ETHICS
GENERAL INFORMATION
1. General principles of scientific and publishing integrity
Sacrum et Decorum expects all authors, editors, reviewers and contributors to adhere to the principles contained in The European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity, in particular:
* credibility at all stages and in all aspects of research,
* integrity in the development, evaluation and dissemination of research,
* respect and care for all parties involved in the research,
* responsibility for the entire research process, from the idea through the plan to the publication of the results.
The editorial team is constantly expanding its knowledge of good practices in editorial, review and publishing ethics. It remains open to new guidelines and ethical perspectives. In the set of publishing ethics and misconduct policies presented below, we follow the guidelines of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and use the documents of that organisation (all COPE documents to which we refer are available under a Creative Commons licence, and the copyright is specified as 2021-2022 Committee on Publication Ethics (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0)). In all matters not specified in this statement, the current COPE guidelines will apply.
2. Contact details for submitting comments and complaints
Any concerns regarding the editorial integrity of Sacrum et Decorum and complaints about the conduct of editors or publishers should be addressed to the editorial office of Sacrum et Decorum: sacrumetdecorum@ur.edu.pl.
Complaints and objections related to violations of publication ethics will be appropriately considered by the editorial office of Sacrum et Decorum and/or the University of Rzeszów Publishing House. Please send your objections to the editorial office: sacrumetdecorum@ur.edu.pl or directly to the University of Rzeszów Publishing House: wydawnictwo@ur.edu.pl.
Depending on the nature of the problem reported, the editor-in-chief of the journal or the director of the Publishing House will respond in writing within 14 days of the date of submission of the complaint or grievance.
EDITORIAL PROCESS
At Sacrum et Decorum, the editorial process is designed to shield the editorial team from external influences and ensure that it is able to make fully independent decisions regarding the acceptance or rejection of submissions.
We are guided by the principles of diversity, inclusivity and equality in academic discourse. Our interests encompass all topics relating to sacred art from the 19th to the 21st centuries, covering the Christian faith in all its denominations and branches.
We do not discriminate against individuals submitting articles, editing or reviewing texts on the basis of their identity or personal characteristics, such as ethnicity, age, religion, gender identity, sexual orientation, nationality, citizenship, religion, beliefs or degree of disability.
We are supported by an international Scientific Council and a group of affiliated editors from diverse academic, cultural and ethnic backgrounds, whose role is to stimulate research in the field of Sacrum et Decorum.
The editorial team of Sacrum et Decorum is dedicated to the mission of conducting, stimulating and disseminating research on Christian sacred art of the 19th-21st centuries. The editors are responsible for the substantive development of the journal, perform internal reviews of submitted texts, select articles, and collaborate with affiliated editors. Members of the editorial board are not allowed to evaluate submissions based on their own point of view or research interests.
The editorial board evaluates texts objectively based on criteria such as: originality of the topic, method of presenting research, quality of scientific work, impact on the scientific community, and interest of Sacrum et Decorum readers.
Scientific texts that have passed the internal review stage are subjected to a double-blind external review procedure organised by the editorial board in the form of an evaluation by two independent experts in the field covered by the article. In addition, the editorial board may ask a representative of the Scientific Council to provide an expert opinion.
The final decision on the publication of an article is made jointly by the editorial team, based on:
* the scientific level of the text,
* the opinions of the reviewers,
* legal requirements, and
* the interest of Sacrum et Decorum readers.
The editorial board reserves the right to make abridgements and corrections to the texts. It is also responsible for:
* forwarding reviewers' or editors' comments and suggestions to authors,
* checking the originality of the text using an anti-plagiarism system,
* the entire process of preparing the text for publication.
No one involved in the editorial or review process may misuse submitted texts for their own purposes.
Appeals against editorial decisions, especially those concerning potential conflicts of interest or biased reviews, will be considered by the editor-in-chief in consultation with two representatives of the Scientific Council.
At Sacrum et Decorum, we respect freedom of speech and do not engage in censorship. Due to the sensitivity of the subject matter of sacred art, we ask those submitting articles, reviewers and readers of our periodical to respect all religions and denominations, not to offend religious feelings, and to treat religious symbols and places commonly recognised as sacred with respect.
The editorial team is committed to diversity, inclusivity and equality, and therefore requires all those involved in the editorial process to engage in constructive academic debate, free from personal attacks, insults or any form of discrimination.
