All participants in the publication process must comply with the principles of publication ethics. The principles adopted by the publisher – Statistics Poland (GUS) – are based on the guidelines of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), which are available at www.publicationethics.org.

In order to ensure transparency in the publication of scientific research results, every participant in the publication process is required to report potential conflicts of interest. A conflict of interest should be understood as

anything that interferes with, or could be reasonably perceived as interfering with the full and objective presentation, peer review, editorial decision-making or publication of works. Conflicts of interest may be financial or non-financial, professional or personal, and may arise in relationships to an institution or another person [based on https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/competing-interests].

The responsibilities of the individual participants in the publication process regarding publication ethics are presented below.

Responsibilities of the authors

1. Originality of the work
   

   Scientific works submitted for publication in the Statistics Poland (GUS) monograph series (authored monographs and chapters in collective monographs under scientific editorship) must be the intellectual property of the authors and must be original works. They cannot infringe on the copyrights of others, nor can they have been previously published or submitted to another publisher (this applies to all language versions of the works).

   The publisher does not tolerate instances of scientific misconduct, such as:

   • plagiarism, i.e. the appropriation of another author’s work or its fragment without citing its source;
   • self-plagiarism, i.e. the re-publication of one's own work or its part;
   • fabrication of data, i.e. basing a scientific work on fabricated research results.
   If artificial intelligence tools were used, the majority of the creative contribution to the work must be provided by the authors.
2. Authorship
   Authors bear responsibility for the content presented in their works.
   All individuals who have made a significant contribution to the work must be indicated in it. The following practices are unacceptable:
   • ghost authorship, i.e. failing to disclose co-authors despite their significant contribution to the work;
   • guest authorship, i.e. listing as co-authors individuals with negligible or no involvement in the creation of the work to make the author list appear more impressive;
   • gift authorship, i.e. adding as co-authors individuals whose contribution is based only on a weak connection to the study, as a favour, sign of appreciation or courtesy.

   The person submitting the work for publication specifies the percentage share of the authors and their respective contributions to:

   • the concept and design of the research;
   • data collection or compilation;
   • data analysis and interpretation;
   • the writing of the work;
   • the critical review of the work;
   • the approval of the final version of the work.

   Any changes made to the author list (adding or removing names and changing their order) after the work is submitted for publication require the submission of an authorship change form signed by all the authors. The publisher does not mediate any potential disputes between the authors; if an agreement is not reached, the work is withdrawn from publication.

   Should an author pass away prior to the publication of the work, the co-authors attest to the deceased author’s contribution and potential conflicts of interest.

   The contribution of other individuals to the work that does not meet the criteria for authorship (such as research support, general mentoring, serving as a research coordinator and other related activities) may be indicated in the introduction, conclusions or the ‘Acknowledgements’ section of the work.

   Every author should hold an Open Researcher and Contributor ID (ORCID).

3. Research reliability
   Scientific works should include a precise description of the phenomena studied and the methods used, as well as the author’s original conclusions.
4. Citation
   All information, data, and statements included in the work that are not original and go beyond common knowledge must be provided with a bibliographic note, regardless of whether they are quoted or paraphrased.
   Authors are responsible for the proper marking of the cited works by other authors.Authors are responsible for the proper marking of the cited works by other authors.
5. Data and research reproducibility
   The authors should accurately describe all data used in the empirical study to enable the replication of the research. They are also obliged to provide raw research data at the request of the editorial team; if fulfilling this request is not possible for significant reasons, they should justify their refusal.
6. Use of artificial intelligence tools
   While authors may use artificial intelligence (AI) tools in data collection and analysis, writing of the work, and the development of graphical elements, they must retain the major creative contribution to the work. The authors bear full responsibility for all automatically generated content and, consequently, for any related violations of publication ethics. They are also required to disclose the use of AI tools to the editorial team. Such tools cannot be listed as co-authors.
   A work to which the authors do not have a majority creative contribution, and which was predominantly created using AI tools, cannot be considered an original scientific work and will not be accepted for publication.
   These guidelines do not apply to tools used for spelling and grammar correction or basic editing.
   The final decision as to whether the use of AI tools is appropriate or acceptable rests with the thematic editor.
7. Conflict of Interest
   The authors are obliged to report all potential conflicts of interest related to the research presented in the work.
   The authors must disclose the funding sources for the research within the work.
   Failure to disclose an existing conflict of interest may result in the rejection of the work.
   If a conflict of interest is revealed after the work is published, and it is determined to have overly influenced the work or its review, the publisher issues an appropriate statement, withdraws the monograph from circulation and refrains from any related promotional activities.
8. Collaboration
   The authors participate in the review process in an open review mode, conducted by at least one independent expert in the relevant field. Upon receiving a positive review, the authors introduce the corrections recommended by the reviewers and submit an updated version of the work along with a statement confirming the revisions. If a disagreement regarding the validity of the proposed changes arises or the decision not to include a recommended correction, the authors must justify their position.
   Authors approve the text after editorial processing (authorisation) and perform the author's proofreading at the final stage of preparing the publication.
   Should readers raise objections to the published work, the authors are obliged to provide a response through the editorial team.

