Publication Ethics and Publication Malpractice Statement

“Systemy Logistyczne Wojsk” / “Military Logistics Systems” (SLW) follows publication ethics principles consistent with recognised editorial best practices, in particular the guidance of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and the Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing.

This policy applies to authors, co-authors, reviewers, editors, members of the journal’s bodies and all other persons involved in the submission, evaluation, editing and publication of manuscripts.

Editorial decisions are based on the manuscript’s fit with the journal’s scope, scholarly quality, originality, methodological soundness, significance of findings and compliance with ethical standards. Decisions are not influenced by nationality, origin, gender, academic degree or title, affiliation, political or religious beliefs or any other personal characteristics of the authors.

1. Research Integrity and Originality
SLW publishes original work only. Manuscripts must not have been previously published and must not be under consideration by another journal, monograph, edited volume or any other publication venue.

The following practices are unacceptable:
• plagiarism;
• self-plagiarism and unauthorised reuse of the authors’ own previously published work;
• redundant or duplicate publication;
• data fabrication or falsification;
• manipulation of results, images, tables, charts or source material;
• citation manipulation;
• concealment of significant study limitations;
• submission of manuscripts produced by paper mills or in breach of research integrity standards;
• unauthorised use of third-party materials.

The Editorial Office may use text similarity checking tools and other tools supporting the assessment of manuscript originality and integrity. Authors may be asked to provide explanations, source data, research documentation, permissions or other materials necessary to assess the integrity of the work.

2. Authorship and Contributorship
Authors should be limited to persons who have made a genuine and substantial intellectual contribution to the work, in particular to the study concept, methodology, data collection or analysis, interpretation of results, manuscript preparation or critical revision.

All authors should approve the final version of the manuscript and take responsibility for its content within the scope of their contribution. The corresponding author is responsible for communication with the Editorial Office and for obtaining the consent of all co-authors for submission, revisions and publication.

Ghostwriting, guest authorship and honorary authorship are unacceptable. Detailed rules for preventing such practices are described on the separate page “Procedure securing the originality of the publication”.

Changes in authorship after submission require a written explanation and the consent of all current and proposed authors. The Editorial Office may reject an authorship change if it raises ethical concerns.

3. Conflicts of Interest
Authors, reviewers and editors must disclose any conflicts of interest that could influence the assessment, interpretation or decision concerning a manuscript.

A conflict of interest may be financial, professional, institutional, personal, competitive, hierarchical or of another nature. Authors should submit a conflict of interest statement or explicitly state that no conflicts exist.

A reviewer or editor who has a conflict of interest should recuse themselves from the evaluation of the manuscript. This applies in particular to shared affiliation, recent scholarly collaboration, supervisory relationships, personal relationships or direct scholarly or professional competition.

4. Funding
Authors must disclose all sources of funding for the research, manuscript preparation, publication or any other activities related to the article. If the work received no external funding, authors should include an appropriate statement.

The Editorial Office may request clarification of the funder’s role in study design, data collection, analysis, interpretation, manuscript preparation or the decision to submit the work.

5. Research Data, Reproducibility and Transparency
Authors should describe methods, data and materials in a way that enables the assessment of the reliability of their conclusions. Where the nature of the study allows, authors should provide access to data, code, models, questionnaires or other materials enabling verification of the results.

Each article should include a Data Availability Statement, for example:
“Data are available in the repository: [name/link/DOI].”
“Data are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.”
“Data cannot be shared due to legal, security, confidentiality or personal data protection restrictions.”

For research concerning defence, security, critical infrastructure, enterprises, public administration or other sensitive areas, authors must comply with regulations on classified information, legally protected secrets, personal data and restrictions on data sharing.

6. Human Research, Sensitive Data and Permissions
Where research involves human participants, surveys, interviews, experiments, personal data, sensitive data or materials that may identify individuals, authors must comply with applicable law, ethical standards and data protection rules.
Where required by law or institutional rules, authors should indicate ethics committee approval, participant consent or the legal basis for data processing. Personal data should be anonymised or pseudonymised where necessary and possible.

7. Third-Party Materials
Authors are responsible for the lawful use of third-party materials in their articles, including photographs, maps, figures, diagrams, tables, charts, data, text excerpts, standards, documents and other legally protected materials.

If a specific item requires permission, a licence or source attribution, authors must secure the relevant rights before submission and mark the material appropriately in the manuscript. Detailed rules on licensing and copyright are described in the journal’s Open Access and licensing policies.

8. Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence and Automated Tools
Authors may use generative artificial intelligence and other automated tools only as auxiliary support and remain fully responsible for the content of the manuscript.
Basic language correction, spelling, punctuation, grammar, formatting checks or technical editorial support do not require separate disclosure.
Use of generative artificial intelligence beyond straightforward language correction, editing or formatting should be disclosed in the manuscript in a “Use of AI tools” section or in the final declarations. Authors should indicate the tool name, purpose of use and the extent of human oversight and verification.
AI tools may not be listed as authors or co-authors. Generative AI may not be cited as a scholarly source.
Authors must verify all information, citations, data, interpretations and conclusions generated or suggested by AI tools. Particular attention should be paid to the risk of fabricated sources, incorrect citations, factual inaccuracies, bias and breaches of copyright or confidentiality.
AI tools must not be used to fabricate data, generate non-existent sources, conceal plagiarism, manipulate results, create false images or circumvent publication ethics rules.
If AI or machine learning tools form part of the research methodology, they should be described in the methods section in a way that allows their use to be assessed, including, where applicable, the tool version, input data, parameters, validation procedure and limitations.