The editorial board reserves the right to take action against any abuse, for example, it may remove text from the editorial process or challenge or remove offensive reviewer comments.
In the event of any suspected irregularities concerning authorship, reviewing or editing, the editorial board suspends the publication process to which the doubts or accusations relate and then asks the persons responsible for the text or review for explanations. After obtaining comprehensive information, the editorial board makes a final decision. If the allegations concern the editorial board or one of its representatives, that person is excluded from the decision-making process.
REVIEW PROCESS
Fair, impartial, competent, thorough and constructive review is crucial to maintaining the standards of articles intended for publication in our journal. At Sacrum et Decorum, we use a double-blind external review procedure, which means that authors do not know the identity of the reviewers, and reviewers do not know the identity of the authors at the time of review. Each submitted scientific article is evaluated by at least two independent reviewers from different academic centres, other than the institution with which the author of the text is affiliated. Internally reviewed articles (book reviews, memoirs, artistic self-presentations) are marked as unreviewed on the website.
1. External review rules (double blind peer review)
The editors of Sacrum et Decorum select reviewers based on their competence and research interests. We ask reviewers to express an honest, reliable and constructive opinion on the reviewed text, written with respect for the author, containing an objective assessment of the article's strengths and weaknesses, including suggestions for further work, which the editorial board will forward to the author, while maintaining anonymity.
We strive to select reviewers in such a way as to avoid any potential conflict of interest between the reviewer and the author that could hinder or prevent a fair and impartial assessment of the text. We require reviewers to immediately notify the editorial board if they discover any conflict of interest and to refrain from reviewing the text and related materials until the procedure has been agreed with the editorial board.
We respect the confidentiality of the review process. Submitted texts are anonymised before review. At all stages of the review process, the author and reviewer do not know each other's identities, which remain strictly protected by the editorial office. Reviewers may not use the reviewed texts in any unauthorised manner.
We present reviewers with substantive and ethical review guidelines (based on COPE guidelines), which they agree to when accepting a text for review. We require reviewers to immediately report any violations of research or publication ethics by editors or authors to the editorial board. At the same time, the editorial board undertakes to pay attention to warning signs that may indicate fraud or manipulation in reviews or unauthorised use of reviewed texts by reviewers – each such report will be investigated and resolved in accordance with COPE recommendations.
After the release of the electronic version of Sacrum et Decorum (according to the calendar in October each year), we publish a list of reviewers on the journal's website. The list of reviewers can also be found on the editorial page of the printed version of the periodical.
Editors of Sacrum et Decorum who submit their own texts are completely excluded from all stages of the review process.
2. Stages of the review process
The initial selection of submitted scientific texts and their internal review is carried out by the editorial board within 30 days of submission. Articles may be qualified for external review, returned to authors for necessary corrections, or rejected.
Invitation of competent reviewers in accordance with the editorial policy and publication ethics of Sacrum et Decorum.
A double-blind external review process lasting 30 days or longer if necessary.
Reviewers evaluate the text on the applicable form, taking into account:
* the originality of the topic in relation to the state of research,
* the adequacy of the methodology used,
* the logic and quality of the argumentation.
The review must include a reasoned conclusion in which the reviewer recommends that the text be accepted for publication, sent back for revision, or rejected.
In the event of conflicting recommendations, the editorial board seeks a third reviewer, who is invited to review the article.
The decision to accept a text for publication, refer it for revision, or reject it is made jointly by the editorial team on the basis of:
* the quality of the text and the research presented therein,
* reviewers' opinions,
* the significance of the article for the scientific community and the readership of Sacrum et Decorum,
* applicable legal requirements regarding defamation, copyright infringement and plagiarism.
The editorial team provides authors with its own comments and those of the reviewers, ensuring that anonymity is maintained. Authors are required to send revised versions of their texts to the editorial team within 14 days via the OJS platform or by email to: sacrumetdecorum@ur.edu.pl.
AUTHORSHIP AND PUBLICATION
1. Authorship and other forms of collaboration on the text
Sacrum et Decorum accepts the definition of authorship as set out in COPE documents.
The submission of a text must be accompanied by a statement of authorship. The statement of authorship is tantamount to accepting responsibility for all aspects of the work and ensuring that all stages of the work have been carried out in a reliable and transparent manner.
If two or more persons are listed as authors, each of them should clearly specify their contribution to the text in a separate statement, and the corresponding author is responsible for agreeing on the order of names on the list.
