Marketing of Scientific and Research Organizations

Open Access Statement

The journal is an Open Access journal that allows a free unlimited access to all its contents without any restrictions upon publication to all users.

Open Access License

Principles of reviewing publications in the quarterly “Marketing of Scientific and Research Institutions”:

1. Each publication is assessed by at least two independent reviewers who are not employees of the Editorial Office and from outside of the research unit affiliated by the author of the publication.
2. The authors and reviewers do not know each other’s identities (the so-called double-blind review process).In other solutions, the reviewer must sign a declaration of no conflict of interest; the following relations are considered to be the conflict of interest between the reviewer and the author:

1. direct personal relationships (kinship, legal relationships, conflict),
2. relations of professional subordination,
3. direct scientific cooperation in the last two years preceding the preparation of the review.

3. The review is in writing and ends with an unambiguous conclusion as to whether the article should be published or rejected. On this basis, the Editorial Office decides whether to accept the article for publication or to reject it.
4. The rules of qualifying the publication as well as the review form are made public. The criteria for qualifying or rejecting the text are as follows: originality of the subject matter, substantive value of the text, quality of own research (if applicable), literature sources used. The review form and formal requirements for authors are available on the journal’s website (www.minib.pl).
5. The names of the reviewers of particular publications / issues are not disclosed; once a year, a list of cooperating reviewers is published on the journal’s website.
6. The ordered reviews are the property of the Editorial Office of the quarterly “Marketing of Scientific and Research Institutions”.

Publication Ethics and Publication Malpractice Statement

The publication guidelines of the Publishing Houses of Łukasiewicz Research Network – Institute of Aviation, publisher of the ‘Marketing of Scientific and Research Organizations’ conform to those set forth by the Committee On Publication Ethics in COPE Code of Conduct and Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors and Code of Conduct for Journal Publishers.
To ensure the integrity of the scientific publication process – from research proposal to publication, the Authors, the Editors, the Reviewers and the Publisher are expected to comply with the ethical standards and recommendations contained in these guidelines.
The COPE’s Core Practices are stated below.

Ethical responsibilities for authors
Authors of manuscripts submitted must have significantly contributed to the research. Authors should refrain from misrepresenting research results which could damage the trust in the journal, the professionalism of scientific authorship, and ultimately the entire scientific endeavour. Maintaining integrity of the research and its presentation is helped by following the rules of good scientific practice presented in the statements below:

1. Authors are strongly advised to ensure that all persons designated as author, e.g. the corresponding author, and relevant co-authors are all reported in the manuscript at submission. The authors listed in the manuscript made significant contributions to the conception, design, execution, data acquisition, or analysis/interpretation of the study; they drafted the manuscript or revised it critically for important intellectual content. Each of the authors takes public responsibility for the content. They have also seen and approved the final version of the paper and agreed to its submission for publication.
2. All the persons who made substantial contributions to the work presented in the manuscript, e.g. technical help, writing and editing assistance but can’t be designated as authors should be acknowledged in the “Acknowledgements” section after their written permission to be named has been obtained.
3. The manuscript submitted for consideration should be original work and should not have been published elsewhere in any form or language. It must not be submitted simultaneously for publication in another journal.
4. A single study should not be split up into several parts to increase the quantity of submissions and submitted to various journals or to one journal over time.
5. Results of the study should be presented clearly, honestly, and without fabrication, falsification or inappropriate data manipulation (including image manipulation – it is only allowed to technically improve images for readability). Authors should adhere to discipline-specific rules for acquiring, selecting and processing data. Negative and inconclusive research results should be published or otherwise made publicly available, in the same manner as the positive results. Upon request authors should be prepared to send relevant documentation or data in order to verify the validity of the results presented. This could be in the form of raw data, samples, records, etc. Sensitive information in the form of confidential or proprietary data is excluded.
6. Manuscripts delivered for consideration must correctly cite all sources. Proper
   acknowledgements to other works must be given (this includes material that is closely copied, summarized and/or paraphrased), quotation marks (to indicate words taken from another source) are used for verbatim copying of material, and permissions secured for material that is copyrighted.
   Publications that have been influential in determining the nature of the work reported in the manuscript should also be cited.
7. Authors should make sure they have permissions for the use of software, questionnaires/(web) surveys and scales in their studies (if appropriate).
8. Authors will be held responsible for false statements about an entity (who can be an individual person, scientific institution or a company) or descriptions of their behaviour or actions that could potentially be seen as personal attacks or allegations about that person/institution.
9. Authors should engage in the peer review process and to respond promptly and provide feedback requested by the editor or the referees. Authors should respond to their comments systematically, point by point, and in a timely manner, revising and re-submitting their manuscript to the journal.
10. Authors must disclose all relationships or interests that could have direct or potential influence or impact bias on the work. In addition, interests that go beyond financial interests (non-financial interests) that may be important to readers should be disclosed. These may include, but are not limited to, personal relationships or competing interests directly or indirectly tied to this research, or professional interests or personal beliefs that may influence their research. All sources of financial support for the work should be disclosed. Examples of potential conflicts of interest that should be disclosed include financial ones such as: honoraria, educational grants or other funding, participation in speakers’ bureaus, membership, employment, consultancies, stock ownership, or other equity interest, and paid expert testimony or patent-licensing arrangements, as well as non-financial ones such as personal or professional relationships, affiliations, knowledge or beliefs in the subject matter or materials discussed in the manuscript.
11. When authors discover significant errors or inaccuracies in their own published paper, they are obliged to promptly notify the journal’s editors or publisher and cooperate with them to either correct the work or retract it.
12. Authors must ensure that procedures involving use of animal and human participants were performed in accordance with relevant regulations and received approval by the appropriate institutions. The manuscript should include a statement that the informed consent has been obtained from the participants of the study. The authors should also clearly inform in the
    manuscript of applying methods demanding the use of chemicals, procedures or equipment that are hazardous by nature to animal or human participants.
    Authors have a duty to make publicly available the results of their research
    on human subjects and are accountable for the completeness and accuracy of their reports keeping in mind that the privacy rights of human participants must always be observed.

Editor duties

1. Editors should aim to comply with the Codes of Conduct and Best Practice Guidelines as presented by the Committee on Publication Ethics.
2. Editors evaluate submitted manuscripts exclusively on the basis of their academic merit (importance to readers and researchers, originality, study’s validity, clarity, considering the reviewers’ comments as well as legal requirements in force concerning libel, copyright infringement and plagiarism and decide which articles should be published due to its relevance to the journal’s scope and without regard to the authors’ race, gender, sexual orientation, ethnic origin, citizenship, religious belief, political philosophy or institutional affiliation.
3. Editors and editorial staff will not disclose any information about a submitted manuscript to anyone other than the reviewers, potential reviewers and other editorial advisers, and the publisher. Privileged information or ideas obtained by editors as a result of handling the manuscript will be kept confidential and not used for their personal advantage.
4. The editors ensure that all submitted manuscripts being considered for publication undergo peer-review by at least two reviewers who are expert in the domain. They provide clear advice to the reviewers, develop and maintain a database of suitable reviewers, and update this on the basis of reviewer’performance.
5. Editors and editorial board members will not use unpublished information disclosed in a submitted manuscript for their own research purposes without the authors’ explicit written consent. Editors will recuse themselves from considering manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships/connections with any of the authors, companies or institutions connected to the papers; instead, they will ask another member of the editorial board to handle the manuscript.
6. Editor’s task is to prevent the publication of manuscripts where research misconduct has occurred. If well-founded ethical concerns are raised with regard to a submitted manuscript or published paper, the editor along with the publisher will take all the appropriate measures to clarify the situation. They will either promptly publish an expression of concern, an erratum, clarification or another type of relevant note in the journal or withdraw the article.
7. When dealing with cases of suspected misconduct the Publishing Houses of Łukasiewicz Research Network – Institute of Aviation shall adhere to the COPE’s Guidelines for Retracting Articles.