9. Confidentiality in Peer Review and AI Use by Reviewers and Editors
Manuscripts submitted to SLW, reviews, editorial correspondence, author data and all other materials related to the publication process are confidential.
Reviewers and editors should not upload unpublished manuscripts, reviews, author data, editorial correspondence or other confidential materials to publicly available generative AI tools or other tools that may store, use or process such data outside the control of the Editorial Office.
Reviewers should not use generative AI to prepare the scholarly assessment of a manuscript, formulate review recommendations or replace their own expert judgement. The reviewer remains responsible for the content of the review report.
Editors should not use generative AI to make editorial decisions or replace their own expert judgement. Editorial decisions remain the responsibility of the Editorial Office.

The Editorial Office may use automated tools supporting technical processing or publication integrity, such as similarity checking, submission completeness checks, metadata support or potential reviewer identification, provided that confidentiality, tool validation, human oversight and compliance with journal policy are ensured.

10. Duties of Reviewers
Reviewers should accept manuscripts for review only when the manuscript falls within their scholarly or professional expertise and no conflict of interest exists.
Reviewers must observe confidentiality, timeliness, impartiality and prepare reviews that are factual, constructive and free from personal remarks. Reviewers should inform the Editorial Office of suspected plagiarism, self-plagiarism, data manipulation, research misconduct, copyright infringement or other ethical concerns.
Reviewers must not use information, data, concepts or results included in a reviewed manuscript for their own purposes before publication.

11. Duties of Editors
The Editorial Office is responsible for the integrity of the publication process, the reliability of peer review, confidentiality, prevention of conflicts of interest and decision-making based on scholarly, editorial and ethical criteria.
Editors must not use information, data, concepts or results included in submitted manuscripts for their own purposes before publication.

Manuscripts submitted by members of the Editorial Office, Scientific Council, reviewers or persons closely professionally connected with the journal’s bodies are subject to the standard peer review procedure, with conflicted persons excluded from the process. An author who is a member of the journal’s bodies does not participate in decisions concerning their own manuscript.
The Editorial Office monitors the share of articles authored by members of the journal’s bodies and persons directly connected with the journal in order to prevent excessive endogeny and ensure the independence of the publication process.

12. Citation Ethics
Authors should cite only sources that are relevant to the research problem, methodology, data, results and discussion. Citations should be appropriate, up to date and substantively justified.

Citation manipulation is unacceptable, in particular artificial inflation of citations, excessive self-citation, citation padding, citation swapping, unjustified citation of a single journal, author or group of authors and coercive citation of sources unrelated to the content of the article.
Reviewers and editors may suggest additional references only when such suggestions are substantively justified and improve the quality of the work.

13. Handling Allegations of Misconduct
Concerns about possible breaches of publication ethics may be raised by authors, reviewers, readers, editors, institutions or other parties.
When an ethical breach is suspected, the Editorial Office may:
• pause the processing of the manuscript;
• request explanations from the authors;
• request source data, documentation, permissions or other materials;
• consult members of the Editorial Office, experts or the Publisher;
• contact the authors’ institution, funder or another relevant body;
• reject the manuscript;
• publish a correction, erratum, editorial statement, expression of concern or retraction.
Investigations are conducted with confidentiality, impartiality and respect for the right of the parties involved to provide explanations.

14. Corrections, Errata, Editorial Statements and Retractions
SLW is committed to maintaining the integrity of the scholarly record. If an error, omission or breach is identified after publication, the Editorial Office may publish an appropriate notice.
Post-publication actions may include:
• correction, erratum or corrigendum — where an error does not invalidate the article’s main conclusions;
• addendum — where important information needs to be added;
• expression of concern — where serious concerns exist and an investigation is ongoing;
• retraction — where the findings are unreliable, the article breaches ethical rules, or plagiarism, data falsification, major methodological errors or unauthorised publication occurred.
Post-publication notices should be permanently linked to the original article. A retracted article remains available for archival purposes but should be clearly marked as retracted and linked to the reason for retraction.

15. Complaints and Appeals
Authors, reviewers, readers and other persons may submit complaints concerning the editorial, peer review or publication process or breaches of publication ethics to the Editorial Office.
An appeal against an editorial decision should include a reasoned justification indicating a possible procedural, scholarly or ethical error. Disagreement with reviewers’ assessments alone is not sufficient grounds for appeal.
Appeals are handled by the Editor-in-Chief or a designated person, excluding any persons with a conflict of interest. In justified cases, the Editorial Office may seek an additional opinion from an expert or a member of the Scientific Council. The post-appeal decision is final.
Complaints and appeals are documented and handled confidentially and impartially.

16. Related Policies
Detailed rules on peer review, publication originality, prevention of ghostwriting and guest authorship, personal data protection, Open Access, licensing, copyright, publication fees and digital preservation are described on separate journal policy pages.