We require the author submitting the text to disclose all persons involved in the creation of the article and to specify their role (contribution to the concept of the article or part thereof, research leading to the creation of the text or its preparation). The person submitting the article to the journal must guarantee that the assignment of roles is correct, that no symbolic authorship is included, and that the roles indicated have been agreed upon with the other authors of the article. In addition, the submitting author must ensure that all of the authors have read and approved the submitted version of the article.
2. Changes regarding authorship
Authors are expected to carefully consider the list and order of authors before submitting their manuscript and to provide the final list of authors at the time of initial submission. Any additions, deletions or changes to the order of authors on the author list should only be made before the manuscript is accepted by the Editorial Board and only with the consent of the Journal Editor. To request such a change, the Editor must receive the following information from the corresponding author: (a) the reason for the change in the list of authors, and (b) written confirmation (e-mail, letter) from all authors that they agree to the addition, deletion or change in order. In the case of adding or removing authors, this includes confirmation from the author being added or removed.
Only in exceptional circumstances will the editor consider adding, removing or changing the order of authors after the manuscript has been accepted. While the editor is considering the request, publication of the manuscript will be suspended. If the manuscript has already been published online, any requests approved by the editor will result in a correction.
The submitting author, who is usually the corresponding author, is responsible for the manuscript during the submission and review process.
The submitting author, who is usually the corresponding author, is responsible for the manuscript during the submission and review process.
Persons who contributed to the text (technical assistance, editing assistance, general support) but do not meet the criteria for authorship cannot be included in the list of authors, but should be mentioned in the ‘Acknowledgements’ section, provided they give their written consent to have their names included. This information will appear in the publication itself, before the article's bibliography, and will be integrated into the article's metadata in accordance with various international standards.
Any doubts regarding the designation of authorship and other forms of collaboration on the article will be considered in accordance with the ‘Rules for considering allegations of scientific dishonesty’ set out in this document and in accordance with COPE principles.
See COPE Council. COPE Discussion Document: Authorship. September 2019. https://doi.org/10.24318/cope.2019.3.3.
3. Affiliations
The author affiliation refers to the place where the author worked or studied at the time of conducting the research. Please provide the full names of the authors. We recommend adding the main affiliation where most of the research was conducted or supported, but please check with your institution for any contractual requirements. For each affiliation, provide details in the following order: department, institution, city, country.
It is very important that the authors' names and affiliations are correct. Incorrect information may result in misattribution or incorrect citation, and may even lead to problems with promotion or funding. Once an article is published, updates or corrections to an author's address or affiliation may not be permitted.
At least one author should be designated as the corresponding author, and their email address and other details should be included at the end of the affiliation section. Please also include the authors' ORCID identifiers on the title page. If the affiliation has changed, the editorial team will provide the current affiliation in the author note.
4. Independent researcher
You may also submit a text without affiliation. If one or all authors are not currently affiliated with a university, research institution or company, or were not affiliated at the time of manuscript preparation, they should list themselves as ‘Independent researcher’.
Acknowledgements: Acknowledge anyone who assisted with the research but did not qualify for authorship. Acknowledge anyone who provided intellectual, technical or special equipment or materials.
Author contributions: Authors must provide an Author Contribution Statement as described in the Author Contribution Statements section.
Conflict of interest: Authors must provide a conflict of interest statement. For more information, see Conflict of Interest Policy.
Knowingly providing false or dishonest information about affiliation may be grounds for withdrawal of the text from the review process or from print.
5. Duplicates and redundant publications
Duplication of publications, means a significant amount of repetition, use of the same data and/or identical or similar research results. A change in the title of the publication, the order of authors (if there was more than one) or a lack of citations of previous works in the publication in question also supports the conclusion of duplication.
Sacrum et Decorum does not accept articles that have already been published or are simultaneously submitted for publication elsewhere. To rule this out, we ask the author(s) to submit a relevant statement as part of the text submission process. If the text or significant parts of it have been published more than once by the author(s) without proper indication, the text will be rejected as a duplicate or redundant publication. This applies to publications in the same or other languages. Minor similarities in content with previous publications by the author(s) must be clearly described in the manuscript.
Editors and reviewers are required to report any suspected duplication or redundancy of publications to the editor-in-chief or the editorial office: sacrumetdecorum@ur.edu.pl.
