Publishing Ethics

Qualitative Sociology Review aims to advance science and enrich people's knowledge about themselves. Therefore, the Journal and its papers contribute to contemporary sociology and prove people's scientific activity. They are available to everyone and can be used without special permission for scientific, educational, cognitive, and non-commercial purposes. We only ask that you acknowledge the source of information, which promotes our idea of free access to scientific knowledge and integration based on a common desire to understand the social world surrounding us.

Qualitative Sociology Review is intended to advance science; therefore, all papers posted herein are available to anyone and may be used for scholarly, educational, cognitive, and non-commercial purposes upon the attribution of source. The use of publicly available resources contained in the Qualitative Sociology Review for commercial or marketing purposes requires a special permission from the publisher. Charging for – or in any way restricting – access to the information or articles contained in our Journal is prohibited.

At all stages of the editorial process, Qualitative Sociology Review is committed to meeting and adhering to the ethical standards contained in the Code of Conduct and Best Guidelines for Journal Editors, developed by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). In an effort to ensure the highest ethical standards in our publishing activities, we are guided by the principles described below.

Responsibilities of the Editorial Board

The Editor is obliged to inform the Editorial Board and the Scientific Board about any ethical problems with the manuscript (a lack of consent or objections of the Ethics Committee concerning the protection of the image, personal data, patient or animal rights). In such a situation, the Editorial Board is obliged to ask the Author to provide relevant certificates and documents. If the response is satisfactory, the publication process may continue; if it is not satisfactory, or if there are any objections, it should be ceased, and the case reported to the COPE or to those responsible for overseeing the study at the relevant consenting institution. After 3-6 months have passed and the problem has not been resolved, the matter should be reported to other authorities (e.g. the medical research registry, ethics committee, a disciplinary officer of the university where the Author is affiliated).

1. The Editorial Board of Qualitative Sociology Review are responsible for ensuring an efficient, fair, and timely review process for manuscripts submitted for publication, as well as for establishing and maintaining high standards of technical and professional quality.
2. The Editorial Board seek advice from associate editors or others who are experts in a particular field, and forward manuscripts submitted for publication to reviewers selected for their expertise and good judgment to assess the quality and integrity of the texts.
3. The Editorial Board provide authors with full information about the editorial requirements for published papers and a description of the review processes on the Journal's website.
4. The final decision to accept or reject a paper submitted for publication is made by the Editorial Board. The decision is based on the significance, originality, and clarity of the paper, the validity of the research, and its relevance to the profile of the Journal.
5. In case of reasonable suspicion of unethical behavior of the Authors in the form of copyright infringement, plagiarism, falsification of research results, or others, the Editorial Board are obliged to notify the relevant scientific institutions or other relevant authorities which can undertake appropriate actions. The Editorial Board should publish corrections, clarifications, and apologies, and retract the article if the authors had committed any unethical acts.
6. No member of the editorial staff may disclose any information about a submitted paper to anyone other than the paper's Author, reviewers, or other editorial advisors.

Responsibilities of the Authors

Protection of the image: If images are published of people who are not well-known to the public (holding a public function) and who are not depicted against a landscape background or pictured among other people at a public event, the Author must obtain their consent to disseminate their image and to process their personal data (information obligation under GDPR).

Personal data protection: In the case of research (including surveys) that collects personal data, including those on social media, approval and a positive opinion from the Institutional Review Board of the University of Lodz are required as a form of oversight to establish ethical standards and suggested forms (e.g. in the context of sensitive questions).

Protecting the animal welfare: In the case of research on animals, the Ethics Committee's approval must be provided along with the research material, and obtained from the appropriate unit of the University of Lodz.

Protecting patient rights: In the case of medical research that involves the collection of biological material from humans (as well as research that interferes with the human psyche), it is necessary for the research to be reviewed by the Research Bioethics Committee of the University of Lodz and to receive a positive opinion in this respect.