Responsibilities of the editorial team

1. Objectivity and fairness
   The editorial team decides on the publication of a given work based on the criteria of a substantive assessment of its cognitive value, originality, reliability and clarity of message, as well as its close relevance to the thematic scope of the series. The editorial team evaluates works regardless of the gender, race, ethnic origin, nationality, religion, creed, worldview, disability, age or sexual orientation of their authors.
2. Counteracting scientific misconduct
   If at any stage of the publication process a justified suspicion arises that the authors have committed scientific misconduct, the editorial team thoroughly investigates the matter in accordance with the COPE principles specified at https://publicationethics.org/guidance/Flowcharts. If author misconduct is proven, the submitted work is rejected. The authors receive information about the decision along with a justification. The editorial team also informs any relevant bodies about the authors’ misconduct (the institutions that employ the authors, scientific associations, etc.).
   To objectively verify the originality of the submitted works, the editorial team uses an anti-plagiarism system before sending them for review. If a significant similarity to other works or a high probability of the use of AI tools is detected, the editorial team reserves the right to reject the work. The author will then receive a formal decision along with its justification.
3. Conflict of interest
   The editors are obliged to report any potential conflicts of interest relating to the authors, the research presented in the work and the institutions financing it. They cannot be involved in editorial decisions regarding works of their own authorship submitted for publication in the Statistics Poland monograph series. If their own interests may impede their impartiality in the assessment of a work and the decision whether to publish it, they should withdraw from its evaluation or cease to discuss it.
   In order to prevent any conflicts of interest between the reviewers and the authors, and to ensure a fair and impartial review process, the thematic editor selects reviewers from among specialists outside the unit which the authors are affiliated with.
   If a conflict of interest of the authors is revealed after the work is published, the editorial team investigates whether or not it had an overly influence on the work or its reviews. If such influence is detected, the work is retracted from circulation.
4. Confidentiality
   The information concerning the work submitted for publication is confidential. Neither the editor nor any other editorial team member is allowed to disclose it to anyone except the authors, reviewers, advisors and, if warranted, the publisher.
   If a decision is made not to publish the work, it cannot be used in any way by the publisher or the participants of the publication process without the written consent of the authors.
5. Discussion on the published works
   Any errors or violations noticed in the published works can be reported to the editorial team by anyone. The procedure followed by the editorial team in such cases is specified in points 6–7.
6. Withdrawal of a published work from circulation
   If a serious error or violation (e.g. fraud, plagiarism, copyright infringement, duplicate publication, undisclosed conflict of interest, illegal use of confidential information) is discovered in an already published work that invalidates its findings, then the work is withdrawn from circulation. The editorial team then proceeds to:
   • publish a disclaimer about the withdrawal of the work on the website of the series, with the date and reason for the withdrawal;
   • the original work in electronic form remains unchanged, except for an added watermark on each page of the PDF file that reads ‘work withdrawn’.
7. The editorial team’s concerns regarding the published works
   If there are legitimate concerns whether the research presented in a published work is reliable or suspicions of any irregularities (the evidence showing errors in the research conducted by the authors is inconclusive, but the nature of the doubt justifies notifying the readers; there is reasonable concern that the findings are unreliable or that irregularities may have occurred), the editorial team may publish expressions of concern that the results of the presented research should be treated with caution. Such a disclaimer is published only if the investigation of the work is inconclusive. The editorial team may also publish expressions of concern when the investigation of a questionable work is underway.

Responsibilities of the reviewers

1. Reliability and timeliness
   Reviewers accept works for review if they have sufficient knowledge in a particular field to perform a reliable assessment, and if they are able to meet the deadline specified by the editorial team so as not to delay the publication.
2. Objectivity
   Reviewers evaluate the work according to the criteria outlined in the review form. They should justify their assessment with appropriate reasoning. Reviewers are obliged to remain objective and refrain from personal criticism.
3. 3. Support for the editorial team
   Reviewers support the editorial team in evaluating works submitted for publication. Their task is to express an opinion as to whether the work:
   • may be published in its present form;
   • may be published after the recommended changes are introduced to the work;
   • requires significant modification and re-evaluation (during which a final decision is made whether the work is accepted for publication or not);
   • should not be published.
4. Support for the author
   Reviewers should indicate published works which are important to the research results and which, in their opinion, are necessary to be referred to in the reviewed work.
5. Use of artificial intelligence tools
   The use of AI tools in the process of writing reviews is unacceptable, except for tools that are used to improve spelling, grammar and editing.
6. Counteracting scientific misconduct
   Reviewers inform the editorial team if they notice any significant similarities between the content of the reviewed work and other published materials, or suspect any other forms of scientific misconduct.
7. Conflict of interest
   Reviewers are required to notify the editorial team, to the best of their knowledge, of any potential conflicts of interest relating to the authors, the research discussed in the work and the institutions financing it. If they believe that such a conflict of interest exists, they should withdraw from reviewing the work.
8. Confidentiality
   Reviewers should treat the works sent to them for review as confidential. They must not share them nor discuss them with anyone except for the editorial team, unless the editorial team consents to do otherwise.
   After completing the review, the reviewers must not store the materials (in any form) nor use them for any other purposes.

Responsibilities of the publisher

1. Intellectual property protection
   Works published in the BWS and Statistical Research Papers series are protected by copyright. The authors grant the publisher, Statistics Poland, the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International Public Licence (CC BY-SA 4.0), which is available at https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/legalcode.pl.
2. Open access
   The publisher makes the full content of works available online according to the open access model, i.e. free of charge and without any technical restrictions. Users may read, download, copy, print and use the content of the works for other purposes.
3. Corrections and apologies
   The publisher declares its readiness to publish correction notices and apologies.

Appeals and complaints

1. Appeals
   Authors may appeal against the decision not to publish their work. For this purpose, they should present appropriate reasoning in writing to the publisher. The publisher then makes the final decision in this respect.
2. Complaints
   Each participant in the publication process and the readers have the right to file a complaint. The complaint should be sent to the editorial team’s address provided in the Contact tab.