Editorial Instructions

Circulation procedure for contributions submitted for publication

  1. Authors submitting papers for publication are obliged to provide the following information:

- what is the contribution of individual authors in the creation of the work (in %), giving their affiliations (the authors’ place of work),

 - who is the author of the concept, assumptions, method, protocol and so on, used to prepare the publication,

- what are the sources for financing materials as well as the contribution of academic and research institutions, associations and other entities (“financial disclosure”).

  1. Authors submitting papers for publication should observe the principles of ethics applicable in science and be aware that “ghostwriting” and “guest authorship” are the signs of scientific unreliability. All cases of this type of practice found will be disclosed and documented by the Journal’s Editorial Office and relevant entities, such as institutions employing the authors, will be informed about it.
  2. The principal responsibility for a publication will lie with its author (authors).

Acceptance procedure

  1. Publications submitted in accordance with the “Circulation procedure for contributions submitted for publication” will be subjected to peer review.
  2. An internal review is carried out by the Editor-in-Chief and Topical Editor.
  3. Receiving a positive internal review will qualify for further procedure.

Reviewing procedure

  1. For each publication the Editorial Office will nominate two independent reviewers from outside the unit.
  2. In case of a text written in a foreign language, at least one of the reviewers has to be affiliated with a foreign institution of a nationality different than the author’s.
  3. At each publication the Journal’s Editorial Office will strive to select reviewers that are independent and not affiliated to the author of the work. Otherwise, the reviewer will be obligated to sign a declaration of lack of conflict of interests (direct personal relations, professional subordination, direct scientific cooperation over the last two years preceding the preparation of the review).
  4. A review will be in writing and each applicant will be able to read it and comment on it.
  5. Once a year the list of reviewers is posted on the Journal’s website.
  6. All articles and works submitted by authors and initially qualified for publishing by the Editorial Board will be subject to the reviewing procedure. The initial qualification involves assessing the scientific character of the work, its suitability for the Journal’s profile and its formal aspects as well as complying with the requirements of the Circulation procedure for contributions submitted for publication.

Principles of reviewing articles in the journal

The Editorial Office of Space-Society-Economy adopted the principles of reviewing text published in our journal in compliance with the recommendations contained in the brochure “Good Practices in reviewing procedures in science” published by the Ministry of Science and Higher Education. In particular, we pay attention to the:

  1. Rule of double-blind review – the names of reviewers are disclosed only on the journal’s website without connecting them to the reviewed texts,
  2. Substantial selection and competences of reviewers; the reviewers hold at least PhD degree,
  3. Selection which ensures that the reviewer and the reviewed are not in close personal or professional relation,
  4. Written nature of a review and its preparation according to a standard form, the review has to end with a clear conclusion – admitting the article for publishing or its rejection,
  5. Presenting the review to the author and giving him or her a chance to comment thereon,
  6. Publishing only these texts which received two positive reviews,
  7. Review form to be downloaded: English version.

Technical requirements

ARTICLE FORMAT:

- article length (including tables and drawings): maximum one publisher’s sheet (15-20 pages),

- footnotes – at the bottom of the page with consecutive numbering using Arabic numerals (please do not include bibliography in footnotes),

- tables with the author’s numbering and title over the table; with description and data source under the table,

 - drawings should be submitted in electronic form and numbered consecutively with Arabic numerals,

- drawings – must be black and white using a hatch pattern,

- the total number of drawings and tables should not be more than half of the number of pages (e.g. if the article has 20 pages then the total number of drawings and tables should not exceed 10 pages),

- scanned elements – 300 dpi resolution.

Attention: we accept articles prepared according to attached outlines: first page, main text.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

- please do not put bibliographic notes in footnotes,

- inserting references to literature in the text use the “Harvard” system: author’s name and year of publication in parentheses without a coma – without initials (e.g. Orlowski 2003),

- bibliography at the end of the article in alphabetical order: author’s name, initials, year, title, publisher, place of publishing (e.g. Orlowski W., 2003, Strategia, PWN, Warszawa).

REQUIREMENTS:

 - electronic version of paper (MS Word file),

- title in English – 1 A4 page,

- abstract in English – at the beginning of the article (250-500 words),

 - key words,

 - total volume of title, abstract and key words less than 1300 characters with spaces,

- author’s data (at the end of each text) – academic degree, full name, ORCID,  and place of work (university, faculty, division).