1. All authors who intend to submit their papers to the QSR’s Editorial Board are advised to review the following guidelines for the Journal's ethical standards.
2. Texts submitted to the Editorial Board must represent original works. Qualitative Sociology Review publishes only texts which had not been previously published or submitted to a publisher of another journal, or that had not been previously published anywhere.
3. The Authors of the submitted papers are responsible for obtaining permissions to publish material whose copyright is held by third parties.
4. Text fragments, illustrations, figures, diagrams, tables, etc., from other works are protected by copyright. Publication of copyrighted materials in Qualitative Sociology Review will be possible only on condition that the Author first provides the Editorial Board with a written permission from the copyright holder.
5. By submitting a paper for publication in QSR, the Author agrees to make their work and the information contained therein available for the purposes intended by QSR. Any commercial use of the paper in whole or in part will first be consulted and agreed upon with the Author.
6. The Author is required to disclose all sources of financial support that contributed to the publication.
7. The Authors of the submitted paper declare their contribution to the publication (including affiliation and contribution, i.e. who is the Author of the concept, assumptions, methods). The primary responsibility lies with the Author submitting the work. At the same time, the Editorial Board inform that ghostwriting and guest authorship practices are manifestations of scientific dishonesty, and any detected cases of these will be exposed, including notification of relevant entities (institutions employing the authors, scientific societies, associations of scientific editors, etc.)
8. The contribution of any persons who contributed in any way to the paper and who are not listed as co-authors should be clearly indicated in the publication.
9. Protection of the image: If images of people who are not well-known to the public (holding a public function) and who are not depicted against a landscape background or pictured among other people at a public event are published, the Author must obtain their consent to disseminate their image and to process their personal data (information obligation under GDPR).
10. Personal data protection: In the case of research (including surveys) that collects personal data, including those on social media, approval and a positive opinion from the Institutional Review Board of the University of Lodz are required as a form of oversight to establish ethical standards and suggested forms (e.g. in the context of sensitive questions)
11. Protecting the animal welfare: In the case of research on animals, the Ethics Committee's approval must be provided along with the research material, and obtained from the appropriate unit of the University of Lodz.
12. Protecting the patient rights: In the case of medical research that involves the collection of biological material from humans (as well as research that interferes with the human psyche), it is necessary for the research to be reviewed by the Research Bioethics Committee of the University of Lodz and to receive a positive opinion in this respect.

Responsibilities of the Reviewers

The Reviewer is obliged to inform the Editorial Board about any ethical problems with the manuscript (a lack of consent or objections of the Ethics Committee concerning protection of the image, personal data, patient or animal rights). In such a situation, the Editorial Board are obliged to ask the Author to provide relevant certificates and documents. If the response is satisfactory, the review process can be continued; if it is unsatisfactory or if there are any objections, the process should be ceased.

1. The papers are peer-reviewed by two independent experts representing the scientific field to which the subject matter undertaken in the paper relates. The Reviewers are from outside the unit where the Author of the text submitted to the Editor is affiliated.
2. The Reviewers should have no conflicts of interest with respect to the study, Authors, and/or study sponsors. A conflict of interest is considered to exist between the Reviewer and the Author in the case of direct personal relations (kinship, legal ties, conflict), relations of professional subordination, direct scientific cooperation within the last two years preceding the preparation of the review.
3. The reviews are prepared in writing and should be written in an objective manner.
4. The Reviewers should provide clear, constructive, and detailed feedback to Authors in a manner that allows authors to respond to the comments in the reviews. The review should end with a clear conclusion on whether the paper should be published unchanged, revised, or not accepted for publication.
5. The Reviewers should identify published papers which were not cited by the authors. The Reviewer should also bring to the attention of the Editor any significant similarity or overlap between the paper to be reviewed and any published articles of which the reviewer has personal knowledge.
6. The Reviewer should immediately notify the Editor if they resign from reviewing, stating the reasons.
7. Reviewers must maintain confidentiality when evaluating a text. Each peer-reviewed paper is covered by a confidentiality clause with respect to all contents contained therein.