Res Facta Nova follows Core practices promoted by the Committee of Publication Ethics. The journal also adheres to the COPE Guidelines. Publication ethics includes, among other things: procedures in case of suspicion of redundant (duplicate) publication and procedures in case of suspicion of plagiarism.

Authors' Responsibilities

1. Authors are required to submit texts written independently or with full disclosure of all co-authors.
2. Plagiarism, self-plagiarism, ghostwriting and guest authorship are unacceptable. If such abuses are detected, the editorial board will immediately reject the text and inform the relevant institutions.
3. All information provided to the editorial board must be true.
4. Authors are required to sign a licence agreement for the publication of the article.
5. Submitted texts must be original and previously unpublished, both in whole and in part.
6. All quotations must be properly marked with footnotes, and the views and research of other authors must be appropriately cited.
7. Authors are required to inform the editorial office of any factual errors detected in their texts.
8. The same text cannot be submitted to other journals at the same time.

Editorial Responsibilities

1. The editorial board accepts only original articles that are consistent with the scientific profile of the journal.
2. Based on the content of the text, the editorial board appoints two reviewers who are not affiliated with the author's institution.
3. The editorial board accepts only reviews that are prepared reliably, objectively, and in accordance with the principles of scientific ethics.
4. Only texts that have received two unequivocally positive reviews are eligible for publication.
5. The review process is double-blind – the editorial board ensures the anonymity of the author and reviewers.

Reviewers' Responsibilities

1. Reviewers are required to prepare reviews that are reliable and substantive, containing an unambiguous conclusion.
2. The review procedure requires that reviews be anonymous and prepared using the form provided by the editorial office.
3. Reviewers have three weeks to prepare their reviews from the moment they receive the text.
4. Reviewers must inform the editorial office of their refusal or resignation from reviewing within 10 days of receiving the text.
5. Reviewers should report any conflicts of interest to the editorial office.
6. Reviewers are required to inform the editorial board of any identified cases of plagiarism, self-plagiarism, ghostwriting or guest authorship.
7. It is prohibited to use the results and ideas contained in the reviewed texts for purposes other than preparing a review.
8. Reviewers do not receive remuneration for their work.

Guidelines on the use of artificial intelligence (AI) tools in the journal *Res Facta Nova*

With regard to the use of AI tools, Res Facta Nova respects the principles Authorship and AI tools | COPE: Committee on Publication Ethics

AUTHORS’ RESPONSIBILITIES

Authors bear full responsibility for the accuracy, originality and integrity of their work, including all content generated by AI tools. It is the authors’ responsibility to carefully review and edit the generated content.

AI tools must not be listed as co-authors of the work or cited as sources, as they do not meet the criteria for authorship.

Generative AI tools or AI-assisted technologies should be used solely to improve the linguistic quality of the submitted text.

Authors are required to declare whether and how they have used AI, specifying the type of tool used (e.g. ChatGPT, Copilot, Gemini, DeepL, Grammarly), the purpose of its use (e.g. proofreading), and the extent of its use (e.g. specific chapters or stages of text preparation). Relevant information on this matter should be included in the published version of the article.

The editorial board does not permit the use of generative AI or AI-assisted tools to create or modify images. Only necessary adjustments to contrast, brightness or colour balance are permitted, provided that these do not result in the distortion or removal of information contained in the original material.

Where AI is used in study design or research methods, the manner in which AI is used must be described in detail in the methodology section, including the name of the tool, its version and the producer.

REVIEWERS’ RESPONSIBILITIES

Reviewers are not authorised to use artificial intelligence tools in the process of assessing submitted manuscripts, as submitting manuscripts or parts thereof to AI tools may breach confidentiality rules and copyright laws. Responsibility for the fair assessment of the submitted manuscript rests solely with the reviewer.

In the event of a suspicion that artificial intelligence generators have been used without disclosure in the manuscript under review, reviewers are obliged to notify the editorial board of their concerns without delay. Responsibility for further action, in accordance with established verification procedures, rests with the editorial board.

EDITORIAL RESPONSIBILITIES

Editors must not use AI tools to process submitted manuscripts or to conduct communications relating to the peer-review process. In accordance with the principles of publication ethics, editorial decisions and the assessment of manuscripts must be based solely on an independent and critical evaluation carried out by humans

In the event of suspected unacknowledged use of AI generators in a submitted text, editors will take appropriate action to clarify the matter. This may include consulting experts, analysing the submitted manuscript using AI-powered tools, and contacting the author(s) to obtain full information regarding the preparation of the work.

The aim of these measures is to ensure that the submitted publication complies with the principles of research ethics and the journal’s policy on the use of AI.

The editorial board reserves the right to decide whether to accept or reject a manuscript based on information regarding the extent and manner of AI use