Reviewer’s responsibilities

1. Peer reviewers assist the editor in making editorial decisions and, through editorial communications with authors, may assist authors in improving their manuscripts. It is an essential component of the scientific process. Reviewers provide journals with professional information that is accurate and a true representation of their expertise.
2. A peer reviewer should be able to respond in a reasonable timeframe and inform the editors without delay when they find they do not have the subject expertise required to carry out the review. They should also inform the journal when circumstances arise preventing them from submitting a timely review and ask for the postponing of the deadline.
3. Reviewers must declare any potential conflicting interests resulting from relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies or institutions connected to the manuscript or the research described therein. They should seek advice from the journal when they suspect or discover there have arisen circumstances that might prevent them from submitting a fair and unbiased review. Their review must neither be influenced by the nationality, gender or religious and political beliefs of the authors. They must stay objective and constructive in their reviews offering clearly formulated observations with supporting arguments to allow the authors to improve their manuscripts.
4. They should keep all manuscript and review details confidential during and after the peer review process. The manuscript must not be shown to or discussed with others except if authorized by the Editor (who would only do so under exceptional and specific circumstances). This applies also to invited reviewers who decline the review invitation. They must first obtain permission from the journal if they want to involve others in the review process. The persons who have helped them with the reviewing of the manuscript should be included in the journal’s records.
5. If the reviewers notice any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and other submissions or already published articles of which they have personal knowledge they must promptly notify the Editor.
6. The editor should be informed about any reviewer’s ethical doubts concerning
   the submitted manuscript.
7. The reviewer must not take advantage of the unpublished material disclosed in a manuscript they have reviewed without written consent of the authors.

Publication rules of the quarterly “Marketing of Scientific and Research Institutions”:

1. The text must be of the scientific nature, i.e. it must present the results of original research of an empirical, theoretical, technical or analytical nature.
2. The text may not have been published elsewhere before.
3. Submitting the text for publication is equivalent to the declaration that the author has full copyrights to the text, and consent to the publication of the article in the quarterly “Marketing of Scientific and Research Institutions” in the electronic version, which is the original version, as well as in other versions of publication.
4. Each submitted text is verified by the anti-plagiarism software, and in case of detecting high similarity to other sources, the article will be rejected.
5. Each text is reviewed according to the procedure described on the website. The waiting time for a decision is about a month from submitting the text, after which the author receives a reply as to whether the text will be published. Publication takes place within about 6 months from the decision to publish. The decision to publish the text is an independent decision of the Editorial Office.
6. The Editorial Office reserves the right to shorten and edit the text accepted for publication.
7. Along with the text, short information about the author should be sent along with his/her affiliation, e-mail address and telephone number.
8. The Editorial Office accepts articles in English. After the English equivalents the article should indicate: title, abstract and keywords in Polish (if you can). The abstract in Polish should be identical to the abstract in English.
9. A legibly signed Authors Declaration must be provided along with the text. – hyperlink
10. No royalties are paid and no fees are charged for the publication.
11. The statistical editor has the right to suspend the publication of a text containing gross statistical errors.
12. Texts should be sent electronically to the following address: minib@ilot.lukasiewicz.gov.pl in standard Word settings: Times New Roman 12, line spacing 1.5, margins at 2.5. The text should contain the following elements (in this order):
    • Title in both languages, English and Polish (if you can),
    • Surname and name of the author (authors), affiliation (stated from general to specific, including address), e-mail address, ORCID number,
    • an abstract specifying the theses presented in the article in English and identical in Polish (if you can),
    • 5-7 keywords in English and in Polish (if you can), JEL CODES
    • Text (the article should be divided into logical, sequentially numbered chapters INTRODUCTION, LITERATURE REVIEW, RESEARCH METHODOLOGY, RESULTS, DISCUSSION, CONCLUSIONS).
    • information about the sources of financing – possible acknowledgments and annotations as well as information on the contribution of other people, research units, associations, etc. to the publication of the publication should be placed at the end,
    • references – footnotes according to APA standards,
    • short biography of the author / biographies of the authors’
13. The submitted article should be saved in two formats: for editing as Microsoft Office Word 2007 or higher (docx or doc) and for checking as Adobe Acrobat Document (pdf).
14. Photos, graphics, tables, charts should be attached in separate files in high resolution (not less than 300 dpi). File names should correspond to the references in the text.