The editorial team of Sacrum et Decorum treats all information that may indicate duplication of publications with due seriousness. We investigate all reports and inform both the person reporting the abuse and the author(s) of the text suspected of being redundant (duplicated).
The editorial team's task is to investigate the extent of repetition and take the following actions, depending on the findings, i.e.:
1. In the event of serious duplication of published content, the editorial team shall contact the author(s) of the article, attaching to the correspondence the statement signed by the author(s) confirming that the work has not been previously published, as well as evidence confirming the duplication of the text.
1.1. If the author provides incomplete explanations or admits to duplicating the publication, the editorial board of Sacrum et Decorum will publish a statement about the repetition of the publication and will also inform the editor-in-chief of the journal in which the text was originally printed. it will also notify the author(s)' superiors, the person reporting the suspicion, and the author(s) of the publication.
1.2. If the author provides satisfactory explanations or proves that there was an unintentional error or a legitimate publication, the editors of Sacrum et Decorum will contact the author(s) of the text to re-explain the conditions of publication, an indispensable and necessary condition of which is the submission of previously unpublished texts. They will also notify the person reporting the violation of publishing ethics of their actions,
1.3. In the event of no response from the author(s) of the duplicated publication, the editorial board reserves the right to contact their superiors in order to present and explain the situation and, if contact is not possible, to send a reminder on the matter within 3–6 months from the date of disclosure of the problem. The editorial board also undertakes to provide a comprehensive response to the reader reporting the suspected duplication of the article.
2. In the case of minor overlap of published content, e.g. ‘salami publishing’, i.e. with minor elements of repetition, authorised repetition or the use of reanalysis or repetition of methods, the editorial team shall take the following actions:
2.1. the editorial team will contact the author to explain and remind them that derivative works must refer to the original,
2.2. the editorial team shall propose to the author that a correction be made referring the reader to the original text,
2.3. in justified cases, the editorial team reserves the right to notify the author's superiors of suspected duplication of text;
2.4. the editorial board is obliged to respond to readers who report possible duplication of an article.
3. If there are no signs of duplication, the editorial board informs the person who raised the objection and continues the review process.
See: COPE Council. COPE Flowcharts and infographics — Redundant (duplicate) publication in a submitted manuscript — English. https://doi.org/10.24318/cope.2019.2.12.
Cases of scientific misconduct
The editorial board will take reasonable measures to prevent the publication of works in which significant research and publication irregularities have occurred, such as plagiarism (i.e. presenting someone else's ideas and statements as one's own, intentionally omitting important bibliographical references), any form of manipulation of quotations or falsification/fabrication of data. We reserve the right to check submitted texts using appropriate anti-plagiarism software. Submissions that are, in whole or in part, plagiarised will be rejected.
See ‘Rules for considering allegations of scientific dishonesty’ in this document, based on COPE guidelines. In cases not described in this document, we will follow COPE guidelines.
We expect Sacrum et Decorum contributors and readers to report any suspected plagiarism to the editorial office: sacrumetdecorum@ur.edu.pl.
Disclosure of conflicts of interest and funding
In order to ensure independence from undesirable influences, the editorial board of Sacrum et Decorum requires editors, authors and reviewers to disclose any competing interests and potential conflicts of interest.
Competing interests may be financial, non-financial, professional, personal or contractual. A conflict of interest arises when an author, editor or reviewer has a personal or professional interest that could compromise the objectivity or integrity of the publication or its evaluation. A conflict of interest may arise from competition or cooperation, as well as from other relationships between individuals and/or institutions (e.g. family relationships, supervisor-doctoral student relationships, professional dependence, close scientific cooperation, competition between institutions, etc.).
Grants and other forms of research funding that result in an article should be clearly described in the publication.
Examples of editorial actions in situations of competing interests of editors, reviewers and publishers:
* we do not appoint as reviewers persons who are affiliated with the same institution as the author of the submission, are currently collaborating with him/her on a grant, or have published a co-authored book with him/her within the last three years,
* editors withdraw completely from the review process of texts that they submit themselves as authors, as well as texts in relation to which they may have any competing interests (resulting, for example, from close professional cooperation, personal relationships, etc.),
* texts whose authors are affiliated with the University of Rzeszów are evaluated on the same terms as all others, without any preference,
* researchers employed at the Faculty of Fine Arts of the University of Rzeszów, where most of the editorial staff are affiliated, are not appointed as reviewers for Sacrum et Decorum; persons employed in other faculties of the University of Rzeszów may be invited to review in exceptional and substantively justified cases,
* we expect anyone who suspects a possible conflict of interest related to a text submitted or published in Sacrum et Decorum to inform the editorial office: sacrumetdecorum@ur.edu.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.
