship.
2. In the event of a suspected breach of the ethical principles adopted by Agricultural Law Review, the rules of conduct set out below will be applied, based on the guidelines developed by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE): COPE flowcharts (https://publicationethics.org/guidance/Flowcharts).
3. To ensure the originality of scientific publications, the Editorial Board uses the tools of the Crossref Similarity Check anti-plagiarism system. The results of the anti-plagiarism check are analysed. If plagiarism or self-plagiarism is detected, the submitted text is rejected and the Author is informed of the basis for the rejection of the text.
4. If reviewers report a suspicion of plagiarism or self-plagiarism to the Editorial Board, the Editorial Board checks the validity of the suspicion. The Editorial Board then informs the Reviewer of the results of the check. If the validity of the suspicion is confirmed, the submitted text is rejected and the Author is informed of the basis for the rejection.
5. If readers of Agricultural Law Review report a suspicion of plagiarism or self-plagiarism to the Editorial Board, the Editorial Board checks the validity of the suspicion and informs the Author of the results of the check in response to the allegations of unreliability. The published text is withdrawn from all online platforms where Agricultural Law Review is available. The basis for the withdrawal of the text is communicated on the electronic platforms and in the printed version of the Review.
6. In cases of confirmed plagiarism, the Editorial Board will inform the respective author’s employer or other affiliated institutions, e.g. scientific societies, associations of scientific editors.
7. In cases of ghost-writing and guest authorship, the text is rejected. The Editorial Board will inform the Author(s) of the decision and its basis, as well as the relevant institutions employing the Author(s) or the scientific societies with which the Author(s) is/are affiliated.

VI. Complaints and requests

1. The subject of a complaint may be, in particular, negligence or improper performance of tasks and duties by the Editorial Board of Agricultural Law Review, its members or the Publisher.
2. A complaint against the Editorial Board and its members should be submitted to the Editor-in-Chief (roman.budzinowski@amu.edu.pl).
3. A complaint against the Editor-in-Chief should be lodged with the Publisher
4. (uamprawo@amu.edu.pl).
5. A complaint against the Publisher should be lodged with the Rector of Adam Mickiewicz University in Poznań (rectorof@amu.edu.pl).
6. The entity competent to handle a complaint should handle the complaint without undue delay no later than within one month of its submission, notifying the complainant of the manner in which the complaint has been handled.