 

Digital accessibility - alternative texts

Please include alternative descriptions for all illustrations in the journals

An alternative text is textual information about what you see in a graphic element that is relevant to the text or topic that the element illustrates. Alternative texts are read by a screen reader and allow people with blindness or vision impairment to see what is, for example, in a given graphic, photo, table and chart. Graphic elements without an alternative description will be read by the assistive software for visually impaired people as the word ‘graphic’, so they will not get any other information that this ‘graphic’ is supposed to convey.  

What should an alternative text look like?  

  • Above all, the description should be concise and succinct – try to describe the graphic as accurately as possible, doing so in the shortest possible way (the optimum length of an alternative text should not exceed 250 characters)
  • It should describe the meaning and content of the graphic element in question 
  • It should contain key information for the viewer (e.g. a repetition of the content written on the graphic, or in the case of photos, a description of the most important elements building the message: “Rector presenting the habilitation diploma to Dr Anna Kowalska”) 
  •  When creating alternative texts for charts and infographics, remember to include, in addition to the title, a summary and description of the trends resulting from the graphic. Often, due to the length and level of complexity of the data being described, it is worth including the chart description in the proper body of the text, below the graphic itself 
  • You do not need to use alternative descriptions for graphics that are purely decorative (in which case mark them as decorative by selecting the “Mark as decorative” option). Function of adding alternative description in Microsoft Word  
  • • To add alternative text for graphics/charts added into a Microsoft Word document, right-click on the object and select “Format image” -> “Accessibility” -> “Alternative text”; • or “Review” -> “Check accessibility “-> “Alternative text” 
  • For graphic elements that only have a decorative function in the document, also fill in the alternative text field – instead of the content in the “Alternative text” field, tick the “Mark as decorative” option. 

 Another possible solution could be to provide a complete set of descriptions for the entire notebook in an Excel table. 

 

Rules on the use of generative artificial intelligence (AI) tools

  1. Only a human being may be the author of scientific texts. Generative AI tools, including chatbots such as ChatGPT, may not be recognized as authors or co-authors and may not be cited as authors.
  2. Authors bear full responsibility for the content of the submitted manuscript, including all parts created with the use of generative AI tools. They are therefore responsible for any breaches of publication ethics.
  3. Authors using AI tools for writing, data collection or data analysis are required to disclose honestly and fully which generative AI tool was used, exactly how and to what extent it was used, and what impact it had on the work.
  4. Publications should not use graphic or video materials created or modified by generative AI tools unless such materials are the subject of the research.
  5. When submitting a manuscript, authors are required to provide an appropriate statement on the use of generative AI-assisted tools, including chatbots, large language models (LLMs) or image generators, together with a detailed description of the purpose, scope and manner of their use.
  6. Detailed information on the use of AI tools should be included in the abstract and in the initial parts of the text, for example in a separate section entitled "Declaration on the use of generative AI in the writing process", so that the study can be replicated and the reliability of the results can be verified. Required information includes:
  • the time and date of the query;
  • information about the tool, including its name, version and model;
  • the reason, scope and manner of its use;
  • all commands, i.e. full prompts, used to obtain new text, transform text, or convert text into tables or illustrations;
  • the name and version of the AI tool used. In addition, when submitting a manuscript for publication, the author should include information on the use of AI tools in the cover letter.
  1. Authors must be aware of the limitations of generative artificial intelligence tools, including chatbots such as ChatGPT, resulting from bias, errors and gaps in knowledge. Outputs should be verified each time, with particular attention to whether any of the following occur:
  • lack of objectivity in the content, related to the way the system was trained;
  • lack of reliability: generative AI tools may create false content, especially in niche or specialized topics, or content that sounds credible and linguistically correct but is not scientifically accurate; they may misinterpret facts and generate non-existent bibliographies;
  • a distorted picture of the situation: some tools were trained on content available before a specific date and therefore have incomplete data;
  • lack of contextual understanding: generative AI tools cannot apply human-like understanding of text, especially in the case of idioms, sarcasm, humor or metaphorical language; this may lead to errors or misinterpretations in the generated content;
  • lack of appropriate training data: generative AI tools require large amounts of high-quality training data to perform optimally. In some fields or languages such data may not be easily available, which limits the usefulness of the model.
  1. Authors should also specify what actions they have taken to reduce the risk of plagiarism, to present reliable and up-to-date knowledge, to ensure the accuracy of all bibliographic descriptions, and to correctly identify the authorship of cited works. Particular care should be taken to verify generated bibliographies and source citations in order to ensure that all sources are credible and properly marked and described.