Corrections and retractions, withdrawal of published articles, discussions
In the event of minor errors in published articles, Sacrum et Decorum will issue a correction (related to an author's error) or an erratum (related to an editorial error). The editorial board will consider withdrawing a published article if there is clear evidence that the conclusions and research findings may be unreliable (and the publication of corrections or reservations is not sufficient). An article will be retracted from the online edition if there is convincing evidence that it is plagiarised, contains material published without proper permission, infringes copyright or other laws (e.g. defamation or confidentiality laws). The retracted article will be marked accordingly, and the objective and non-controversial information about the retraction will clearly indicate who retracted the article and why.
We encourage discussion of articles published in Sacrum et Decorum. We provide authors with the opportunity to respond to controversial comments, and all texts contributing to the discussion are marked accordingly.
See COPE Council. COPE Guidelines: Retraction Guidelines. November 2019. https://doi.org/10.24318/cope.2019.1.4.
RULES FOR CONSIDERING ALLEGATIONS
OF SCIENTIFIC MISCONDUCT
When considering any allegations of scientific misconduct made by authors, editors, reviewers, and other persons reporting irregularities, we follow the guidelines set out in the procedures developed by COPE. The editorial board of Sacrum et Decorum collects author declarations, which it accepts together with the text submitted by the author, in order to establish and confirm the authorship of the person(s) submitting the article and to eliminate practices such as ghost authorship, guest authorship or courtesy authorship.
For better protection against dishonest practices, the editorial board also requires a statement from the corresponding author regarding the percentage contribution of each author to the article.
When investigating allegations of scientific misconduct, we proceed with sensitivity and responsibility, seeking to gather complete documentation before drawing any conclusions. The cases described below and elsewhere in this document do not exhaust all possibilities. In other cases, we will follow the COPE recommendations, which we monitor on an ongoing basis.
Plagiarism
Plagiarism – the appropriation of someone else's creative idea, publishing someone else's work under one's own name, or verbatim borrowing from someone else's work and publishing it as one's own; also: such an appropriated idea, published work, or borrowing – according to the PWN Polish Language Dictionary.
If we suspect plagiarism in a submitted text, we will investigate the extent of unauthorised use of someone else's text, data or ideas before contacting the author(s). In the event of clear plagiarism and insufficient explanations from the author(s), we will reject the text and contact the institution employing the author(s).
See COPE Council. COPE Flowcharts and infographics — Plagiarism in a submitted manuscript — English. https://doi.org/10.24318/cope.2019.2.1
In the event of suspected plagiarism in a published article, we will investigate the extent of unauthorised use of another person's text, data or ideas before contacting the authors. In the case of minor unauthorised fragments, we will agree with the authors on corrections to be published. In the case of clear plagiarism and insufficient explanations from the authors, we will withdraw the text from the online edition and contact the institution employing the authors.
See COPE Council. COPE Flowcharts and infographics — Plagiarism in a published article — English. https://doi.org/10.24318/cope.2019.2.2
Ghost authorship and/or guest or courtesy authorship
We would like to inform authors about the criteria for authorship and other forms of acknowledging contributions to the creation of a text. In the event of suspected ghost authorship (failure to include on the list of authors a person who made a significant contribution to the creation of the submitted text) or guest/courtesy authorship (including a person on the list of authors who contributed little or nothing to the submitted text), the editorial board will suspend the review/publication process and ask the author who submitted the text for an explanation. If the allegations are confirmed, the list of authors and/or the acknowledgements section should be corrected, and the authors' statements should be supplemented so that the review/publication process can be resumed.
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
CODE OF ETHICS
The Sacrum et Decorum Code of Ethics applies to the editorial and review process and to matters related to authorship. Any complaints or grievances related to violations of publication ethics will be appropriately considered by the editorial board of Sacrum et Decorum and/or the University of Rzeszów Press. Reservations should be sent to the editorial office: sacrumetdecorum@ur.edu.pl or directly to the University of Rzeszów Press: wydawnictwo@ur.edu.pl.
Rules applicable to the editorial team of Sacrum et Decorum
* The editorial board evaluates the scientific value of texts, ensuring equal treatment of all authors and counteracting any discrimination.
