Ethical standards

The editorial office of "Theological Studies Bialystok Drohiczyn Lomza" applies the principles of publication ethics in accordance with the guidelines of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE - Committee on Publication Ethics).

Author Policy:

The principle of originality and reliability

The editorial office of "Theological Studies Bialystok Drohiczyn Lomza" accepts for printing only original texts that have not been published anywhere else in printed or online form. The authors are convinced that the footnotes have been prepared diligently, without attributing to themselves the thoughts or words of others. The authors of the submitted materials do not incur any publication costs.

The principle of fairness

In accordance with the guidelines of the Ministry of Science and Higher Education, the editorial office of " Theological Studies Bialystok Drohiczyn Lomza " has a "ghostwriting firewall" in place to counteract the phenomena referred to as "ghostwriting" and "guest authorship". Readers should be sure that the authors of the publication present the results of their work in a reliable and honest manner, regardless of whether they are its direct authors or whether they used the assistance of a specialized entity (natural or legal person). We deal with "ghostwriting" when someone has made a significant contribution to the creation of a publication without disclosing their participation as one of the authors or without mentioning their role in the acknowledgments included in the publication. On the other hand, "guest authorship" ("honorary authorship") consists in including a specific person as an author or co-author, despite the fact that his participation was negligible or did not take place at all. Both attitudes are a manifestation of scientific dishonesty.

Policy for Errors in Published Works

The author should immediately notify the editor-in-chief if he notices significant errors in his publication. An erratum, annex, correction or withdrawal of publication should be published in cooperation with the editor-in-chief and the publisher.


The author-editor relationship is based on confidentiality. Authors should maintain the confidentiality of communication with the editors of the journal. Authors, especially in the case of multi-author articles, should indicate the communication channel (e-mail address) through which communication will take place during the review and publication procedure.

The principle of following instructions

The author is obliged to read and comply with all publication rules, ethical standards and editorial guidelines.

Reviewer Policy:

Collaboration with the editorial team

Reviewers participate in the editorial process at the stage of review by the electronic OJS system and influence decisions made by editors regarding the publication of the text. At each stage of the procedure, the reviewers may also, in consultation with the authors, decide on the final shape of the article. In case of noticing violation of ethical standards, reviewers are kindly requested to notify the Editorial Board of this fact.

The principle of punctuality

Reviewers are bound by a fixed deadline for the completion of the review. The reviewer should immediately inform the Editorial Board about the reasons for delays or withdrawal from the review.


Only authorized persons, i.e. editors, author and reviewers, have access to the reviewed works.

The principle of objectivity

The review should concern only the substantive and formal aspects of the text. Any comments directed at the author are inadmissible.

The principle of reliability of sources

The reviewer should disclose all cases that indicate the similarity of the reviewed work to other works and indicate which works have not been cited by the author.

The principle of preventing conflicts of interest

Reviewers may not use the reviewed texts for their own needs and benefits. If there is a personal or financial conflict of interest, the reviewer should immediately notify the Editorial Board.

The principle of compliance with procedures

The reviewer undertakes to comply with the review procedures that are set in relation to the scope, content and quality of the review.

Rights, duties and responsibilities of editors

  1. Provide guidance to authors on the preparation and submission of articles and treat all authors in an objective, fair, honest, transparent and courteous manner.

  2. Constant control of compliance with the adopted standards.

  3. Formulation and public disclosure of a conflict of interest policy for all persons involved in the publication process, including editors, authors and reviewers.

  4. Protecting the Confidentiality of the Article.

  5. Using tools to verify texts for unauthorized borrowings (anti-plagiarism system).

  6. Taking care of the scientific and ethical reliability of published works.

  7. Conducting an investigation in the event of detecting or receiving a notification of unethical behavior in connection with suspected prohibited practice or unethical behavior in the field of scientific research and/or publication of scientific content (plagiarism, ghostwriting, guest authorship, falsification of research, use of copyrighted materials without consent, etc.). Reports of ethical and scientific abuse may be made by a member of the editorial board, reviewer, reader of the journal or any other person with reasonable suspicions as to the reliability of the text.

  8. Using a specialist legal assessment of the situation regarding unfair publishing practices.

  9. Publish appropriate corrections, errata, clarifications, apologies and rectifications as necessary.

  10. In the case of suspicions of unfair practices - commitment to withdraw the text from publication and to take explanatory and corrective measures, and, if necessary, also legal ones. For already published issues of the journal - withdrawal of the article from the website and information about the reasons for the withdrawal; additionally, placing a relevant statement in the next printed issue of the journal. In such cases, informing the author, the institution to which he is affiliated, reviewers and injured persons, as well as ethical supervision authorities.

  11. Establishment and application of a system of effective and rapid review by independent experts.

  12. Make editorial decisions within a reasonable time frame and communicate them in a clear and constructive manner.

  13. Counteracting significant delays in the review and/or publishing procedure.

  14. Establishment of an appeal procedure against the decisions of reviewers and the Editorial Board of the journal.

  15. Clear communication of editorial standards and policies.

  16. Selection of reviewers based on the consistency of the article content with their competences, knowledge and research interests.

  17. Establishing a review procedure that ensures its confidentiality and timeliness.

  18. Providing reviewers with written, clear instructions on expectations regarding the scope, content, quality, and timeliness of reviews in order to obtain a fair, constructive, and fair review of the reviewed article.

  19. Ensure reviewers disclose potential conflicts of interest and refrain from reviewing if they cannot remain impartial.

  20. Allowing reviewers adequate time to complete their reviews.

  21. Making the final decision on accepting/not accepting a text for publication.