* The editorial board ensures that the decision to accept or reject a text for publication is not subject to undue influence. We expect authors, editors and reviewers to disclose any potential conflicts of interest.
* The editorial team selects reviewers in such a way as to enable a completely impartial assessment of submitted articles.
* The editorial team ensures the anonymity of the review process and only discloses information about submitted texts to the author, reviewers or appointed experts.
* The editorial board observes the principle of confidentiality throughout the entire process of working on submitted texts. No member of the editorial board may use them for their own purposes in an unauthorised manner.
* The editorial board is obliged to respond appropriately, in accordance with COPE guidelines, to any instances of author, editorial or reviewer misconduct. The first step is always to request an explanation.
* All texts are subject to an anti-plagiarism procedure (Crossref Similarity Check). The editorial board will notify the relevant entities (including the institution with which the author is affiliated) of any documented serious instances of scientific dishonesty (such as plagiarism, ghostwriting, guest/courtesy authorship).
* The editorial board will always be willing to publish polemics and responses to polemics, as well as corrections, clarifications or apologies. If it is necessary to withdraw an already published article, its electronic version will be marked accordingly (with an explanation).
Rules applicable to reviewers of Sacrum et Decorum
* The reviewer should inform the editorial office as soon as possible if they see a potential conflict of interest in the evaluation of the submitted text, or if they wish to withdraw from the review process for other reasons.
* Reviewers are required to strictly observe the principle of confidentiality throughout the entire text evaluation process.
* Reviewers should evaluate texts objectively, refraining from subjective and personal comments. The purpose of the evaluation is to support the author in improving their work, so it should contain a precisely formulated justification.
* The reviewer shall endeavour to indicate any instances where appropriate footnotes or bibliographical information are missing. Where possible, the reviewer shall report to the editorial team any similarities between the text or fragments thereof and published works.
*The reviewer may not use the reviewed text for purposes other than reviewing. Information and ideas obtained in the review process are confidential and may not be used by the reviewer for their own purposes.
* The reviewer agrees to disclose their name on the list of reviewers published annually.
Rules for authors of Sacrum et Decorum
* By submitting a text, the author guarantees that it is an original work, does not infringe copyright, has not been published and has not been submitted for publication to another publisher.
* The author is obliged to disclose the participation of all persons involved in the work on the text.
* The author is obliged to disclose information about the sources of funding and the contribution of scientific and research institutions, non-governmental organisations and other entities.
* Submission of the text is tantamount to a declaration that all stages of the research have been conducted in an ethically and scientifically sound manner, in accordance with the European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity.
* An author who discovers errors or violations of scientific integrity or ethical principles in a text already submitted for publication or published is obliged to notify the editorial office as soon as possible.
*The author is obliged to cooperate with the editorial office in the process of preparing the text for printing (responding to comments from reviewers and the editorial office, making corrections).
Rules applicable to the publisher Sacrum et Decorum
* The publisher is obliged to collect and make available to the editorial board of the journal all complaints and grievances about the journal, the editorial board and the publisher itself.
* The publisher shall consider all matters related to publishing ethics that have been addressed to it directly.
BUSINESS MODEL FROM AN ETHICAL PERSPECTIVE
1. Funding and organisational support
Sacrum et Decorum is published by the University of Rzeszów Press, funded and organisationally supported by the Centre for Documentation of Contemporary Sacred Art at the University of Rzeszów.
In 2008, 2010, 2012-2020, Sacrum et Decorum published articles promoting the city of Rzeszów, sponsored by the Rzeszów City Council.
In 2009 and 2011, Sacrum et Decorum published promotional materials paid for by ASSECO POLAND.
Since 2021, the journal has not published any advertisements or other paid content.
The editorial team is completely independent in all its activities, and the publisher has no influence on publication decisions. Articles submitted by researchers affiliated with the University of Rzeszów are considered and reviewed in the same way as all others, without any preference. Decisions on the publication of articles are not determined in any way by political or censorship factors.
2. Open access policy and copyright
In accordance with the mission and vision of the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ), to which Sacrum et Decorum belongs, we are committed to disseminating the content we publish. Therefore, access to our articles and current and archived issues of the journal is: open, free-of-charge, immediate, unrestricted (technical, time, financial and other conditions) and free.
This means that any user may read, download, copy, distribute, print, search or link to the full texts of articles or use them for other lawful purposes without prior permission from the publisher or author, in accordance with the terms of the CC BY 4.0 licence, i.e. under conditions that recognise authorship. The following must be provided: the name of the content creator and entities whose authorship should be acknowledged, copyright information, licence information, a disclaimer and a link to the content, and an indication of whether the material has been modified and a description of any previous changes, if any. No additional restrictions may be applied.
Authors retain full copyright (copyright and self-archiving). The editorial board does not charge any fees to authors. Each article is registered in the DOI system (Crossref). We ask authors to use the DOI number when archiving the published version of the article on their websites and in repositories.
3. Personal data protection
Submitting an article for publication in Sacrum et Decorum is tantamount to consenting to the publication of the following personal data:
- first name and surname of the author(s) of the article,
- title or academic degree of the author(s) of the article,
- place of work of the author(s) of the article,
- contact details – e-mail address, work telephone number and ORCID number of the author(s) of the article.
The above personal data will be published both in Sacrum et Decorum (printed and electronic versions) and in the indexing databases with which the journal cooperates or will cooperate.
4. Personal data management
On 25 May 2018, a new Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 (OJ EU L 119 of 04.05.2016) on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such information (GDPR) and repealing Directive 95/46/EC came into force. On this basis, UR Publishing House informs that:
1) The controller of your personal data (hereinafter referred to as the Controller) is the University of Rzeszów, al. Rejtana 16 C, 35-959 Rzeszów, represented by the Rector,
2) Contact details for the Data Protection Officer at UR, email address: iod@ur.edu.pl, tel.: 17 872 3439
3) Your personal data will be processed for the purpose of publishing and distributing books (magazines) pursuant to Article 6(1)(f) of the GDPR, i.e. based on the necessity of processing for the purposes of the legitimate interests pursued by the Controller of the General Data Protection Regulation of 27 April 2016,
4) The recipients of your personal data are the University of Rzeszów and entities providing delivery and transport services to the University of Rzeszów.
5) Your personal data will be stored for the period necessary to achieve the purpose of processing indicated in point 3, until the expiry of the data archiving obligation resulting from legal provisions,
6) In connection with the processing of your personal data, you have the right to:
– request access to your personal data from the Controller,
– request the Controller to rectify your personal data,
– request the Controller to erase your personal data,
– request the Controller to restrict the processing of your personal data,
– object to the processing of your personal data,
– transfer your personal data,
7) You have the right to lodge a complaint with the UODO (Personal Data Protection Office) if there are grounds to believe that your personal data is being processed by the Data Controller in breach of the General Data Protection Regulation of 27 April 2016, GDPR,
8) Providing personal data is voluntary; however, failure to provide the data required by the Data Controller may result in the order not being fulfilled,
9) We also inform you that: the Controller makes every effort to ensure all physical, technical and organisational measures to protect personal data against accidental or intentional destruction, accidental loss, alteration, unauthorised disclosure, use or access, in accordance with all applicable regulations.
STATEMENT ON THE USE OF AI
The editorial board of the journal Sacrum et Decorum considers the use of artificial intelligence tools to produce a research article or parts thereof (such as an abstract or bibliography), or any other text intended for the journal, to be harmful, unacceptable and incompatible with rigorous and honest academic work.
In line with COPE’s position on such practices, we consider that artificial intelligence does not meet the criteria for authorship, as AI tools are not natural persons and cannot be held legally responsible; consequently, they cannot be recognised as authors or co-authors of articles.
The use of artificial intelligence in a submitted article may result in allegations of plagiarism, lack of research integrity, duplicate publication, or a breach of other principles of publication ethics, as AI-generated content often contains erroneous data, is based on existing research findings, and lacks attribution.
We would like to remind authors submitting their texts to Sacrum et Decorum that they bear full responsibility for rigorous academic work, carrying out their own research, and its presentation in the submitted article. This also applies to content generated by AI tools and included in the article. We require authors to provide a written statement confirming that the article, its excerpts and photographs were not created using artificial intelligence tools.
It is not permitted to include images created by artificial intelligence tools or generative models in the text.
The editorial board of Sacrum et Decorum permits the use of generative AI/LLM tools solely for the purpose of improving the language and readability of the article.
We would like to inform reviewers that the use of AI tools to review an article may result in a breach of confidentiality and publishing ethics due to the likelihood of the data contained in the reviewed text being made public in AI model databases. We strongly advise reviewers against using such tools.
